Rumour: Free-To-Play Switch Games Won't Be Impacted By Paid Online Service

I think this would be a mistake on Nintendo's part. If only some games require the online service, it would seriously beg the question why anyone really needs to pay. A question people are already asking. This will make it much more difficult for the service to catch on. If the service does not catch on, Nintendo wont be motivated to improve it, and it's a slippery slope to problems and failure.

It's very doubtful that Nintendo would set up a paywall for their online service yet only allow free-to-play titles through. I agree with @Heavyarms55, this would be a huge mistake on Nintendo's Part. Fortunately, this is just a rumor. One that I feel will easily be debunked.

Nintendo has to make this come true. PS4 allows you to play free-to-play games without PS Plus. This also extends to MMOs like FFXIV. It would be a huge mistake if Nintendo made people pay to play Fortnite. Defeating the whole point of free-to-play.

Sony already does this, although Microsoft doesn't. Paying to play F2P games doesn't sound fine though (even if paying for online period is absolutely bullocks).

Amazing that this has to be stated... Wasn't this obvious already...

Others are right, a paywall should be all inclusive.

However, I've always thought having to pay to play online is borderline criminal. With most games forfeiting split screen play in favor of online functionality, multiplayer is completely neutered without it.

@Heavyarms55 First of all, that's not what "beg the question" means. More to the point, and less pedantically, how is it a mistake for Nintendo to allow publishers to offer free-to-play which might actually be free? I assure you that once the service begins a portion of the IAPs will serve in lieu of the subscription fee, so that Nintendo will get paid either way, which, by the way, is a perfectly reasonable concept, remuneration for services rendered. It's just a different business model.

@NotAceAttorney exactly... SONY has set the standard on this and still has an online community that choose to pay. F2P games should stay free on Switch just like PS4.

They make money off the microtransactions from the stores. And can make exclusive "packs" like the WarFrame Playstation Plus one. That motivate an online subscription by extra benefits.... But not forced on the community.

@EvilLucario @FatAlbert1 I'm just curious--how much do you pay each month for data on your smartphone?

you guys are being a bit narrow minded. By comparing the PS4 and Xbox, you guys aren't putting into perspective that these two companies are also from two completely different countries.

aka they're going to go with what seems more right in their respective home countries.

even so...20 for a year of a service is just stupidly cheap. I wish all my $60 a year subscriptions was also like that.

If it does launch in September I WON'T BE ABLE TO PLAY Splatoon 2 OR Mario Kart 8 Deluxe EITHER BECAUSE I HAVE TO PAY.

They are playable on PS4 without PSN so......

@ProGamer281 I'm sorry you have literally no money whatsoever.

Wait...if you sell one of those games you can afford the yearly subscription for the other. Problem solved.

Eventually Nintendo will go that way too. You'll see guys. I preditct. Eventually it will be a paid service.... in the future

Frankly, the idea of paying a premium for online services just because other publishers do it is already silly. If say, Epic pays to run their servers and my Switch wants to connect to said servers, there's no reason Nintendo should need to be the troll under the bridge and demand a fee. This whole concept of online features as a subscription service only makes the Switch less appealing for new players.

@PanurgeJr Paying for mobile data is incomparable to this. These systems are already hooked up to wifi, we're providing the internet connections ourselves. This is Nintendo standing between players and third party servers to demand a laughably small, but still noticeable fee. It's no wonder players are pissed about it. If I pay fifty bucks for my wifi and ten for my battle pass to support epic, why should Nintendo get an extra cut, beyond the eshop revenue?

@PanurgeJr i own game card versions of these games. maybe i need some funds to pay but why the hell are they doing this.

The only thing I think is dumb about the paid service is that they didn’t implement it right when the Switch was first sold. After ALL this time... why make us start paying now? I want to know reasons.

I am generally against paid online, and the rampant cash grab that it is. It will be interesting to see what happens when they kill off net neutrality. So it will be
1. pay extra for fast internet
2. Pay for online gaming services
3. Pay ISP again not to throttle gaming packets

Big business is out to divide up the Internet for extra profit for unlimited Internet that they really should not be. Able to label as such.

My main beef with Nintendo is that they are holding their uses hostage for cloud save. But they know that will make the offering at least twice as appealing if the made cloud save free.

I guess 20 is not to bad, I just wonder when it will go up and by how much.

We shall see what the future holds I guess.

