In Nintendo's February 2022 Direct, we found out that yet another boon is being added to the rapidly-expanding number of benefits that come with Nintendo's Switch Online Expansion Pack: The 48 DLC tracks for Mario Kart 8 Deluxe. We already have access to the catalogue of N64 games (which are being sllllooowwwly rolled out), Mega Drive games, and the Animal Crossing: New Horizons Happy Home Paradise DLC, for a few extra bucks a month.
On Nintendo Life, we've talked about the NSO Expansion Pack a lot. We've looked at its relative value compared to Sony and Microsoft's (very different) subscription services, said it's great value for some people, despite the fact that it proved extremely controversial when it was revealed. When we asked for reader opinions, the polls came back pretty negative, and later on, we all pretty much universally agreed that the catalogue of games was expanding too slowly for the price of the subscription. And early results from a poll we ran today suggest that, which the upcoming Mario Kart 8 Deluxe DLC tracks aren't nothing, there's a sizeable number of players for whom the higher tier Expansion Pack isn't sufficiently attractive. Yet.
It's been a mixed bag so far, and I'm certainly not here to sway your opinion on the Expansion Pack. I'm a subscriber, and I've not really seen a huge amount of value from it, besides the Happy Home Designer DLC and being able to relive the nostalgia of Banjo-Kazooie's godawful camera controls.
Here's why I think Nintendo's extremely cautious approach to the subscription model might — eventually — result in something far more substantial.
I used to work in charity fundraising, specifically with regular donations — people who agree to donate £5 a month, rather than a lump sum of a few hundred quid every now and again. The most important thing I learned from that job is that companies would much rather have a steady, small, but predictable income than one that's all over the place, even if the latter earns more money in the long run.
Why is that? Because steady income is easier to budget. If you know you're getting £5 a month from someone for the next two years, then you can safely assign that money to pay for something you need — say, someone's salary, or rent. It's harder to budget with unpredictable income, as anyone who's ever been a freelancer can attest to.
If Nintendo can continue to make the Expansion Pass more enticing to a wider range of people, it'll be able to more effectively handle its incoming profits — so you may be wondering why it didn't just make it irresistible from the start.
I can speculate: With any new business proposition, there are bound to be risks. With the Expansion Pass in particular, Nintendo would have had to invest money into the infrastructure, the UI, the emulation, and a team of people to set it all up, without a clear idea of whether or not it would get a significant return on that investment. Sure, Nintendo has piles of cash, so it wouldn't have been a huge dent, but investors — who basically have a stranglehold on publicly traded companies — really, really hate to see money being "wasted" without a significant return. Sigh.
So, Nintendo would have likely been trepidatious and cautious about their first foray into expanding the relatively-new subscriber service, and hopefully now that it's proved a little more popular, we'll be seeing a lot more stuff getting added as incentives to make the package really enticing.
Xbox Game Pass began as a massive gamble [...] a proposition that has only become successful because of its support.
It's not the only subscriber service that's making waves in the games industry, either. Xbox Game Pass is, without a doubt, one of the best things you can do with your money right now, as long as you have either a PC or an Xbox. It gives you access to a colossal library of games both new and old, with very little risk to the player — if you hate something, you've lost nothing but your time. It didn't begin that way, of course.
Xbox Game Pass began as a massive gamble. To mitigate that risk, Microsoft primarily focused on old games, and new games — like Rare's Sea of Thieves — from studios it owned. It's easy to say that the gamble was worth it, five years after the Game Pass's launch, but hindsight is 20/20. The truth is that Game Pass was, at first, a proposition that has only become successful because of its support. The more people who buy Game Pass, the more money Xbox has to pay developers for day-one Game Pass releases, and thus the cycle sustains itself.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that day-one game releases are not going to come to the Nintendo Switch Online service. Nintendo's subscription service, and its fans in general, are both far more focused on the past — I mean, just look at February's Direct, which was almost entirely about remasters of old JRPGs, ports of ancient, niche PlayStation games, and games like Triangle Strategy, painted with the sepia-toned brush of nostalgia despite being wholly new. Even the Mario Kart 8 DLC is a bunch of old tracks for an eight-year-old game.
But I do think that the Expansion Pack will continue to grow in scope, and become better value as it does. I'm not imploring you, dear readers, to invest early in order to encourage Nintendo — the burden of proving the value of the service is on the company. But I do think that Nintendo has finally cottoned on to subscriptions being not only the future of games, but the future of how people want to play games. Instead of $70 for one game, why wouldn't you prefer to pay $15 for access to a trove of games?
The way I imagine it going is that, instead of Sony's PS Plus, which gives you free games every month, and Microsoft's Xbox Game Pass, which gives you access to everything in the Game Pass catalogue, Nintendo will forge its own path and create its own incentives. We already have free trials for games and access to Nintendo's NES, SNES, Mega Drive, and N64 games, plus DLC for a couple of games — but we could get early access to big games a week before release, or access to online services like Splatoon 3's multiplayer, earlier than others.
The main downside — as we've seen with subscription services like Spotify — is making sure that the developers see their fair share of profits, and that smaller indie games don't get shut out. But that, my friends, is a can of worms for another day.
For now, I'll leave it at this: If the Nintendo Switch Online Expansion Pack keeps getting better, some day it'll be a no-brainer. Nintendo has a potential goldmine on its hands, and all it has to do is keep digging.
I think it's been expanding a bit too slowly if you were to ask me.
You need to spend $120 to enjoy the "free" DLCs bundled with the $30 expansion pass. That's not even comparable to getting 2-3 full games each month.
Value is subjective.
If you're rocking a subscription on your own, $50/y ($4.17/m) for online functionality and the games/DLC sounds pricey.
But that becomes far more enticing when you have others to share in the misery. Two people bring it down to $40/y ($3.33/m). A family of four has it down to $20/y ($1.67/m). And if you really go all the way, a full team of eight has that cost down to $10/y ($0.83/m).
Ultimately, it comes down to if what's on offer is of value to you, individually. Nintendo gets that nostalgia drives a lot of their business, so as long as they continue to pad out those classic console libraries and toss in DLC packs here and there, it will continue to drive more subscriptions.
Slowly... but surely, I feel.
Yeah its getting better.
