No, Burger King sucks and I absolutely refuse to eat there if they don’t serve steaks. Burger King is just a gimped restaurant for the kiddies and grandmas! Burger King is just coasting because of all the fanboys who buy their rehashed burgers and ported french fries and keep coming back. REAL EATERS go to Logans!

You know what? It sounds just as stupid when you’re talking about food as it does when all the haters bash the Wii because it doesn’t do exactly what they want.

I don’t insist that Burger King have steak and I don’t insist that Logans get me a burger and fries in under 5 minutes and 5 dollars. Would it be great if Burger King had a tasty menu more like Logans? Sure. Would it be great if Logans had my food ready before I was even done ordering? Definately. But I know why they aren’t eachother and I’m ok with that. I suppose that’s where those choose 2 of 3 cheap/good/fast signs are conveying.

My point exactly. Offer advanced online features SEPARATE from basic online play. That way, those who want them can pay for them without punishing us who just want to hop online for a game now and then.

Thanks for backing me up wii wii, I couldn’t have said it better myself.

My point? Is the same as this article… Get used to it. Until you can be censored perfectly in our new e-universe, you will be inputing 85 digit friend codes into your new Animal Crossing Wii buddy list.

Cough-Cough … PAY & PLAY online
Cough-cough… Coming SOON…
Good article here, and good discussion.

But, really, it is sad to see such a poor effort from the Big n ,when all its OTHER efforts are so wonderful, so innovaive and so fun.

Get it right or just dont do it yet.

Because they don’t want to charge. They don’t want to spend the money and then have to try to get it back in fees. It’s not complicated.
Like I said, they are gambling that most of their customers won’t miss. I think they are right. Keep in mind, whatever advanced features you want, are likely different than what other advanced users may want. They’ve chosen to eliminate that issue by only offering barebones services, at no charge. It’s not an obvious winner of a strategy, but they seem to be willing to give it some time.

I guess the part I overlooked was the cost Nintendo would acquire with all the “other” features. I feel a little spoiled that I get what I do get from Nintendo for free and don’t understand why they can’t offer the other stuff for free as well. But obviously this comes at a cost.

Point. Set. Match. Good game used cisco…you’ve won this round.

It is, it’s called xbox LIVE and it requires a monthly subscription fee whether you use those features or not.

People just don’t get it. Advanced features like a unified friends list, games interfacing with an online infrastructure of stats and invites, voice chat, all costs money to R&D, implement and support, most likely necessitating a subscription fee. Nintendo is gambling that most of their users don’t want those features and wouldn’t use them. They are gambling that what most of their customers want is the option to play online for free and little else. MS, on the other hand, has decided to attach online gaming to the advanced features without giving use the choice. That model means you get cool advanced features, BUT you are essentially paying for things like voice chat and a unified friends list even if all you want to do is hop online for a game or two.

It’s two different models based on different consumer demographics.