@PanurgeJr Beg the question: "(of a fact or action) raise a point that has not been dealt with; invite an obvious question"

Allowing free to play titles to use the Switch online infrastructure when paid titles are held behind a paywall makes no sense and begs the question why does anyone have to pay to use that infrastructure.

Personally I am in favor of this service. It is my hope (perhaps naive, I admit) that in having a profit motive, Nintendo will be encouraged to further develop the service and add more features. As it is, maintaining their online system (as with Sony and Microsoft) costs money. How much money is not entirely clear but for rival companies, it's a major money maker, for Nintendo, it's just a cost. The argument could be made that it's paid for in part of the cost of the games and system, but that income is finite, whereas a subscription is on-going. That difference is likely why you can still use Xbox Live on the 360 but Nintendo DS online and Wii online are no longer supported.

@Heavyarms55 Wii/DS servers died when GameSpy were closed as Nintendo was hosting them there.

In general, I don't see myself buying any more memberships for gaming as there's no benefit for me, especially since I generally play exclusively single player content. I have no interest in a paid service. If I want to play online, I use my Steam account.
I think server costs are part of buying hardware (PS4, Switch etc..) & also part of the sale of digital content.

If Nintendo does the same thing as Sony with regards to all the benefits of paying for online service (cloud saves, online gaming, free monthly title(s), deeper discounts, etc) I won’t have a problem purchasing their service. Currently, the only game I want to play that isn’t free online is Smash Bros and that doesn’t come out for 4.5 months. I am fine with Paladins and Fortnite remaining free like they are on PS4

You can still play all those offline lol ... You make it sound like you can't play them ever again unless you pay for it ... Smash is concerning me alot atm, as we know nothing about it I'm worried I might not get it

Lol, that would be...delightful!

@NintyNate In what aspect do you mean? Smash will require the subscription to play online, obviously. Just like MK8D and Splatoon 2 and so on.

@ICISAZEL The real reason they only allowcloud save is that the Switch could be hacked throughan SD card/save files. Any way the Switch could be hacked, Nintendo will try and stop it. They have gone overboard with it though. The thing is, Nintendo know we want an alternative backup method, so they may actually give it us, if they deem it is safe to do so. In my opinion, they should have added this at the start and that would have prevented all this trouble. I think it is wrong that we stipo have no alternative method of backup, plus the Switch obviuosly uses an SD card lot, sowhy not let us copy save files to it? Nintendoare making a big mistakenot allowing us this basic feature. Hopefully in thenext update, they will finally shower us with grace and allowthis basic feature.

@ICISAZEL Net neutrality didn't exist before 2015, and there wasn't an issue back then. I don't see how it's going to make a difference now. The only ones affected by this are the big companies like Google and Facebook, and they are the ones who set up the pro-net neutrality campaign. It's a fight between media companies and service providers. End users shouldn't really care about this.

I hope this backfires on Nintendo. I suspect the populations of multiplayer lobbies may crash at the beginning, and this may deter others from signing up. Nintendo needs to up their game and up their offering if they want me to subscribe.

@Blizzia don't care about online stuff it's just smash as a whole :/ it's a 50/50 buy atm

@Heavyarms55 Nah, this is the norm. Free to play games on PS4 don't require plus. While they do on Xbox, it's a major annoyance to Xbox gamers. So Nintendo have definitely gone the correct route here. I made a post on Resetera which was made in a slightly different context to this discussion but basically sums up my opinion on the matter:

"The entire business model of free to play games is to get as many players as possible to increase the potential sales of micro transactions. To lock these games behind the paywall would be dumb as hell, decreasing those players and micro transaction purchases and in turn reducing the amount of F2P game developers willing to launch on the system. The success (or not) of current switch F2P games like Fortnite and Paladins will directly influence what other F2P games come to the system (or not) in the future. To lock these games behind the paywall would be to hamstring this potential. Not to mention F2P/GaaS games are much more able to fund their own server costs and updates etc than a standard £40/$60 game.

Yes I know Xbox do it but future support is less an issue for them and I still think it’s dumb as hell."

@gcunit

They don't need to do anything lol. Millions will sign up as is and if you personally do or not is inconsequential. But if online games keep coming out for the system and the retro selection increases, I wouldn't be surprised if you do one day even if you're against it now. £20 a year is pretty close to nothing after all.

@Octane But it affects end users even more than the service providers or media companies....

I assume it's because they need to make it clear that when you BUY a game where some content is online.
Incase you don't have the ability to go online and start claiming a refund as it was not explained.
In the case of a free game you DONT BUY it so if you don't have the ability to go online then you just delete it. No loss.