But We all know nintendo takes two step forward, two steps back, and the pack, in my opinion, shows this.
If they add more dlc packs like mario kart and animal crossing, it would give me good reason to invest in the pack, but thats only if they add more to it.
As of right now, to me, There is just not enough content there, and said content is coming really slow I might add, on top of there internet not being the best, to make me want to spend on it.
On top of that this just doesn't feel like that subscription that you would just leave on auto renew like ps plus or game pass, Its just something I really feel like I need to think about. And thats just a bad sign in my opinon.
Interesting that the games industry, like so many others, has decided that gamers would prefer to pay a flat fee for access to games they want and don't want, rather than simply buying only what they want. This is the same heist cable television has been pulling for 50 years.
Sure it'll get better, but I'm not a fan of how they're drip-feeding us. But they know it's just enough to keep most of the subscribers happy enough to keep the subscription most likely.
@Snatcher Explain 1 way that Nintendo has ripped their customers off. They're not stealing your money and you don't have to buy their products. Grow up.
It’s slowly adding value I guess. Not awful but I wasn’t ever expecting Game Pass levels.
@rushiosan or you could get some friends to share the family plan and pay around $1 a month ... which is GREAT value
I don't even care that it's been slow going. The entire platform is convoluted and it annoys the crap out of me. Between the Switch interface, the apps to launch, the expansion pack, and the phone app...it's a total mess of a system that doesn't even let you send game/party invites. I would love to game more online with my Switch but it's such a royal pain if you want to do it with friends. Nintendo is so behind the times it's embarrassing.
As someone who never got to play all of the retro games on offer over both online plans, NSO makes me a very happy chappy indeed. Plus, the online itself actually works well! Well for me at least, I've had it work flawlessly on Mario Kart and Splatoon when it says I only have one bar of wi-fi. But yeah, NSO's grand in my book.
@Amsterdamsters Calm down mate I just finished writing the rest of it, I was poking fun LOL. Maybe rip off is the wrong word, maybe more or less them being more scummy, idk, I probably phrased it poorly.
From everything I've seen so far, it looks like something I will never buy into.
I loathe the idea of any DLC (for Animal Crossing and Mario Kart) that I'd invest a lot of time into being tied to a subscription. I'd like to be able to use any game DLC a year from now, or two years, or even five years from now. But as it is now, once I lose the membership (or the servers go off), I won't be able to play Happy Home or Mario Kart Booster Pack anymore? No thanks.
@rushiosan But also Game Pass is $180/year... compared to $30/year for the Switch upgrade.
People really forget the $/month to $/year conversion.
gamepass has hundreds of games that are sold for $1 each on second hand market.
NSO has a handful of games but they costs hundreds. This is value.
Most people complaining are who don't care about classic games, and to be honest, switch is not the better choice for them anyway. For those who care for the classics the service is very good, not nearly as good as WiiU VC, but still good.
Yeah sure the service is technically getting improving, but only in the sense that a snail moved a couple inches while crossing the Amazon rainforest.
We're basically 5 years in and the service is still heavily mediocre, especially compared to the competition.
There shouldn't be any reason why subscribers have to wait months in between just for a couple games at most to get added (in n64's case its just a single game) with subpar emulation mind you.
Xbox and Playstation users are getting multiple modern games every month for free, along with a bunch of discounts with existing games, party systems that include messaging and invites, voice chat, and universal cloud saves and more.
Meanwhile Nintendo subscribers get multiple decade old games that have been sold back to them for years on and get to look forward to a single N64 game in the following months with inferior emulation to the ones everyone already has access to for free... yay.
One thing to remember about GamePass is that, even five years in, it's still in beta mode in terms of price. At some point, Microsoft, even with its wads of cash, is going to have to justify its huge outlays to shareholders, and at that point, you're going to see the GamePass price increase. Probably one huge jump, followed by annual increases as Netflix does. Microsoft is luring everyone into the party with nickel beer, but at some point it's going to be, "Let's see how much you've got there in your wallet." The pitch will be, for the price of one triple-A game a month, you can get everything.
@CharlieGirl I'm pretty sure it gives you pseudo-trial periods more or less. You get it for free along with everything else and you have it for as long as you have the subcription. However, it thankfully doesn't lock you out of getting them individually so once you're ready to buy, satisfied with the DLC on it's own or have enough money, you can get it immediately.
It's not too elegant but it works pretty well for me personally. I'd be getting HHP and the MK8 DLC anyways and this basically gives me the time to try it out and see if it would be a good purchase or not. Now if they add older DLC like some have mentioned here already, then we'll have struck gold.
@Snatcher Your comment was worded perfectly fine to me, it seems like @Amsterdamsters was just getting overly defensive and putting words in your mouth.
While adding things is always good they do need to speed up the rate they are being released. Yes adding new DLC to the service is a big plus but they do need to add more to the N64 and Mega drive (Even more systems also). Also adding games on a Month to Month bases like what the other system do but I am not expecting the same amount they offer. 1 game a month would be fine (either Triple A or Indie) considering the systems Nintendo have for their Online. Allow us to keep the game as long as you have the sub but lose access to it when your sub runs out (but regain it again when you resub).
I can see them phasing out the cheaper plan and just go all in with the expansion pass also with their next system. When that times comes then they need to add at all the quality of life features that the other systems have and not through your phone.
Now I am not against having the phone app as a social hub for Nintendo games and using your phone to chat faster in animal crossing is a great way of using the systems as an extension
@Fizza I'm still not interested in it though.
If Nintendo is willing to "give away" attractive and lucrative DLC for two of its top franchises, it's not a stretch to think that at some point all first-party DLC will be included in the NSO. Right? Between DLC and old games, they're basically charging you monthly for add-on and side projects. It makes sense for Nintendo, but as I commented earlier, I'd rather just pay for permanent access to what I want. My backlog is huge, so I don't need access to more games.
@iLikeUrAttitude Well I ended up making the joke that nintendo was waiting to rip there fans off, It was how I felt, but I felt like maybe I worded it poorly, thats why I changed it to, two steps forward two steps back,
I'm only telling you this just in case you didn't see it before I edited it.
But thanks, I almost felt like I did something wrong LOL. And if i'm being honest, they sound like one of those hardcore nintendo defenders, acting like nintendo never did anything scum.
