I'm still not OK with it. I'll wait and see what the classic games are, however I'm a very casual online player and whatever price point they put on it, it's just one more reason not to bother. I do wish they'd have a serious GwG or PS+ "free" games system though, that always make the subscription worth considering outside of the multiplayer features.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Nintendo Switch paid online coming 2018 ($19.99 a year, Dr Mario w/ online play)
- Thread starter jmizzal
- Start date
TheOnlyOneHeEverFeared
Member
So no virtual console till 2018?
GhostTrick
Banned
That'd be a good step. Unfortunately, when I see people being happy it's "only 20" for something that used to be free and a bunch of NES games rental... it's not happening :/
Yes.
That handful of roms and some smartphone app I probably won't even be able to run on my ancient Galaxy S3 are not enough value, per se. At least for me.
I mean, right now they are already offering free online, and they have been offering that very same feature set for generations now - and if the above two items are the only distinguishing features for "the exact same thing but now with added price tag", then I'm not feeling it.
Even if it's rather cheap. That's the one thing I like. Roughly 1.75 per month isn't terrible. Then again, why "waste" money.
I guess, if they add a humongous pay-for-online patch to most online enabled games to showcase the difference, or if the launch a slew of must have games with clearly superior online functionality compared to the previous library, then OK. Otherwise I'm still not getting why I am suddenly expected to pay for a formerly free feature.
That said, I'm more of a local multiplayer and usually stay well clear of the online stuff, so I'm not the target audience for this.
I mean, right now they are already offering free online, and they have been offering that very same feature set for generations now - and if the above two items are the only distinguishing features for "the exact same thing but now with added price tag", then I'm not feeling it.
Even if it's rather cheap. That's the one thing I like. Roughly 1.75 per month isn't terrible. Then again, why "waste" money.
I guess, if they add a humongous pay-for-online patch to most online enabled games to showcase the difference, or if the launch a slew of must have games with clearly superior online functionality compared to the previous library, then OK. Otherwise I'm still not getting why I am suddenly expected to pay for a formerly free feature.
That said, I'm more of a local multiplayer and usually stay well clear of the online stuff, so I'm not the target audience for this.
First, what you are getting for online play now is NOT what you will be getting when this is rolled out and you have to begin paying for it. That is pretty self-evident unless you've been paying absolutely no attention whatsoever, so the 3DS and Wii U comparison isn't an apt one.
And sure, let's bring up the Vita, the platform that Sony abandoned shortly after its release. Sony had the benefit of not mandating PS Plus for online play on Vita because... well, very few people actually owned one or wanted to own one and they were raking in $50 a year from PS4 owners, so why would they bother changing it to match PS4 (like they very well could have) when the subscription requirement was implemented when the platform was already dying by the time PS4 was a thing?
And I don't disagree with you about Steam, but PC has been offering free online multiplayer since... well, since the internet was born. We are talking consoles here. Switch having paid online multiplayer was an inevitability, but the question was always what the paywall was, so you're a little late making this the hill to die on. The reality of the current market climate, induced by Xbox Live and then PS Plus after it, means free online was all but doomed. So no, expecting something free when we've known since January that it wouldn't be and rightfully assumed it wouldn't be since last year doesn't come across as a terribly sincere argument, it comes across as either naive of willfully obtuse.
I'm right there with you, I don't think any console should be offering P2P matching services for $50 a year, even if they justify it by stapling "free" games to it as an inducement, but it's the reality we live in and, more importantly, the reality many gamers have been willingly accepting since 2005 and re-affirming since 2013. So trying to pretend that such realities can be outright ignored is... well, insane and unreasonable.
AdventureRacing
Member
I hate subscriptions in general and essentially have never had any for that reason (besides my gym membership and phone). If this service truly offered a large catalog of VC games I might consider but otherwise it's a waste of time as I won't use the online at all.
Would you be willing to pay $60 a year instead of $20 then?
I don't expect much of Nintendo's classic games library - it'd surprise me if the selection of games wasn't extremely limited -, but personally I'm really not interested in another $60 service. I'm actually close to cancelling my PS+ subscription because I can't really justify the expense anymore (the free games are cool, but my backlog is big enough as it is - I'm barely even touching any of the PS+ games). $20 at least is cheap enough that I don't really mind it one way or the other.
Gun Animal
Member
Netflix-style Virtual Console if done correctly could guarantee the success of the Switch, although im skeptical if 20/yr is enough for them to do it right.
There's no evidence of that
Yeah $20 is a great price for something that was free before and is still free now. And it's also compatible with your phone, by which I mean you need to use your phone to do anything.
But hey if you're that impressed, you can spend $20 now on SMB3, Dr. Mario and Balloon Fight and get another NES game on the Virtual Console. And you get to keep them!
But hey if you're that impressed, you can spend $20 now on SMB3, Dr. Mario and Balloon Fight and get another NES game on the Virtual Console. And you get to keep them!
jts
...hate me...
Dem games don't have added online play though.
I would jump on the subscription if it's 3ds / wii u first party games. NES games are meh.
It probably means Smash port delayed to 2018!
Realistically they probably have a online multiplayer big hit scheduled to launch at the same time.
TheOnlyOneHeEverFeared
Member
No evidence, but thats sure what it sounds like.
Also no evidence that vc will be out sooner.
jts
...hate me...
I know, and with MK8D, ARMS and Splatoon 2 in the very first months, all of them fun as hell online, the Switch is off to a great start too.
That was my first thought too.
Splatoon 2 is/was supposedly tied to the free trial of the smartphone app (summer) for the same reason.
