Nexus Zero
Member
I would have happily paid for Wii U online, which I found to be flawless. So many connection issues with Switch tho, I doubt I'll bother
That now it's more like PS+ where you get a library of games as part of the subscription rather than just the monthly borrowing nonsense.
Unlike PS+, these are classic games rather than recent ones, but by most accounts I'd call this an improvement over their old plan.
I bolded that you said rented games. They aren't going with the rented model anymore, at least that's good.
I would have happily paid for Wii U online, which I found to be flawless. So many connection issues with Switch tho, I doubt I'll bother
These are still rented games. You pay to have access to these games for a limited time. Once you stop paying, you can't play them.
They are, you only have access to the (potentially over time changing) library while you are subscribed.
Um, so is this $20 per profile on the switch?
I doubt it, right now if you buy a game under one profile, its playable on all profiles, digital or not.
Netflix like is probably a better way to put it then. Previous way they had it was really a rent system.
20 a year is absolutely nothing, there should be zero complaints
I doubt it, right now if you buy a game under one profile, its playable on all profiles, digital or not.
Q: Do users need to subscribe to "Nintendo Switch Online" on a system or account basis?
A: Subscription is on a Nintendo account basis. Please wait for future announcement on handling multiple Nintendo accounts with one Nintendo Switch or handling Nintendo accounts with multiple Nintendo switches.
I doubt it, right now if you buy a game under one profile, its playable on all profiles, digital or not.
No idea what's wrong with the online infrastructure? I'm always connected instantly, never get disconnects, matchmaking in MK8, ARMS and Splatoon 2 is really fast.
I mean, if you're talking about stuff like not being able to swap weapons between games or two maps rotating etc in Splatoon 2, they're design decisions and nothing to do with the actual online infrastructure.
Voice chat is shit though, not that it affects much seeing as Splatoon 2 is the only game to use it and the first game had no voice chat at all. But lol at anyone who ever thought that Nintendo would allow voice chat with complete strangers anyway. After the way people abused Swapnote that was never going to happen.
Lol if Nintendo didn't intend to improve on what they have now then they would not have delayed the service to 2018.
Got a question... My partner and I both have Switches. If she buys a game on her Switch, can I log her Nintendo account in on my switch, redownload the game, and play using my account on my very own Switch ?
Right, but being a library of small roms running in a system-level emulator isn't costing them a ton of money and you're not going to save anything of note by them removing it. "Free" games are a part of all the online services now, so this is their crack at it in a way that they can still charge 20 bucks for.
Or, which is much more likely, they simply want more users to experience the online service to hook them up for the paid service.
You can do that, but then it won't be playable on her Switch. You can only activate a user's games on one Switch at a time.
Got a question... My partner and I both have Switches. If she buys a game on her Switch, can I log her Nintendo account in on my switch, redownload the game, and play using my account on my very own Switch ?
This needs testing. Nothing they have said mentions deactivating. Pretty sure can have your nnid on more than one system at a time.Technically, but games and I believe NNIDs can only be active in one system at a time. I don't think you can log in her account on your switch without deactivating it on hers.
But what if you want to go online with two players on one console. On PS4 that requires two PSPlus accounts.
So as it stands, I love playing Splatoon 2 online. I have...a lot of time into it. But if online feature-wise doesn't change *dramatically* by the time they roll out the paid requirement for Switch online, I will not pay for it
But what if you want to go online with two players on one console. On PS4 that requires two PSPlus accounts.
Well, this should filter out some of the awful internet connections, atleast. $20 is acceptable for a year, but if it's just there to increase Nintendo's revenue then I'm a little ticked. Albeit, if this helps Nintendo's output like a Patreon, then I suppose it's not all bad. Hopefully they improve it over time by adding more features.
So as it stands, I love playing Splatoon 2 online. I have...a lot of time into it. But if online feature-wise doesn't change *dramatically* by the time they roll out the paid requirement for Switch online, I will not pay for it, and depending on how the content is structured in major Switch releases at that point, I'll consider getting rid of the system if that's going to hamstring games I'd otherwise be enjoying.
It's really, really hard to give Nintendo the benefit of the doubt.
Except, the mass market actually does pay for the subs.A fucking Patreon, are you kidding me? Nintendo is not a charity. It is a business, and as such, it needs to justify a charge of £17.99 by providing a worthwhile service.
IMO, PS+ is well overpriced, Xbox Live started this whole mess and Nintendo Online is severely lacking in features.
I honestly believe online subs are hurting consoles in the long run. Sure geeks will pay but the mass market is turned off by paying for subs.
So as it stands, I love playing Splatoon 2 online. I have...a lot of time into it. But if online feature-wise doesn't change *dramatically* by the time they roll out the paid requirement for Switch online, I will not pay for it, and depending on how the content is structured in major Switch releases at that point, I'll consider getting rid of the system if that's going to hamstring games I'd otherwise be enjoying.
How much do you value your time that $20 for a year of putting many hours into Splatoon online (and potentially other games) is too much?
Let's face it. Online play on consoles is paid for. Microsoft popped that cherry, Sony followed through, Nintendo joins now. PC is not a closed platform with a gatekeeper. Valve is in the best position to do so but would just risk an exodus. Not to mention that games could still have their free implementation of online, regardless of Steam. Basically it's not feasible on PC.
All the extra features besides online play, are simply fluff to give players the illusion of extra value and helping to swallow that bitter pill. So I really don't care about them when they come at a rip-off price of $50 or $60 a year, when I can just get online play (which is what people pay these services for) for $20.
Of course, it's understandable if even at $20 per year, people are just getting priced out of the gaming hobby. It used to be cheaper. Personally I think it would be even better for Nintendo to remove whatever VC subscription games they are throwing into it if it could just make it $15 per year. And offer them on the side for those willing to pay for them.
I think we should revisit this thread in two years and see how many people who swore they wouldn't pay for online have actually stuck to their word.
As someone said a few posts up, Netflix gives you access to the whole library. Unless Nintendo changes the standard that Sony and MS have set you're only getting games released from when you subscribe forward.Would I pay $20 a year to have netflix access to VC? Yes
Online is still free as far as I'm concerned, thats worth the money alone
Would I pay $20 a year to have netflix access to VC? Yes
Online is still free as far as I'm concerned, thats worth the money alone
I already pay full price for psn and gold and never use voice chat because I don't like talking to strangers so this is good for me
My post was predicated on wanting drastic improvements. Why you'd have such an obsessive attitude about those expecting that, I guess I don't understand. The frustration at what we've seen execution-wise on a new service isn't coming out of thin air. If your attitude is that expecting more is expecting too much, and that players won't really decide to spend their time elsewhere, well, it probably says more about your priorities than anyone elses.
A lot of people are upset about $1.67/month. Riding the metro just one time costs me more than that.
A lot of people are upset about $1.67/month. Riding the metro just one time costs me more than that.
It's not about the amount. The main argument is that they have done nothing to prove they earned any of that money.
A free, limited version of this app
Well, isn't that true for most price increases, i.e. see the PS Plus price increase, but also every other price increase ever in anything due to inflation.People are upset they have to pay something that won't be in a better shape than when it was free. No matter the price. It's an additional cost that isn't justifying itself.
Well, isn't that true for most price increases, i.e. see the PS Plus price increase, but also every other price increase ever in anything due to inflation.
So Nintendo decided they also want a (rather small) fee to keep an online service. What are we gonna do then? Don't see the value of paying anything to play online, don't play online. It really is that simple.