Way too slow a change, but it’s worth it for me now. Still needs a bit more DLC to make paying 50 dollars a year for it as opposed to 20 dollars once seem feasible, but I’m buying it for now because for one year it sounds nice.
I don't want it to become GamePass. I want to continue buying hard copies of my games without feeling like I'm getting shafted compared to people that are just paying £15 per month and getting everything. As great as GamePass is, it devalues games as an art and turns them into pointless Netflix or Disney style "content". It's different for legacy titles, obviously they won't be in print forever, but I hope they never do this with entire new games.
I feel Nintendo made how much they care about the value of NSO apparent when they translated the original Fire Emblem, and instead of adding it to the NSO service, they charged $7 and made it a limited digital release. Considering the NSO service is virtually unchanged since launch, I think that's proven true.
They refuse to improve the online servers, add, translate, or license more NES & SNES games (would really love to try the original SMT translated, or try a game only on the Famicom like Nuts & Milk), create or license more NSO-exclusive games/content like Tetris 99 (and even removing one of the few them in Mario 35), or even give more small bonuses for being a member, like not having Gold Coins expire or giving you more of them for being a Subscriber.
But hey, iT oNlY cOsTs TwEnTy DolLaRs
Yeah, its never going to reach Game pass levels. Nintendo has no reason to do something like Gamepass when their games sell so well and continue to do so years later. Not to mention Nintendo isn't a trillion dollar company.
As for NSO+, it's worth to me considering N64 games, AC DLC and getting the MK8 DLC. I still wish you could pick what content you want though. I wouldn't mind excluding the Genesis app to shave off a little.
"But I do think that Nintendo has finally cottoned on to subscriptions being not only the future of games, but the future of how people want to play games."
Why would you want subscriptions to be the future? Why would you want to pay for something you will never own? I am willing to bet most people wouldn't want to rent a house but own it instead. People only rent because they have to, because their is, for whatever reason, little choice. Same with people who would love to own the incentives of NSO, without paying for a subscription, but again little choice. People don't want to pay for online, but they do because little choice. Why are we so desperate to give away choice? I could agree that subscriptions expand choice, if it wasn't or this obsessive push toward making it unfeasible to be without it. Sure, you can argue Nintendo and other companies are trying to make money, but I am more than happy to give them money if the choice was there. The companies may argue that the programs themselves offer loads of benefits outside online, but in that case, why not make online free again? I don't get it.
This is not just generally against Nintendo, so I realise this comes off as a rant (which it is), but I hate the idea that we should just accept this and not having it full stop as a choice, when choice was offered freely before.
The N64 games would have made the base NSO a good deal, but we're going to need Wii U levels of VC before more than doubling the price is viable.
As a past homeowner and now a renter, I rent because if the roof leaks, the furnace dies or a multitude of other things happen I just call someone and it's fixed.
I don't think we are going to get full games, but rather more Virtual Console stuff and most importantly, any new DLC Nintendo comes out with.
The people like myself who already subscribe to the Expansion Pack are the ones who will most likely spend money on first party games on Day One. So, to literally include every upcoming DLC and make it more attractive to us, it's worth it. You pay $50 a year instead of $25 a shot, your game experiences will be extended (hence the name Expansion Pack), and you'll feel like you have something of value. I think their days of free DLC will eventually be done in favor of this model.
@k8sMum That's good in theory, assuming you don't have a s****y landlord, or your local council have it in the budget to do repairs. Otherwise you're scuppered.
@MS7000 Not everyone plays games in the same way! A lot of people, myself included, want access to a wide range of things that they can dabble in. If I only had $30 a month to spend on games, Game Pass is a better value proposition than... half a full-priced AAA game.
Besides, subscription services aren't an either/or. I still buy games all the time... it's just that I can also dip my toes into Sea of Thieves or Crusader Kings whenever I like without forking out huge amounts of money to find out that I don't like them.
The issue with NSO was that Nintendo launched it pretty much barebones instead of offering something akin to the competition from the get go. Still no native voice chat, no rollback netcode for MP games, no dedicated servers (though that is pretty niche), and the worst of all, not a strong enough lineup of past consoles games. GP has a very strong library of games that will save the average consumer $1000s on games that would've been stuck in the backlog otherwise. PSN will give you free AAA games every month. Nintendo, with all of their money sitting and gathering dust, still haven't invested in online services properly.
Honestly, I like NSO and Expansion pass. It’s cheaper than PS+ and Gamepass, and I’ve replayed most of the games on the service too. In some respects I like NSO more than Gamepass, strictly because I already know the quality level of the games I’m getting, and I know I’ll play the games uploaded to it for sure every time. That said, Gamepass still wins due to it having new releases, but with retro content, NSO is gold.
I'm treating NSO+ kind of like a Kickstarter Game.
Do I buy into it early on, despite it still being built? Or do I wait a year or two once they've ironed out the kinks and I can get the best value? If there's no reward for buying into it while it's still new and growing, I see no reason to jump on now. Meanwhile, I have many reasons to wait and see what happens with it down the road and save my money.
Also, if I already bought the Animal Crossing DLC, NSO+ has less value for me because I'm technically paying for something I already had. Same goes if I decided to buy NSO+, I would likely avoid spending more money to buy the DLC included to have it permanently because my subscription fee gives me access for as long as I am subscribed.
The subscription and the included DLCs seem to be competing with each other because it doesn't make sense to be subscribed to NSO+ and also buy the DLCs within it. Generally speaking, one has to win over the other.
@somnambulance I have to agree that NSO is easily better than PS-Plus, at least these days. The PS-Plus games are a joke.
@KateGray If I only had $30 a month to spend on games, Game Pass is a better value proposition than... half a full-priced AAA game.
And that I understand. I understand that not everyone plays the same, and that in and of itself is okay. I don't expect every person who plays games to have the equivalent of a shrine of merchandise or anything like that.
What I am trying to say, is that there seems to be a push to making subscriptions the only model. Subscriptions don't seem to be another choice anymore, otherwise, why can I not buy the retro games individually on NSO for example, or why must I now pay for online? At least with something like GamePass, as you said, you can still buy those games separately.
