Topic: So why are we paying for online now?

I have never had any problems with the online for 3ds and Wii U and I was very happy it was free, but why do we now have to pay a high price for the few games that will use online, but games like Splatoon 2 will be pointless without paying.

Because Nintendo knows they can get away with it. It's the same money-grabbing that worked so well for Xbox and PS. I'm on the same page as you, I bet the servers are mostly the same from Wii U, which by the way were more than fine.
I'm not paying too, and I think I'll have to forget about Splatoon 2. Sad but I'll live.

You can play Splatoon 2 without the subscription, you just need alot of Switches and local wireless.

Because keeping online servers costs money and Nintendo's last console was a failure, so they probably lost quite a bit of it by offering free online.

By offering a paid subscription, they can keep track on how many users actually have interest in their online modes, and it helps support the service for longer.

Sorry, but we already have a thread going on this topic. The questions posed aren't identical but the discussion is basically the same. Let's not duplicate. Thanks.

Edit: Scratch the above. I've reviewed the other thread and people seem to have stuck fairly closely to the question, so I'm gonna be nice and let this one run too.

Free online is yet another good thing about PC gaming. The only reason I even buy consoles anymore is for the exclusives. Otherwise I would beef up my PC and just stick with that. I suppose the Switch is a different case for some people because of the portability, but I don't care about that aspect of it very much. I just hope the games are good.

If it fixes the GD lag from the first game (which made S rank unplayable), then I'll pay for it.

And no, the servers on the Wii U were not fine. Matter of fact, I believe they didn't even have servers (it was P2P).

@Samurai_Goroh I'll grab Splatoon when it hits the bargain bin. €20-25 for a solid 5-8 hour single player mode is still enough to warrant the purchase for me. I've paid more for shorter games.

Because the industry has set precedent, that's number one.

Number two, fans have been hostile and vocal for years about wanting better online (dedicated servers vs p2p), better online features while they play (such as friend lobbies and voice chat), and more games that actually integrate online.

So, given that Switch is a console which seems to be built around fan feedback (region free, games tied to Nintendo Accounts and a humble redesign of the analog placement on the controllers) it's not at all surprising to see them improve online, develop more games with online and address voice chat... for a price, naturally.

I've never agreed with having to pay for online. Not for Sony, not for MS, and not for Nintendo. But it is what it is, and I don't contest the fact that bringing more robust online service will cost them more money. At the end of the day, we're paying because they're improving their services and they're passing that cost onto us.

I'm just grateful that it's in the $20/yr range and not the $60/yr range. The "free games" don't mean squat to me, so I don't care if I get one or half a dozen... I want to permanently own everything I enjoy. The value, for me, comes from removing the online barrier and the digital discounts. Obviously other services also offer cloud save backups, which is something I would particularly love to see Nintendo offer with their service as well. I don't know if that is something I should expect given the lower price, but it would definitely be nice to see.

It always sucks having to pay more money, but, given how bad I wanted voice chat in Splatoon... given how bad I wanted voice chat in Monster Hunter 4 Ultimate and Generations... given how much I hated voice chat in Mario Kart being limited to pre-race lobbies... given that I hated seeing game after game release with no online whatsoever (Star Fox Zero, Mario Party, Hyrule Warriors, etc), and given the approximate annual price of $20..... all things taken into consideration I'm glad for it. Had the price been higher I wouldn't have subbed (save for 1-2 months of Splatoon and MH whenever that comes). But for $20, screw it. Who cares. Less than $2 a month to address all those grievances??? Done.

Yea, what everyone said: Nintendo is just following their competitors now because it's been proven that we, the consumer, just accept this crud and keep shuffling along.

If you don't mind upkeeping a gaming rig, PC gaming is really the way to go. Limitless titles from every genre you can imagine, insane price cuts, DRM free options if that's important to you, and FREE online unless you're playing a select few games mostly of the MMO variety.