You will still need the online service sub to play fortnight etc.

I honestly dont agree with this.

People that pay for games being charged twice yet the cheap skates getting it all free.

Developers of games like mine craft being punished....

Is fortnite playable on PS4 without plus?

Never thought about it before

No wonder it’s so popular.

The future of gaming is bleak. Low content free to play games will take over. It’s where the mass player numbers will be.

Paid online service is pointless on Nintendo console. Unlike Xbox or PS4 users, Nintendo gamers rarely play online. Nintendo is all about family and friends playing together locally.

Feels a bit like some folk require the service to affect all games to make their purchase feel justified. Whether or not Fortnite is affected by the online subscription shouldnt really matter if you've decided to buy for your own reasons.

They did say use of the service will be opt-in on the developer's part, so F2P games escaping the paywall is something I'd been expecting.

They should also really take into account what type of connection the games use as well. Splatoon 2 for example is peer-to-peer so having it tied to the online service doesn't make sense when there are no servers to pay for.

@gcunit I don't think Fortnite even uses Nintendo's servers. So it's a moot point really.

@PorllM How do you know? Honest question; was it a bad situation pre-2015? It wasn't really. It's just the same. The issue is that the current internet isn't made for 4K streaming, an issue that's cropping up in the last few years. Net neutrality essentially meant that big media companies didn't have to pay extra for all the data they were streaming. They lobbied, and they won. The extra costs are essentially passed on to the providers. Not entirely fair IMO. The idea that an email is ''worth'' the same as a 4K movie is a bit silly, don't you think? You don't pay a fixed price for every food item, or every time to use your car, regardless of the distance you're driving and how much gas you use. Anyway, media companies succeeded in making it an everyman's problem, letting you believe that internet costs are going to rise if all of this ends, letting you believe that it's going to affect us all (spoiler: that won't happen, just like it didn't happen pre-2015). But the thing is that media companies are often seen as the ''good guys'' compared to the internet providers, cause we all hate them, right? So it was an easy battle... and it appears they won.

I don't like having to pay for online but if the money taken is actually being used to make Nintendo's online a while heap better, then I think that's agreeable. F2P games probably shouldn't have paid online connected to then though

@Octane From my understanding Net Neutrality stopped internet providers being able to prioritize different media providers. Now they can. This means Netflix can pay an ISP for higher priority access so that it loads faster than competitors do. That benefits both of them and only harms consumers for obvious reasons. Not to mention new internet startups will have no chance outbidding the big boys and as such, will never be able to stack up bandwith-wise.

@Nincompoop I assume that was sarcasm because 6.76m Splatoon 2 owners say otherwise

@Nincompoop In 2009 maybe

The trick is to make the online service something people want to pay for, not something they need to pay for. It makes the whole thing a lot more palatable.

My initial concern with the online paid service was that with only really 3 games (Minecraft, splatoon and Mario kart) were that many people gonna be bothered and would the numbers and those games just dwindle. When fortnite and Paladins came out this concern became moot. However if this rumour is true I hope Nintendo have some kind of online ace up their sleeve or else getting a game of say Fifa or Doom is going to be near impossible.

I think Nintendo should make an online multiplayer DLC for 1-2 Switch.

Nintendo's online has always been free up to this point, but I seem to remember a bevy of complaints about its quality as well. If the money from the paid service improves the service, it's worth it.

As for f2p, following Sony's model over MS is the right move here. One of those is the market leader.

I set aside a $20 bill months ago in my game case drawer. Just waiting for the service. I want to play some online SMB 3 and Dr Mario!!

@PorllM Those are fair points, and I'm not saying that no net neutrality is the perfect solution either. I just disagree with some of the proponents of the principle. Though again, I have to refer to the pre-net neutrality era. We didn't see websites paying internet providers for faster access either. So it's a ''solution'' to a problem that didn't exist. Now if this was happening on a big scale, I'd agree, something had to be done, but that didn't happen. The internet got this far with minimal government influence and international laws, I think it only got this far due to the minimal impact of outside parties. So I'm a bit wary when other parties start to mingle with something that has managed to do ''OK'' with little to no influence. Like I said, it's a solution to a problem that didn't exist (yet), and it opens the floodgates to a more controlled internet, something of which I'm not a big fan.

@Octane You have good points too and I'm not claiming to be an expert. I just strongly believe the internet is for everyone and the idea of certain organisations being prioritized repulses me a little. You're right that it didn't happen before, and that could still be the case, but remember the internet these days is very different, and more full of powerful giant corporations than ever before, so the possibility is certainly there. As software and systems get more complex and demanding, high speed connections are more an important thing for businesses than ever before. I guess all we can do is let the experts debate it out and hope the correct outcome comes along lol.