I don't know, maybe I an overthinking it, but it certainly seems to be affecting all parts of entertainment, including TVs, film, and music. Like I said, general rant, not just NSO, but NSO I feel is a good example of why I despise subscriptions. I just feel that people not having choice is a problem that is only going to get worse.
It’s easy to answer this question… just look how slowly and insufficiently they have trickled out games for the SNES and NES. Many months go by with nothing. And what happened to having a virtual console for the GameBoy family of systems (including Advance), GameCube, and Nintendo DS? They’ve shown no interest. Instead they give us a crappy handful of Genesis games that most Genesis fans already own on the very affordably priced Genesis collection cartridge on switch, which is a permanent ownership for the gamer unlike the rental that their virtual console Genesis games are. Nintendo is very much going in the wrong direction.
Emulation is king. If Nintendo figures out a way to compete with the emulation world, they will have my money. But for now, nope!
Recurring revenue is the goal. A constant, steady stream of money pouring into pockets.
And I feel that the public has grown used to this concept. Add to that society that emphasizes FOMO above all else... we may be in a shrinking minority, those of us who want the security of knowing we own the game and can go back to it five or ten years down the line.
@MS7000 I agree with you that gaming subscriptions are becoming more required across consoles like PS and XB, but NSO is the least forceful gaming subscription there is.
If NSO was the only legal way to play emulated games, that would be one thing, but you have the choice to play emulated games on just about any device that has a screen. NSO is not a monopoly for retro games. Paying a subscription for the convenience of playing retro games on a Nintendo consoles is not the same as being forced into a subscription.
It's a good argument, and one I think a lot of people would agree with, myself included. I just don't think NSO is related to the problem you are describing, at least in its current state.
I still haven't upgraded, and here's the thing. If Nintendo would let me subscribe to the upgrade for like $10 a month, I'd happily subscribe, EVEN THOUGH I'D BE PAYING NINTENDO AN EXTRA $50 A YEAR! I feel like I can always spare $10, but I can't bring myself to drop $50 on something that isn't even a game.
@Browny Regarding revenue, I believe the article itself also mentions about how more beneficial it is for companies to have consistent if smaller revenue. But that also irks me, because that is great for the company, but how does that benefit me? Sure, it will benefit someone, hence choice is good, but yeah, I agree with your comment completely.
To answer the vote, it depends. If most buy the expansion pack in its current state, why would they feel the need to improve it.
The bad if you leave the NSO plan you loose everything that's far different from Digital downloads that stays on your Switch. Now if Nintendo comes up with the expandable cart with SD card storage for digital downloads that would be a game changer.
A collection of retro games with some disappointing emulation on the N64, and some DLC you lose from your game if your subscription expires. Its really not a direction I'm a fan of.
@Astral-Grain If NSO was the only legal way to play emulated games, that would be one thing, but you have the choice to play emulated games on just about any device that has a screen.
I might be missing something, but could you elaborate? Emulators themselves aren't illegal but ROMs are. What other choices would I have?
@Burning_Spear It’s an interesting comparison, but I think it breaks down because there’s not a programming schedule, or, at least on on a half-hourly basis. You can see exactly what you’re getting before you sub, and it’s easy to map the value or to cancel.
I use Gamepass on PC so it’s a bit of a different perspective: I had Infernax on my radar, and it’s cheaper to sub a month on Gamepass that to grab it anywhere else. So I’m getting what I want plus.
PS is your name a reference to the artist Burning Spear? All-time favorite of mine in regular rotation.
@SwitchForce It's pointless to do that when the Switch already had microSD support. Just download the expansion to MK8D and it stays with you forever.
@Spiders Jah bless.
Also did one forget you need to pay a ISP to begin even have access to your NSO gaming online. Did anyone not factor this monthly to yearly cost increases the price your paying to play cloud games 24/7 right now.
@Specter_of-the_OLED that is about NSO cloud not Digital download two different methods one you have download to play where-ever and the other requires internet access to work. Also digital downloads stay on the SD card not a Nintendo Cart where you take out and play on another Switch.
@MS7000 I disagree as far as the value of Gamepass — it’s too good — but I think it’s crazy that we’re ignoring how much better the Wii Virtual Console was from a consumer POV for most everything on NSO.
I'm just playing NSO (without the expansion) because I didn't pay. I got it as a gift from a relative. For 1 year. I can't imagine me paying for NSO as I play for free on Steam and Game Pass is a much better service in every way.
@Spiders People fondly recall the Wii VC, but back then I remember so many complaints about the price and the frequency of releases. Of course, that was largely gamers being gamers (or crybabies). Just pointing out that sometimes people don't know how good they've got things.
@BloodNinja If Nintendo focus too much on emulation then there would be no point in making games will there? Nintendo doesn't emulate games cause they are a business in creative design and entertainment, they don't emulate, they create. Saying you only pay for emulation over creation is like saying you support the corrector instead of the creator. Emulator are their to emulate or update the work of something and make those better but that wouldn't had happen if not for the creator. After all the original work is that of the creator and its their vision of how they see the game plays out at the time of that creation, emulation is only their to change that perspective. It's not to fix the original work but to modernize it to how they see it currently. Any emulated work needs to pay credit back to the creator. Also not supporting Nintendo won't make it better, you had to give them money so they could make that thing you want happen otherwise you're just complaining about things you refuse to support.
I was subscribed to Nintendo Online as part of a "family" and to Game Pass since launch. On Xbox you can buy every single game, Game Pass or not, always 20% off or cheaper in the regular sales that unlike Nintendo include first-party games with decent discounts. Not just that but you keep Xbox games for future consoles unlike Nintendo that was kind of okay until Wii U with cheap upgrades but incredibly greedy afterwards. That's something I see people forgetting too often when discussing Game Pass. The value is just not comparable. Just think what Nintendo is doing about the online communication and services, retro catalogue of games and ports and the poor value that Nintendo Online/Expansion Pack are, even the full-priced ports. It's the only company that has gone backwards regarding retro gaming but obviously Nintendo has changed since Wii and they're not doing things better. The Course Pass is nice but it's one thing coming eight years after the game was released.
