Luckily for you, I get the boot reference.
That said, you're close.
I'm not saying people should be fine for "paying higher prices for poor services", but I'm saying people, expecially lot of posters on these boards and really of most internet fandoms, need to stop pretending to have stuff for free.
One can argue about the "size" of the fee, which indeed is unjustifiedly higher than Bank despite lower quality, but Home, like NSO, are perfectly justified to have fees because maintenance of servers is not free.
(Also, realistically Home is a way higher quality service than Bank while also still offering a free option, but I won't get into that)
I get that not everyone here has a degree in economy or marketing and probably sees my opinions as a "ok boomer" one, but the reality is, companies make stuff for money, and we're spoiled for asking them to do it for free.
The only real saving grace is that luckily the internet is a vocal minority in these scenarios, and the marketing doesn't live on a bunch of people who don't even buy (nor ever planned to buy) the games they criticize anyway.
Arguing about the quality/price is one thing, demanding free stuff is another.
Honestly, while the maintenance costs for the servers are not free for the companies themselves, it's been demonstrated that the upfront cost to the consumer is not necessary. When the PS3/Xbox 360 were current generation consoles, the Xbox 360 charged monthly fees (continued from the original Xbox's online services) while the PS3 charged no fees for online services. There were other ways for Sony to recover online costs (console price, eventual introduction of PS Plus to give free games w/ a similar monthly fee to Xbox Live's). If the cost was really a huge factor, then Sony probably would not have made online services free for the PS3, as if they wanted to undercut Microsoft's pricing, they could have charged, say 50% less than Xbox Live charged, and still made money while competing.
Offering it for free was unnecessary, and Sony only really changed it once they realized that there was no gain for them to continue making online multiplayer for free, Microsoft was still making $50/$60 a year for something that they saw as not needing a fee. Even still, Microsoft was then pressured to offer free games because Sony still offered free games through PS Plus, with the free games being the main driver for the fees, not the online multiplayer costs (PS Plus had a $50 dollar fee at launch in 2010 without online services and stayed the same price when the PS4 was released, requiring PS Plus for online multiplayer, only increasing in America in 2016).
To bring it to Nintendo's services, somehow the Nintendo Network was able to offer multiplayer services for free, while Nintendo Switch Online requires a 20 dollar yearly fee. Remember: at
launch, online multiplayer on the Switch was free. Somehow Nintendo was able to bear the server costs for 6 years without concern for charging people, so what changed? Sony and Microsoft were still charging for online services, but were primarily offering free games to cover the price. The costs of online connectivity were not an issue, rather Nintendo, like Sony, were loosing out on easy monthly payments that others were making. In order to justify charging for online services, they figured offering NES / SNES games was enough of an offset for the consumer, rather than offering newer games like the competitors. I don't really think it is worth it (I laughed when my Switch updated to show what i get with my NSO membership, "wow, 35 SNES games,""amazing, i get an offer to
buy a NES controller," "i can play super mario 35 for like 3 months), but at least it is
something more than just charging for what I already got for free. NSO offers the least amount of benefit compared to its competitors. Even taking into account the lower price, NSO "value" is still far below what Sony and Microsoft put out, Nintendo essentially took something that people got already for free, added a few old games, and now charges for the service.
Turning to Bank / Home, as a premium service, charging a small fee for storing pokemon makes sense, there is not many other ways to recover for the costs, and it offers a service that is outside of the core pokemon game experience. Most people playing will be more than fine with the box space in-game to store pokemon, and transferring up pokemon from older games is still a pretty niche thing to do. It makes more sense to go, "ok, we have an ongoing cost that not many people are going to use, let's charge a fee." The problem comes in when they bring in Home on top of Bank, because it confuses the consumer, and offers a murky value tradeoff. Yes, there is a free component, but if so, why not put it in the main game. Why take it out if the GTS (while gimped in the free version) works the same. I mentioned in another thread, but the price increase from Bank to Home is around 220%, with not much change or improvement to the service. Pokemon Home, at its core, is the
same as Bank, but instead of paying $4.99 a year, you are paying $15.99.
Underneath everything, there still is a reason to charge for extra pokemon storage + pokemon transfer, as these are services that not many people would use and are not parts of games themselves. However, there is not much justifying the cost of Home over what Bank offered. There is not the value increase that PS Plus and Xbox Live offer with free (relatively recent and typically good) games, or even what NSO offers with NES + SNES games. Home offers nothing new pretty much nothing new, except for the price. There is a clear lack in value in Home's services and Nintendo's services in general compared to their competition.
I would be remiss when talking about online connectivity to not mention Steam / PC gaming. Steam does not charge for online services, and while yes, servers are not free to run, somehow Steam, along with other competitors (Origin, Epic, Uplay, etc.) can offer multiplayer services for free. The online stores is where they make most of their money, taking a cut on every game sold, and with the takeoff of digital distribution on consoles the same can be said more and more of Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft. The costs of running online services are not the breaking point in profitability for companies, It depends on how the companies decide to cover their costs. Sony and Microsoft's pitch is: you pay for online, and we will give you 2-3 games a month in return; there is a up front cost, but more of a tangible benefit to the consumer.
The difference comes in when you charge for it up front and don't offer much value back, like Nintendo has been doing. Nintendo had an online service that was free, and it was turned into a paid service with little benefit to people while still being as inconsistent as it always had been, so why should it be a paid service? Pokemon Bank is alright as a paid, niche service, but Home does not offer really anything more than Bank did, so why should it cost more? These are specific questions and criticisms towards the business model, and they can be succinctly summed up as why is this not free. It was free, it is no longer free, and the consumer gets little benefit for what they pay. Profit may be their underlying motive, but that is something people can criticize, noting that they are charging for services and giving less value in return.
