Forums

Topic: Is SNES Online Dead?

Posts 21 to 40 of 43

Cotillion

Krull wrote:

Too many free games means Switch users aren’t spending money elsewhere.

kkslider5552000 wrote:

should be its own thing

Herein lies my issue with it. As of now, and since launch, it's an afterthought that serves only to have a minimum as incentive to keep people subscribed to the extremely lacking Online service.
I'd pay far more a month for a true retroFlix service. Access to a large library of all kinds of games, including third party. The games wouldn't be 'free' as they'd be part of this service and not sitting in the eShop next to new titles. As a full fledged service, it'd get more attention and being a service, maybe have some older rare gems that can't hold their own on the eShop.

Cotillion

jtmnm

@Cotillion Hard agree. I'd welcome a retro games subscription service independent of NSO. If not, increasing the base cost of NSO in favor of broad improvements to it is a good alternative; maybe payment tiers.

jtmnm

Switch Friend Code: SW-4706-4065-3902

Gwynbleidd

We could discuss about how well Snes Online is made (emulation is fine, IMO) or how often new games should be added to it (I'm sure they could add tons right now, but Nintendo guys like teasing their customers, so they'll make us wait), or whether we like its interface or not (I personally don't, but it still does its job) etc..., anyway I personally think the main issue with it is another.
I'm not even talking about issues with NSO, which is a cheap service in every way.

I'm talking about the fact that you're just renting the games. As somebody pointed out somewhere on this site, if Nintendo ever decides that the Switch reached the end of its lifecycle (and it will happen, sooner or later), they'll stop supporting it. Maybe they'll send a message saying "sorry, but the service has ended" if you try to open it, as they'll encourage people to move to a newer console. Also, if you ever have to end the subscription for whatever reason, you can say goodbye to the games.
In other words, it's a collection of games you don't get to keep. I wouldn't mind if they did this and sold a physical collection too so you can choose, but I don't like the way this is being handled right now.

Besides, I already have about a dozen of subscriptions on various services, it really annoys me to know that I have to regularly pay for some silly games too (and I'm not saying they're silly because they aren't cool, but they are when compared with other important adult stuff). Ok, this is a problem of mine, but soon this is going to be a common issue for most people.

About Nes Online, I don't care so much about it as I never cared much about the Nes with the exception of very few games, even in the nineties.

About updates, don't worry, they'll keep on sending them from time to time, just to make sure you don't unsubscribe.

Edited on by Gwynbleidd

Gwynbleidd

rallydefault

@Gwynbleidd
Not sure if I'm getting you right, but are you a little mad that you can't use the games if you no longer sub to NSO or if they end the program? I'm with you on that sentiment if that's the case. Unfortunately, 2 of the 3 "big three" do it that way. Microsoft is the only one that allows you to keep your Gold games even if you end your subscription.

Nintendo had a nice chance to join Microsoft in making the games permanent on your console even if you cancelled your subscription or for the day they end NSO and/or Switch service. It would probably mean a lot fewer SNES games, or maybe even certain bundles you'd have to choose from. I couldn't see them giving you 25 SNES games upfront for 20 bucks, no questions asked. But even if they gave you access to all of them as long as you have an active sub, and then choose five per year that you'd like to download to your console for good, that would've been a nice move.

Edited on by rallydefault

rallydefault

Gwynbleidd

@rallydefault well, I wouldn't say I'm "mad", as I already own most of the games the Snes Online offers either on my Snes mini or on my 3DS, so I don't really miss them. I'm just disappointed and deluded by Nintendo's behavior, as I don't really get why they abandoned the VC sale model to force people to subscribe to their service.
As you said, I wouldn't mind if they went on with their Snes Online, as long as you could get to download and keep the games you like the most if you unsubscribed. But that would have to be a sale, not a rental.

Edited on by Gwynbleidd

Gwynbleidd

rallydefault

@Gwynbleidd
Ah, yea.

It's a good question why they got rid of the VC stuff basically. I'll be honest, I wasn't a big VC guy. I have maybe a few games across my 3DS/Wii U/Switch, but I was never big on buying old games digitally. I'd prefer to just play them on the actual systems with the appropriate controllers.

I think Nintendo felt pressured to have some sort of game offering with NSO because MS and Sony do it. But I don't think they wanted (or could) to do the 2 free games a month. Can any of us ever see Nintendo giving away one of their 60-dollar games for free? lol So they'd pretty much be doing little indie games and people would trash the service even more than they already are.

rallydefault

skywake

Gwynbleidd wrote:

I'm just disappointed and deluded by Nintendo's behavior, as I don't really get why they abandoned the VC sale model to force people to subscribe to their service.