Leona Lewis
Banned
Thousands of people have.
Laughing Banana
Weeping Pickle
I am surprised people are so heated over this considering it seems like most people are fine with PS+ or Xbox Gold.
This is for 1/3rd of the price, even.
This is for 1/3rd of the price, even.
Cool. How is voice chat and parties on it?
Leona Lewis
Banned
We'll know when it comes out.
GhostTrick
Banned
You're right, what you'll get once it rolls out is voice chat through your phone and next to no online functions from your switch.
Wii U at least didn't had friend codes, you're right it's not an apt one.
Vita's 1st party support has nothing to do with it's online fonctionnalities. The truth is, in 2011, it was able to do more than Switch in term of connectivity, so Nintendo has no excuses. Free of charge.
The fact that it had bombed or not is irrelevant to the day one fonctionnalities. So Nintendo should be able to provide the same.
Also, no, online multiplayer wasn't always free on PC, especially when MS tried to make it pay with GFWL. And you know what ? Online multiplayer was always free with Nintendo. Heck, it IS free right now with Switch. What's the argument to make it pay in 2018 ? Providing services not on par with a 2005 console and a 2011 handheld ? Renting 25 years old games ? This is BS.
You're saying it's a standard on consoles, but I thought Nintendo didn't had to be up to standards ? I mean, it's okay for Nintendo to not be up to standards when they have subpar services, why should they have to be up to standards when it comes to online paywall ? People keep arguing Nintendo is doing their own thing to excuse when they're late in major stuff and now people are arguing that others are doing it, so Nintendo is following.
Nintendo has been ignoring realities for years, even today. Can't they ignore another one ? Or is it okay for them to ignore it only when it's to defend them when they're late ?
You are aware there was a Splatoon 2 testfire, righf?
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
Oh I'm sure they're working on it as we speak, instead of a new F-Zero or a good Metroid.
Still interesting that they're saying "most games will require" paid sub. So not all of them. I wonder which ones won't. Probably pokemon?
In a ideal world they would exempt MK8, ARMS and Splatoon 2 from a sub since by the time the thing launches those would have known the busiest part of their online life, but I'm not holding my breath.
After all they don't have any other online game planned so far.
In a ideal world they would exempt MK8, ARMS and Splatoon 2 from a sub since by the time the thing launches those would have known the busiest part of their online life, but I'm not holding my breath.
After all they don't have any other online game planned so far.
could it possibly be.... that we dont know about other online feautres for those $20 bucks?
dunno I probably missed it, but has nintendo made a full, complete, reveal of their online plans?
we know about voice chat and online MP for NES roms but maybe there's something else to it??
dunno I probably missed it, but has nintendo made a full, complete, reveal of their online plans?
we know about voice chat and online MP for NES roms but maybe there's something else to it??
test_account
XP-39C²
Does that mean that you will hate this service too? Because its a rental service like most others. You wont get to keep the games if you quit the subscription. Thats rental, not ransom.
"Hey you're going to pay for what is free now. Meanwhile here you have a few free months of our barebones online infraestructure that you will have to pay for next year, oh and you better have a smartphone.
Enjoy these 20 years old games and screw you!"
- I'll take it
- 20$ is not too bad
- 20$? Nice
- 20$ is the sweet spot
And people are surprised the industry is trying to monetise the player more and more. Keep paying for these scam paywalls people, that's the way to go.
Nevermind, it's "Ninty", it's fine if they're the ones locking a non-service behind a paywall. Even Android has free online, friend lists and achievements. This is an absolute joke.
Enjoy these 20 years old games and screw you!"
- I'll take it
- 20$ is not too bad
- 20$? Nice
- 20$ is the sweet spot
And people are surprised the industry is trying to monetise the player more and more. Keep paying for these scam paywalls people, that's the way to go.
Nevermind, it's "Ninty", it's fine if they're the ones locking a non-service behind a paywall. Even Android has free online, friend lists and achievements. This is an absolute joke.
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
Orniletter
Banned
Joelstinton14
Member
Hopefully it will be £19.99. Which is a good price for me. I don't use any of the features that come with ps+ and rarely play online but keep it mainly for the games. So as a price wall to play splatoon or mario Kart, 19.99 is ideal or better than other subscription services to play the odd round of battlfiield. So from that perspective the pricing works for me. Good to see that there month options as well.
I also appreciate that some feel they shouldn't have to pay for online but I do expect that there are server costs to cover in terms of running, maintaining, security and development of new features etc so understand that side needs funding. I know people will say but steam!, but steam could charge if they wanted too. I think the fact they have a lot more users than console users ( 125million steam users compared to 20 million psn subscribers (2015/16 figures respectively) means that Valve can be more flexible in their approach. They make their money elsewhere and are content so far with the need not to charge.
I would like more insight into a paid online service though.
I also appreciate that some feel they shouldn't have to pay for online but I do expect that there are server costs to cover in terms of running, maintaining, security and development of new features etc so understand that side needs funding. I know people will say but steam!, but steam could charge if they wanted too. I think the fact they have a lot more users than console users ( 125million steam users compared to 20 million psn subscribers (2015/16 figures respectively) means that Valve can be more flexible in their approach. They make their money elsewhere and are content so far with the need not to charge.
I would like more insight into a paid online service though.
Leona Lewis
Banned
somecrazymember
Banned
Dr. Mario online play? Damn, I might actually buy a Switch just for that 
That Wiiware game doesn't have online modes anymore.
The only Dr. Mario game with online still available is Dr. Luigi for the Wii U.