One thing that makes me very upset is that on Switch, unlike any console and Steam, not every game I can make new friends to play with. Of the games I own, only Mario Kart allows me to see what people I've played with, to invite and play as friends. Most games don't allow it. Like Crash team Racing, Just Dance and others. It seems that nintendo keeps the best tools just for itself and what is not nintendo or who nintendo chooses, the game is without many tools like this to find friends to play with. On all platforms I can find and send friend requests in games that almost no one plays online. And so, I get people to play with me. On Switch this is very limited.
I think that one day the Expansion Pass will be of good value. They just need to add stuff other than DLCs.
@Specter_of-the_OLED My impression is that the more money Nintendo makes, the less effort it puts into its services. Nintendo makes the least effort at all times. Nintendo only puts in more effort when Nintendo is not doing well in the market.
@SwitchForce Even if Nintendo allows a download to a game card like you want, what makes you think you could just take that card and put it on another Nintendo Switch and it'll just work like another game? Nintendo ain't dumb like that, in the age of account and subscription service if they allow something like that it'll just be like using microSD anyways otherwise they jeopardize the sales of those expansion pass. People will just use those to make more pirate copy. The only reason Nintendo allow something like this back in the Famicom/Super Famicom days was cause there were no online network or account system that would track purchase so they had to make cart for consumer to download roms for play and it was only limited to just Japan but nowadays with account systems and subscription services, that old ways of allowing legit download to cart isn't needed anymore and again why would they need it when there are cheaper storage solution out there a.k.a. microSD?
@MS7000 Strictly Legal: WiiU's virtual console, or any of the NES/SNES Classic consoles that come pre-loaded with games are an option if you don't want to mess with ROMS. For Sega Genesis, you can buy a similar Classic Mini console with games pre-loaded, but there is also the Sega Genesis Classics game you can download and play on most consoles.
Potentially Legal: You can buy or already own a copy of the game you wish to play, and if you want to play that same game on your phone only for personal use, there are legal tools you can buy to extract the ROM for other devices to emulate. There is a potential legal argument this would be allowed because you already own the game and so long as you don't distribute the ROM, it wouldn't impact the market, which relates to the Copyright violation deeming it illegal in the first place.
Unfortunately, there hasn't been a landmark case to know if the latter option would be considered completely legal or not. It's hard to imagine any company would sue one person for just using a ROM of a game they already own for personal use, but it may happen one day. Lawyers have spoken about this grey area with owning ROMs legally, but no one can be confident until there's a landmark case like this to reference.
No they aren’t. They’ve learned nothing.
@Rykdrew I agree, Nintendo is doing the minimal efforts because Switch is a success so fewer in-house games, especially AAA games, more ports and downgraded and more expensive services.
@KateGray Except the "option" that you are talking about could very well cease to exist if more and more people go towards digital.
@Rykdrew Pretty sure they put the same amount of efforts on their product every gen, they just do different things every gen.
@Banjo- Switch has the biggest amount of in-house games than any other Nintendo console though.
Any one else struggling to load comments and vote on the nintendolife website?
They should follow Apple Arcade….I would pay $5 or even $10 a month if the sponsored some developers to make games every week or even every month.
@Banjo- Going back to the current Nintendo Direct, other than Advance Wars 1+2 which was already announced last year anyways, pretty much everything they announced first party-wise for Switch coming soon are all new games though. Not sure why you think that was a low effort, even Xenoblade Chronicles 3 was announced, a game nobody thought would see reveal until E3.
It cost nearly as much as PS+ subscription and offers 25-35 year old games instead and not even Gameboy. Yeah adding Mario Kart DLC content is cool but it doesn't save the bad deal
@Specter_of-the_OLED Of course, Xenoblade Chronicles 3 is a big deal if it's as good as 1 and X but I'm discussing existing games since Switch's launch. I mean no new Zelda since Wii U (yet), no new Mario since Odyssey, no Metroid except Dread which is not a great Metroid game, no new Donkey Kong, no new Pikmin, no new Star Fox, no new F-Zero, no new Wave Race, etc. Much Kirby and Splatoon but the same Mario Kart as Wii U for eight years.
@Astral-Grain Regarding the grey area of ROMs, if the landmark case did happen, and the outcome was in favour of people being able to rip their own ROMs, I would agree with you completely, but until it happens, I would assume illegal even if highly unlikely to get caught as an individual.
Regarding the mini-consoles for Sega, that is fair, they are still being actively sold (although quality will vary).
Regarding NES and SNES mini, they are no longer sold, which means second hand is your only option, which could be stupidly expensive.
Virtual console on Wii U, I agree, but again, no longer actively supporting, no longer produced, not to mention, sooner or later the digital store will probably close.
If Nintendo chose not to release retro content at all, that would be one thing. Heck, I would probably even be happy to an extent since hopefully the resources would be put to new games rather than developing or maintaining an emulator. But since they are releasing retro content, again there is no choice bar subscription (outside the obvious of not subscribing and getting nothing full stop). I am interested but there is no way to obtain legally, and given the choice was there originally...
Donkey Kong (wii u port) - Not new game
New Super Mario/Luigi (wii u port) - Not new game
Toad Treasure (wii u port) - Not new game
Bayonetta (wii u port) - Not new game
Zelda BOTW (wii u) - Not new game
Zelda Skyward (port) - Not new game
Mario 3D world (port) - Not new game
Pikimin 3 (port) - Not new game
Big Brain Academy (port or the game is too similar that give the feeling that this game is port, like Fifa 2021/Fifa2022 or Street Fighter 2/Super Street Fighter 2.) - Not new game
Mario Kart 8 (port) - Not new game
Advance wars 1/2 (remake) - Not new game
Clubhouse games 51 (DS port or the game is too similar that give the feeling that this game is port, like Fifa 2021/Fifa2022 or Street Fighter 2/Super Street Fighter 2.) - Not new game
Musou games - all of them are the same game in pratice
Link Awakening (remake) - Not new game
Swith Sports (4/7 sports the same like wii version, the game is too similar that give the feeling that this game is port, like Fifa 2021/Fifa2022 or Street Fighter 2/Super Street Fighter 2.)
I don´t know.,..can someone complete it? Only to make a reference. I don´t really know the answer.
I don´t like all these franchises, so i have a lot games, but only Mario Kart 8 and WarioWare are from nintendo. I´ll buy Advance Wars 1+2.