Yeah, you're looking at it wrong. I think whatever way you slice it it's still a pretty decent value compared to previous offerings by Nintendo. I don't remember the exact pricings but from memory they charged $6AU for NES games, $9AU for SNES and something like $15AU for N64 on the Wii VC. Then there are the mini systems which work out to be something around ~$4AU per game when you exclude the controllers.

With NSO you're paying $30AU/year. Over the life of the Switch that's probably going to be around $150AU. There are around ~60 titles on NSO quickly looking at the list, about $2AU per game if they were to stop releasing games for it now. And this is before you consider family groups, voucher discounts, other titles like Tetris 99 and anything else they add going forward.

Now I have no doubt that overall Nintendo intend to make more money by having more casual users pay a subscription. Also it's fair to say that subscriptions mean they're getting a regular stream of income. But really, despite the "in principle" whine from people who want "ownership" of their digital goods? For more dedicated fans the Classic games on NSO alone is an insanely good value compared to previous VC offerings

We shouldn't look back on the VC fondly in terms of "Nintendo's behaviour" when comparing it to NSO. If I'm being honest with myself, if they had an old-model VC on the Switch I would have spent a good $50AU on it already for a tiny subset of the selection they have now. Ontop of that I would have happily paid $30AU for Tetris 99 and I saved ~$10AU with a voucher compared to discounted retail pricing.

Edited on by skywake

Some good Aussie musics: King Gizzard, Pond, TFS
"Don't stir the pot" is a nice way of saying "they're too dumb to reason with"

Gwynbleidd

skywake wrote:

For more dedicated fans the Classic games on NSO alone is an insanely good value compared to previous VC offerings

I don't get what makes you say so, apart for the economic reason, but I thought it was clear that is not a problem for me.

Snes Online doesn't really give me any "added value" per se respect to a VC packaged game. Besides, you don't play 20-30 Snes old games just because they're classics, you only play 5-6 of them, given that they really are the ones you seek for.

This whole matter is the same that raises my hostility towards streamed contents. If you don't like that either, well, know that they made you do just another step towards it. Wouldn't it be the perfect formula to kill used market and future retro gaming?

Gwynbleidd

rallydefault

I think this goes deeper to a rethinking of the concept of "ownership." With the rise of streaming (though Stadia's launch isn't looking so hot; maybe we're still a bit away), I think we're going to see lines blur even more.

It's already obvious companies don't want to do physical releases anymore. It costs them more money. Digital is the way, and if they can further lock you in with some kind of subscription, they can guarantee themselves money rather than rely on X number of people buying a game.

rallydefault

SKTTR

Do you really get games for free on PSXbox?

I thought you get locked out of access to all the 'free' games if you don't pay the monthly membership?

backloggery.com/SKTTR

rallydefault

@SKTTR
On PS Plus you can't access them if you let your sub lapse, but for Microsoft you can play them offline.

I let my Gold sub go a couple years ago and I can still play the games I got.

Edited on by rallydefault

rallydefault

SKTTR

@rallydefault Thanks for the information. I wasn't sure. Good for XBox fans though, they seem to get the best deal then, with Nintendo coming in second.

backloggery.com/SKTTR

Trajan

@SKTTR Nintendo doesn't come in second by a long shot. You dont own NSO ROMs after your membership expires. PSN is the same, but its current gen games, then you get into the actual service itself.

I don't see why people are making a big deal about buying SNES games. Even then, if it isnt physical you don't own it. Just buy a SNES classic and hack it.

Sakurai: Which is why I think we should forget about console wars and focus on what’s really important: enjoying the games themselves.

"If we did this (mobile games), Nintendo would cease to be Nintendo." - Iwata

Cotillion

Trajan wrote:

I don't see why people are making a big deal about buying SNES games. Even then, if it isnt physical you don't own it. Just buy a SNES classic and hack it.

Digital has far more ownership than the service. The VC games I bought will be there as long as the system works and I don't get rid of them (and even if I did, games are still available to download to those who previously bought them even after their removal from the shop). In terms of that and longevity, you more own a digital copy whereas service games are gone whenever the provider deems it wants to remove them or shut down the service.