It really is superior in every way except for the exclusives, at least compared to consoles like PS4/Xbone. You don't even have to spend that much money for a computer that can outperform modern consoles, assuming you build it yourself. Plus, with the free online and insane price cuts that come a few times a year, especially on Steam, it ends up being arguably cheaper than console gaming. But like I said, the exclusives that come to consoles like the PS4 and Nintendo systems are a pretty big deciding factor.

At least the Switch's online service sounds a lot cheaper than the other consoles services.

@rallydefault
PS4 and XBone? Yes, I'm with you. But until I can get a PC that's as portable as the Switch/3DS and one that does Zelda, Mario and Smash Bros I'll have to also get Nintendo. Hell, if I had any confidence in Nintendo getting third party games I'd probably drop PC gaming....

@skywake
If Switch gets a healthy chunk of the big third-party games, I'd probably drop PC gaming as well (except for that FPS itch every now and then).

I wouldn't drop PC gaming, there's no way I'll get my Dwarf Fortress fix on any sort of home or portable console.

I disagree, I think the revenue raised from their cut of online sales would have covered costs easily. Also if a game like Breath of the Wild needs to sell 2 million copies to be profitable (Source), then a game like Splatoon will have made enough profit to cover the cost of developing the game, the cost of the next game, and likely the servers for both as well. 4.5 million units sold on a, no doubt, significantly lesser budget, adds up to a lot of money.

I'd also argue that since we are only paying for a "license" to use these games, instead of owning them, then the online service should be provided without having to shell out to play it online as well.

@rallydefault
Switch for Nintendo + PC for Overwatch. Basically.

I think Nintendo will start making a big push for online multiplayer in more of their games. Mario Party is a prime example imo. Whilst you won't be able to play the actual boards (people will just leave), being able to play the minigames online would be great fun! I love MP and it's always a shame that unless I have a willing friend or two wanting to play the game sits on a shelf gathering dust.

Gaming is going towards the multiplayer side now, we all know that. Will they provide a better MP experience with a paid subscription? If so i have absolutely no problem with that, especially considering the affordable aspect that Reggie said days ago. A point that maybe no one is considering is the social media aspect. It will be far more easy to get people into Switch gaming with this (did someone said slow Miiverse?), and this can be a good break for sales. And if they can get streaming apps so that you can stream directly from your console or something like that...BOOM!

That's it, in a nutshell.
Since we pay for online now, we may expect Nintendo to deliver an oline experience that is significantly better than the previous generation. This, however, is only a hope. For all we know so far, the quality of the experience may be exactly the same of WiiU, only with an additional app (which you have to pay for) which adds voice chat and frills.

We still don't know if Nintendo wants to implement online components into all their games. The games we know that support online, so far, are games that would have supported online anyway on any platform, free or not (Mario Kart 8, Splatoon 2, Arms). We still don't know if Super Mario Odyssey, Mario Party, Xenoblade Chronicles 2 et al will have substantial online components. We hope for it but hope does not equal reality, at least in Nintendo Land.

We also know nothing on the quality of the service itself. What if Arms ends up being a lag-fest like Wii Sports Club (which incidentally promised an improved online experience over the previous generation)?! What if the nuances of the HD Rumble and improved motion controls (the only reason many Switch games such as Arms will exist) get lost in online mode?! We don't know - we just assume it's going to be better because we're paying for it now.

Also the irony of a paid online feature for a console that is 50% portable, meaning that when you're on the go, on many occasions you won't be able to use that online feature you're paying for because you won't have Wi-Fi around you. But that's not a big deal for me because, like most of the people who have to drive a car to get somewhere, I do most of my portable gaming at home - making the Switch's portable qualities utterly useless. So yeah, we're forking out €20 in hope that things will change, but we have no guarantee that things will actually be substancially different.

They need to charge because it costs money, so either everyone pays for it regardless of if they use it (IE WiiU "free") or you say if you want it YOU can pay for it.

When I buy an online-centric game like Splatoon, I am saying quite obviously that I want to play it online. And I am paying more than enough for it at full price.

No one is arguing that servers don't cost money. Of course they do. But the price of the games should already cover that cost.