I would like a new NEW.......N-E-W (not remake) Star Fox or F-zero, my 2 favorites nintendo franchises. But it only my single opinion. I respect all of other and different opinions than mine.
@Specter_of-the_OLED You just invented and assumed an entire story based on a comment I made about NSO lmfao
Feels inevitable that they'll slowly add more content as we move along. I knew I made the right choice sticking with the Wii U for legacy content.
@Rykdrew Spot on. You got it right. They also developed Animal Crossing (that was released half-empty and completed one year later), Splatoon 2 that is a lazy sequel and they published Luigi's Mansion 3 that was developed before Next Level was acquired by Nintendo. And that's it.
@SNESDisney To be fair, whilst I don't normally agree with the contents of the soapbox articles, they are far from a waste of time. It is always interesting to see other perspectives, and talking in the comments can lead to understanding even if an agreement is never fully reached.
@MS7000 Companies like Disney create demand for their legacy products by halting production for several years to increase demand and then re-release the same legacy products for additional profit.
The classic NES/SNES mini consoles were available for a good while, and seemed to be discontinued to make way for this NSO subscription because they didn't want their products competing with one another. The rumored N64 Classic is supposedly still going to be released, but I'd be willing to bet it wont happen until NSO+ is either discontinued or it has a much more substantial offering than it does currently to allow a competing product.
Nintendo is no different than Disney here. The other options for playing retro games may not be as convenient as Nintendo's own NSO/NSO+, but that's by design. If you want to own and play retro games badly enough, you have several options at your disposal besides NSO.
I haven't seen the Mega Drive Mini (Europe) in ages.
@Astral-Grain Nintendo is no different than Disney here.
True. But referencing my earlier comments, NSO is but one example. I am aware Disney and other companies are no better, but that doesn't make it okay. I also mentioned earlier that this is great for the companies, but what does that do for us as consumers? And this goes back into what I was asking about why are we (not the companies, we) okay with this lack of choice?
I disagree that such alternatives are available legally. (Edit: This comment was surprisingly well timed given the situation with the Wii U and 3DS eShops... ****)
@Burning_Spear Once my sub for PS+ expires, I’m not planning on renewing it… of course, I purchased a year on the Black Friday sale though. Foolish me. I haven’t even used online multiplayer on PS5 since purchasing it either…
The issue for me is how slow it all is, like its only know we just got Earthbound. Also where are the GBA games or hell GBC?
The main problem to me is I don't get to keep the games or DLC:s when I stop subscribing or the service shuts down. If I had no other way of playing Banjo Kazooie, or if the Mario Kart DLC were exclusive to NSO, it would have been interesting at least.
My issue is I don't like losing things. Normal NSO is nice because I literally need it to play games like Mario Maker and for cloud saves so I know I'll never stop paying for it and any games which come with it are 'forever' at least while I still play Switch as my main console.
The expansion pack on the other hand hasn't shown me that I want to keep it for the next 5 years which makes me not really want it even for one year. And losing DLC of a game you are still playing is even worse than losing a full game you are done with in my opinion.
As a side note, 600+ hours in I've finally decided to retire ACNH. So having that DLC in expansion is actually a negative for me because I would feel compelled to play it and no longer want to get sucked back in. 😵 That part isn't Nintendo's fault but I still just don't like the idea of temporary DLC.
I'm glad Kate mentioned the awful camera on banjo kazooie, I thought I must've been missing something. Somehow I didn't buy it in the n64 era when I'm sure it was much more enjoyable
@Amsterdamsters Explain 1 way that Nintendo has ripped their customers off. They're not stealing your money and you don't have to buy their products. Grow up.
Do you believe that you can only be ripped off if you are forced to buy a product or service?
@MS7000 Let's put this into perspective. If I want to play retro games legally, I have two options:
Option 1: To own the games, I would need to either buy the original games (high price) or I would need to buy one or multiple classic consoles that are no longer in production (high price).
Option 2: To rent these games, I pay only $20/year or $50/year for even more games, but the cost of it being so cheap is that I can only access the games for as long as I pay the subscription.
Option 2 (NSO) is profitable because Option 1 (Owning Games) is so expensive and inconvenient. If Nintendo offered a 3rd option, which is to make all retro games available for individual purchase, both Option 1 and Option 2 would suffer pretty significantly as a result.
You have options as a consumer, but you also need to take into account giving you what you're asking for is a bad business move for Nintendo. If NSO flops, that would be the will of the consumers. If NSO succeeds, that is also the will of the consumers.
You are absolutely right on this; subscription models are great for businesses but not for consumers.
This is why media companies are so enthusiastic and slowly taking away the option to own anything at all. They can produce a long list of all the things that you get (but don't really want) and the best bit (for them) is that you are really just renting everything.
'Why don't they offer the choice?' answers itself once you realise what's really going on.
I don't buy into the current conventional wisdom that everything is going that way anyway and therefore we should just accept it.
@MS7000 People rent houses because the cost of ownership is too high for them. I think that's a great analogy that also covers ownership of video games. People rent because of the value. Same deal with Netflix and other subscription services. However, the ability to own should never be removed.
Still not enough value for the price, but getting there.
It needs a purchase or transfer option for non subscribers to get access to the classic games. Myself, like many others, don’t play online so why waste money on a service I can’t use and lose access to games I’ve paid a sub for when I could previously purchase individual games?
@BigE The camera of Banjo-Kazooie was much improved in the Xbox remaster. Another reason to have an Xbox 😁.
@Rykdrew Maybe you already know, but if you go to the add friend section of your profile from the home menu, you can look at the people you’ve played with recently across all games and send them friend requests that way. It’s not in-game, but it might help you connect with people in the same way.
@Astral-Grain You have options as a consumer, but you also need to take into account giving you what you're asking for is a bad business move for Nintendo.
It's a bad business move generally to do what I ask. =)
As you say, it is ultimately consumer will that decides the success of this model, but I just wish people would stop thinking it (subscriptions, digital, paid online) is inevitable.
@Burning_Spear The service isn't for you. Which I think is perfectly okay! I think the service is meant to attract people who do not care about owning the DLCs and more just want to enjoy their Switch and eke out as much playtime as possible on their initial investment.