Cotillion

kkslider5552000

To be fair, the lack of ownership works both ways, and people are willing to download a game for themselves, regardless of what Nintendo wants. :V

If anything that's more of an issue of newer games and online games, since there's more reason to believe you won't be able to own those games. Or at least, less people will be able to.

NB, demiguy, making LPs, still alive

Bioshock Infinite Let's Play!:
LeT's PlAy BIOSHOCK < Link to LP

rallydefault

@Cotillion
Well, to be fair, you're kind of half right. Yea, any digital games you purchase and download will be on your system as long as the system works and you don't uninstall them. BUT, if you do uninstall or the system stops working or whatever, you can only redownload games for as long as Nintendo keeps the eShop ecosystem going. Effectively for as long as Nintendo "allows" you to keep redownloading the games. I know it seems nitpicky, but it has happened with some Steam games, for example, when they are taken off the digital store for whatever reason.

@Trajan
But I also completely disagree with you. NSO is easily the "second best" option of the big three and it's mostly because of the low price. My PS Plus sub (had one until last year) didn't offer me anything more than what NSO does with the caveat of SOMETIMES getting a "better" game of the month (though let's be honest, lots of months go by on Plus and Gold where nothing that good is offered for the free games). I'll take the solid lineup of NES/SNES games over maybe 1 or 2 games a year I may enjoy from the other services for a higher price.

I use the cloud saves for Nintendo but that wasn't a deal maker/breaker for me. Online games in Aces, Kart, Smash, SMM2, etc. have been mostly fine for me. I do get some laggy ones every now and then, but it's not to a frequency that has me crying foul.

PS Plus/Gold deals, however, do have NSO beat. Nintendo needs to offer more frequent NSO-only game deals for like 20% off or whatever. Even if they only do it at holidays or seasonally.

rallydefault

Trajan

@rallydefault If we're not counting steam NSO is easily 4th place, right behind Seganet from 1994. Your games preference is a personal choice. I personally don't care about games that I've played 30 years ago and already own. Even Nintendo already sold me those games with a SNES classic. Any games that are missing I can add myself. Meanwhile PSN gives me current gen games that Switch only people are asking for and willing to pay $60 for, like Borderlands.

Cloud daves are nice, but Nintendo wont even let you back up your games locally. To further add insukt to injury they won't even allow cloud saves of many first party games.

The actual online service is a joke. Switch isn't capable of running two applications at once so no parties, which is essential for playing with friends online. No communities or forums like the other services have either.

Then you get to the actual horrible online. Terrible netcode coupled with a horrible Wi-Fi chip.

Nintendo has in the past openly admitted they didn't care for online. That still shows. But hey, people are paying for it, so good on them. Don't hate the player hate the game.

Edited on by Trajan

Sakurai: Which is why I think we should forget about console wars and focus on what’s really important: enjoying the games themselves.

"If we did this (mobile games), Nintendo would cease to be Nintendo." - Iwata

Cotillion

@rallydefault Has that happened with Steam games? I have some that were removed from the shop for various reasons and no one can buy them, but I can still download them.
It's still not the same as owning a physical cart, no, but it's a lot closer to ownership than a service will ever be.
Owning a physical cart now even means less than it once did, given how many games have DLC, patches and whatever. Granted, owning the base game, bugs and all, in the future is still better than nothing.

Edited on by Cotillion

Cotillion

SKTTR

Trajan wrote:

@SKTTR Nintendo doesn't come in second by a long shot. You dont own NSO ROMs after your membership expires. PSN is the same, but its current gen games, then you get into the actual service itself.

I don't see why people are making a big deal about buying SNES games. Even then, if it isnt physical you don't own it. Just buy a SNES classic and hack it.

Oh, right, Switch comes in 4th. Sorry.
1. Wii U had the best online experience and it was free (with native Voice Chat, and native Video Chat, and creative forums aka Miiverse).
2. Wii had pretty good online and it was free.
3. Xbox One's free games don't expire after quitting online membership.
4. Switch has NES and SNES classics that you can play online for the first time ever and Nintendo adds brandnew games for the service like TETRIS 99 and Super Kirby Clash)
5. PS4 online membership costs a lot, and access to "your" "free" games is denied if you don't pay up. Plus you don't get brandnew games for "free", only older games.

Edited on by SKTTR

backloggery.com/SKTTR

sixrings

Wii u had free online. It had call of duty. And it had native voice chat.

sixrings

Top

Please login or sign up to reply to this topic