Topic: The Nintendo Switch Online Subscription Service Thread

@Therad Folk should have been against paying for online 12 years ago. Moaning that Nintendo are doing it is just bloody childish. Especially as they were the ones most reluctant to do it.

A business wanting money, well I never 😱

And, may I say for the umpteenth time, it is so easy to reduce that cost significantly by sharing a family group membership with up to 7 other people.

@GrailUK why? It is exactly as bad as it was then. Bad practices should always be pointed out.

@BenGrimm just because they make money doesn't mean it is a good idea.

@gcunit which still isn't the point. You get a service that gets nerfed and get to pay more for it.

But still, why would it be a bad thing to separate the NES and online part? If the NES games were the thing people wanted (as people repeatedly say is the thing), why do you need the online to be bundled with it? They are 2 distinct different services.

But Nintendo are doing it now, so that's okay

Only yesterday did I post in another thread a list of 12 ways in which the Switch is an inferior device to Wii U and 3DS, and I included the fact that online play is locked behind a subscription as one of them. But the £5 per year I pay gets me portable NES games with save states (a plus for me) and cloud saves (a plus for me). At £5 per year I'm happy to see the online access as a freebie thrown in as a subscription bonus. I'm not saying it's better than it was, but it's just not worth the negativity. If the price goes up too much, or Nintendo shuts down the family group sharing option, then I won't subscribe any more either.

And as a fan of Nintendo products, to a certain extent I also look upon it as 'What's good for Nintendo is good for me'. But only Nintendo can really be in a position to decide whether the cost of losing online numbers is made up for by the benefit of the subscription.

@shaneoh yeah, seems like it.

@gcunit the online isn't a freebie, it is the killer app for the sub. Without it they would have had even less people subscribe.

What sense would it make to the average consumer to have two different sub services, when NES and Online play are bundled together now? That's just adding confusion for the sake of it.

I agree with this one, I was a bit taken aback, that I could not invite a friend playing Smash with me through the Profile or a dedicateed hub in Smash, like play with friends, or so...

Yeah the lack of basic online functions is still frustrating. Even my 8 year old mentioned how it didn't make sense he can't invite or message his friends on the switch when he easily can on the PS4. I have no issue paying for it as the cost is quite literally pocket change just hope it does add at the very least basic things oh and snes games

@CurryPowderKeg79

Because it isn’t worth it to them. It’s the same with the never ending circular arguments about ports, value is totally subjective. You may see value in a limited Online service and the NES games, others don’t. Including me-I even sold my NES Classic.

@GrailUK

A lot of people were against paying for Online when MS started. Some still are.

@JackEatsSparrows

It would be an awful idea if it was just NES games, but Microsoft are hoping people are happy to pay two subs.

@redd214 not just PS4 even the PS3 got it working. I think it will come in the future. Maybe in the next 3 years with Nintendo.

@electrolite77 yeah. I'm one of them. But Nintendo are following the trend. It's the last generation of gamer I'm annoyed with that thought it was ok

@Therad

I never said it was good, just that I’m not surprised they went down this route. Nintendo in general and not just with the NSO get a lot of stuff right and I generally do love their consoles. However their not perfect and sometimes they seem to want to do things the hard way and all we can do is vote with our wallets in those situations. For me the 20 pound a year is nothing so I don’t feel that bad for paying it.

@Alantor28
Exactly it's attached to the online service rather than being what VC was. Having a curated collection of games of your choosing rather than just renting you games you don't want.

Attaching classic games to only those who play online is ridiculous. Ive played online maybe 3 times since I got my switch and I'm supposed to pony up $20 to play online for 5 minutes one day out of 12 months? You shouldn't have to pay for a service you don't need to access something you do.

As I said on the other thread replying to you, you're getting your feathers ruffled over nothing. While I agree NSO could use some work, I am in love with NSO and I think it's great even if it gets more improvement. People are getting their feathers ruffled for no reason because of what? That there's no Virtual Console for the Switch? Man, people like to cling on to things they like and get into a tipsy fit because the one thing they like isn't appearing in a new Nintendo console.

I'm sure Nintendo will add more games other than NES in the future and $20 a year isn't so bad after all. Much cheaper than PS Plus (I like PS Plus btw).

And before you say anything, I don't always agree with the people who criticize the Online Service, I think NSO is the best thing ever.

@Alantor28
You don't get my point at all. I should not have to pay for an online service when I don't care one rats tail about online gaming just to rent nes games for one year when you could buy or redownload games you want!

Why pay for tv when you can have an antenna? Why pay for an expensive service for what you have ain't broke?!

If it's "the best thing ever" it wouldn't need work.

@GameOtaku You're arguing with a brick wall.