I think Nintendo's main goal with this is to turn it into a Game Pass-like service. Basically, they won't give away Nintendo first-party games (rightaway), but, I feel they will eventually keep adding to it, maybe GBA games, maybe GCN games in the future and slowly start moving the Switch's back catalogue onto it to hook people into franchises they'd never try. I think Tokyo Mirage Sessions, Xenoblade 2, Donkey Kong Country Tropical Freeze, (maybe Splatoon 2 as with Splatoon 3 coming out people will be less incentived to buy it) snare people into wanting to try the next entries in the franchise. Just imagine if at E3 Nintendo goes "we'd like to announce Xenoblade 2 is added to Expansion Pack so you have time to catch-up just in time to play Xenoblade 3." EVERYONE WOULD LOSE THEIR MINDS! Is it likely to happen? Probably not, but in the future I expect this to be how Nintendo pushes their lesser-known franchises.
I have NSO+ and feel I'm getting my money's worth. As long as the quality of games released remains at the level we've seen so far, no complaints here! But I hope the service doesn't devolve into long stretches with nothing.
First step to improve the subscription: Take Online out of it, and put something else to replace that. And then make online play for everyone for free (because we are technically already paying for internet smh). And then just name the subscription with a different title.
I am 100% fine with a subscription if it does not include online play. I just want Nintendo to take it out of the subcription... Whenever they make a new console, they better stop this "need to pay for online" nonsense.
So basically I am saying subscriptions can stay, but take online play out of them for crying out loud, people will still buy these subscriptions for all those other goodies.
@MS7000 Change is inevitable with every industry. This may mean change in a direction you personally favor, or a direction you don't personally favor. One way or another, we have to accept it.
I remember being upset as a consumer because all consoles were asking to pay monthly subscriptions simply to play games online when it used to be free. From a consumer perspective, this upset me because I already paid for internet access, so this felt like a price gouge. I later learned from a business-perspective, they needed money to keep servers running among other operational costs, and it became easier to accept it when I saw it from a business perspective.
That's not to say it's easy, it's my job as a consumer to fight corporations, if I don't, they'll take advantage of me - isn't that the logic? That being said, I can't ignore that I would have made the same choices in their position and I accept the direction we're headed because of this perspective.
I have to trust both consumers and corporations regarding where we go from here.
I've been pretty content with the online service. For the $50ish dollars I spent for the yearly subscription, I'm playing a lot of the games on the service. I know some want the Virtual Console back, but that got expensive very quickly. Now for about $4.20 a month, I have access to a wide variety of games across a number of solid consoles.
I do wish they would improve voice chat (ditch the app, make it native) and having party chat with your friends, but eh... oh well.
Also, clean up the eShop. So many low budget garbage titles getting released every day and burying the solid titles, hiding them from gamers.
@EVIL-C I can't find any reason to hate the Virtual Console. Even emulation was better on Wii, sixteen years ago.
Good point that subscriptions mean guaranteed future revenue and so it's easier to budget for future expense. Nintendo's problem is the subscription still isn't worth it. Old games don't sell systems or subscriptions, new games do. With MK8 DLC specifically, you need to be subscribed from 18 March until the end of 2023 for all the tracks, and beyond that to keep playing them. I can't see Nintendo putting Mario Kart in its entirely as "free" with a subscription, much less major franchises like Mario and Zelda. That's in stark contrast to the service for Xbox, and why, if Nintendo goes down this subscription path at all, it would be new technology that would flawless stream games. While they still will persist with game ownership, there will be an option to buy a "dumb" device for streaming purposes.
Life will be a subscription model soon. I will support whoever maintains physical gaming. I subbed to game pass for a few months but only played it a little bit. It's like the Netflix of gaming. I spend more time looking for something to play than actually playing. I can see the value but for me, I prefer to buy the games individually.
@Banjo- It may have been a vocal online minority, but for years I read endless comments from those hoping the VC would disappear. They achieved their goal. 😭😡 I discovered dozens of new games I'd never played before. I owe hundreds of hours of happiness to the VC. ♥
@EthanVW not all games! I have 33 games, 14 online, only 2 i can use this tool. The other games ...the people who played with me does not appear.
I was already fine with NSO, but the Mario Kart DLC is amazing. I'm on a family plan with my wife and kids and a few other family members. We would have had to buy several $25 packs. Also I don't care about owning the DLC. I'm not a collector and just want to have access to games to play them at the moment. In a few years Mario Kart 9 will be out on the Super Switch and I won't care about ever playing Mario Kart 8 anymore. I certainly don't play old Mario Kart games now.
Of course not, Game Pass adds more than just 2 measly games every month or whenever they feel like it.
At the current speed I don't see why I should waste 50 bucks per year if I can get online play for 20 bucks.
Depends on how much you like genesis and 64 games. For me most of those games have aged poorly and the ones I do like I have better ways to play. Coupled with the fact I am done with animal crossing, and the only value the expansion pack provides over the base package is the Mario kart dlc. But wait all those tracks are in play online even if you don’t have the dlc and that is the main appeal of Mario kart to me. So yeah the expansion pack, in my opinion, is not worth the price. But if they put thousand year door on it then count me in.
"the burden of proving the value of the service is on the company"
They're slowly moving. Moving, but soooo slowly. I've had a subscription for the basic package since it was released and I'm happy with the retro Snes games I get for the yearly price I pay. I still haven't been convinced to pay for the expansion package, but since they started trying to add some more value, I've been paying more attention to it.
But I don't feel like paying the subscription to have access to play the MK dlc because I'd like to HAVE it. That's a point for me
If they move switch games on there it would be at the very least on the successor.
sigh… Listen Ninty (Navi Voice), I would literally gladly pay $100/year for a comprehensive & extensive Nintendo Virtual Console Subscription Service (basically like every other popular streaming/subscription service currently) if Nintie would just give us all the platforms + catalogues we want on competent legal proprietary emulators i.e. with rewind, fast-forward, turbo, more save states, downloadable/uploadable/transferrable community shared saves, cheats, scanned game manuals, multiple suspend play, custom button-mapping, online netplay with chat, filters, borders/themes and/or widescreen adaptation... most of which is already included notable free emulators out in the wild for some time now.
Nintendo has such a beloved and cherished archive of gaming history... yet they either neglect it, withhold it or give it little TLC. C'mon pick it up and get it together with the NSO service quick, fast and in a hurry please Nintendo! ... Cuz this? This ain't it right now.