Paying for Fortnite on Switch would kill off some profits for Epic Games, and in turn for Nintendo.

And besides, Fortnite is using Epic’s servers for everything besides the friends connector and importer so there isn’t a lot of overhead and costs for Nintendo here. While on games such as Mario Kart 8 and Splatoon 2, Nintendo is the one to pay for servers.

I know more details about the online are still coming, but according to the pricing and features chart, multi-player ONLINE is behind the paywall. Seems pretty absolute, but we'll see, I guess...

They can not do this, without fortnite purchases of online won't nearly as big, f2p games are a perfect reason to buy online, so y would Nintendo take that away

I still feel that introducing the paywall 18 months into the switch cycle is a terrible descion. Not only have we all got to see how bad the service is, they're also taking away parts of games that we feel like we've already paid for, leaving a bad taste in the mouth. Add that to many people paying for another service on Xbox or ps and I can see this backfiring on Nintendo in a big way.

What they should do at this point is keep the online multiplayer free, but charge for an extra service that offers something people are willing to pay for, such as a big retro library.

Don’t think needing to pay of online in order to play Fortnite (or other F2P games) would be an issue. People spend $20 for a legendary skin. If they love Fortnite that much they’d have no issue paying $20 for a year of online access.

Nintendo Switch Online doesn't cost that much to be frank & it includes cloud saves (which is something many of us have wanted since day 1). I'd happily pay for Switch Online and dump PSN (I barely use my PS4 anyway for multiplayer since Battlefront 1 & 2 have been such disappointments).

@ICISAZEL The whole "net neutrality" thing generally has no effect on gaming in either direction (there's a whole other commentary on that, but in terms of gaming and the business end it's unlikely to have much impact.) "throttling" gaming packets is exceedingly unlikely. Most of the pro/anit-neutrality (not the hype made in canned slogans by the activist crowds but the actual business cases) center around bundled services and inclusive/exclusive access to preferred services. The bulk of that actually centers on TV services and VoIP services. The real "net neutrality" war is over big cable, big media, and big telecom. It isn't about much of "the internet" at all.

If gaming goes all streaming and rolls into the TV services that will maybe play a role (Comcast customers get premium access to EA and Ubisoft games, but pay more to access Warner games (owned by AT&T) or that sort of deal....but I don't see gaming going all streaming for a variety of reasons.

The short of it is all the things that ISPs and publishers may do to screw gamers is irrelevant to the net neutrality conversation. They can and will do all those things that affect gaming either way.

Just wait until cellular becomes the "normal" internet connection in the US. It's happening soon!

Totally unfair!
Either everyone has to pay or no one has to pay.

(obviously I'd prefer the latter)

I can't speak for the Switch, but I know you can play Fortnite online on the PS4 without a PSN account.

I would have thought that free to play online multiplayer games like Fortnite and Paladins would need a subscription and games like Dawn of the Breakers and GALAK-Z: Variant S (also Hulu to a different point) gets a free pass since its single player games checking in online for the moment at certain parts. I wonder if the exception to the rule is that the games have to be on its own server and not Nintendo Network to work.

Well guess we'll know next month.

I have to admit, I thought more people would be happy that free games would stay free.

@DannyBoi ...You're delusional. I have no idea with the upcoming Nintendo Switch Online Service and I welcome it with open arms and I am eager to look forward to cloud saves and eShop discounts. I have like $20+ left on my eShop funds to buy a 12 month subscription.

If you don't like what you see or hear, then learn to deal with it.

The specifics of Nintendo's online infrastructure get smore and more mysterious.

@NintyNate aight

i am happy to pay to play on nintendo online i am not happy to pay on ps4 server on destiny 2 are not good

I hope that’s not true. If you play online all the titles should have to go through the online service. At $20/ year ($1.67/month) that is not a big investment on our part. In fact it’s a lot cheaper than some crummy games I’ve purchased at full $60. If this means we have a better experience playing online games then by all means. Having Fortnite, Paladins, warframe and whatever else behind the online service hopefully means that the online service will continue to be optimized and flourish.

If a company like Epic is hosting their own servers for online play and not using Nintendo's own network then I really don't see why you would have to pay Nintendo to access them, that is unless Nintendo is requiring developers to use their network for online access, which seems a bit heavy-handed.