... Wun can only hope.
@Spiders TBH the Wii VC was crazy overpriced IMO - I had like 30 Wii Games total (including VC) and I have 105 switch games and am looking forward to three from the recent direct!
I disliked the wii VC and people missing it is always weird to me
@Rykdrew That’s unfortunate…I’ve never had a problem using the feature, but I guess we just play different games. Hopefully they add it sometime soon.
I don’t know what they could add to entice me. I want to buy my games and then own them. Even Sin and Punishment, a game I very much want to play that’s unavailable anywhere else isn’t enough. I just really don’t like the idea of my games disappearing once I decide not to keep paying the fee, or when Nintendo eventually decides to end the service
A lot of wishful thinkers answered that poll. Like being married to an alcoholic and thinking they might change...one day.
Nintendo's own track record with classic titles on the Wii and Wii U's Virtual Console services show us what to expect.
An initial drop of greatest hits. Drip feed ensues. When the next console generation hits, Nintendo doesn't continue the catalog where they left off. They start all over again. Lather, rinse, repeat. This ensures the same 20+ titles keep coming back again and again. If anything, their classic title support has worsened. Wii's VC service emulated more consoles.
If they allowed subscribers to keep included DLC even if letting their subscriptions lapse, we might be onto something. But as it stands, unless you have money to burn, I still don't see the value. At least Playstation Plus members see incredible discounts and free titles every month
Funny. Nintendo just announced that all the games on the 3ds and Wii u eshops will be forever unpurchasable a year from now. So to all of those who tout these subscription services I ask, what happens when Nintendo shuts down NSO in 10 years or so? What happens to all those games? With the Wii u eshop you at least can play all the games you bought and downloaded long after the shops close down. Like you can with Wii shop channel games. But with subscription services. Once they’re shut down, the games are gone forever. I can still pop my Sega Genesis cart of Sonic 2 into my system and play it to this very day. 30 years later. How many games released solely on subscription services will be playable 30 or even 10 years down the line? These services might seem like a good deal now. But will they still be so if you can no longer play your favorite games once these services inevitably shut down? Something to keep in mind as time elapses.
One great thing about Nintendo’s offering is this: they haven’t removed anything on offer on NSO so far (expect Mario 35, which they said from the start was a limited time thing).
I would hate this service if things got replaced and you didn’t know how long things were going to stay, but everything’s still there.
I don’t know how Sony and Microsoft are doing on that front, but to me that’s a huge thing no one’s talking about.
@Banjo- I bought my lad an xbox series x, when it launched, looking back I don't know how I even found one. I never bother with it though. If I see rare replay going cheap , I'll maybe pick it up
Everyone is moving to a subscription model and hoping that their customers will just set it and forget it. That has been a good business model up to this point. But with EVERYONE doing it I think the music will stop at some point with people realizing they are just throwing money away (if you’re playing NSWO you aren’t watching that Netflix sub you are paying for, etc). Then many companies are going to have to figure out a new model or die.
It offers a pathetic amount of content when compared to Game Pass. So definitely Nintendo is learning the benefits. They offer almost nothing and get loads of cash!!!
Lots of things said, and many repeats of what was said before.. my 2 cents..
1. For people talking about the value of the subscription, it’s not the same for everyone.. for me personally it quite ok, since i share it with my brother, both have kids.. i like animal crossing (would have bought the dlc), but have now finished the dlc, and already not playing it that much anymore..and some will transfer back to ac… when i decided to expand i hoped more dlc would follow, which makes the mario kart dlc a surpise ‘free’ new content for one of my favourite games…. Even if mario kart 8 is someone i will play, even if mk9 is released on switch ultra.. interested if nso will merge into that, then i will probably be subscribed to nintendo for ever…
2. To the be people who like to own…. I have a collection of lots of old consoles (a vectrex!) so i sympatise, but I also wonder what owning means these day.. you buy a license to play the game. And even if you buy a physical release, it’s often not playable anymore because of updates… so i wonder if we’re not fooling ourselves we’re still ‘owning’ a game… (and the online component will be shut down when it’s not profitable). I now feel my vinyl albums are the last proper owning thing, cd’s are just another way to store data in the end.
3. When the wii virtual console came out, there was talk about a subscrition service pre netflix, and when it were digital downloads, people were dissapointed… still i liked the service as well, discovering lots of pc engine games (now have the mini), butafter the first 2 years the the content (or maybe the novelty) stopped. As well. I really liked thenwiishop magic when downloading…
And while i understand the want to buy an individual game, nintendo is aiming for a different consumer, those who once in a while dip in an old game… I happily spend an afternoon playing banjo kazooi… probably do that once or twice more, and that’s fine for me, and i suspect many others, probably wouldn’t have payed 10 quid for it.
And that’s it.. rate the service for the value it gives you, not for the value you would like it to have… the grass is always greener on the other side (psn games are only twice a year intersting, enjoy game pass while it is cheap) …
And don”t blame a company for being a company.. nintendo is the smallest of the three and can only develop new games when making a nice profit…. The messed up the wiiU, which probably makes them avoiding lots of risks with the switch, so developed lots of nostalgic stuff the knew would sell… Now that game is nearly finished.. so it’s interesting if they can offer value in 2024 and beyond… and we will be here.. many buying it because it’s nintendo, and complain about it…. But if they can wow the big public, we’ll see..
It's far from the best subscription service with regards to its competitors but I take solace that it's not part of the "core" of the Switch ecosystem. I regularly subscribe for the base family plan for one thing which is online. On my PS4 I just feel its too expensive for the purpose of playing online. Sure there are free games but I am not interested in those. Also a lot of PS4 games are online focused which makes PS Plus sort of a core service for a Playstation console owner. Gamepass on the other hand I feel is really a core component of the Xbox ecosystem. I've planned on unsubscribing for NSO many times before but there always a game or two me and my family are needing online for. Say right now its Pokemon Sword, and previously it was Minecraft, ACNH and Splatoon.
Mentioned it in the other topic regarding this but my main problem with subscription models is when they are the only option for certain games.
For example with gamepass you have a "buy and keep" option which lets you purchase a game for a discount if you enjoy it (even if you dont enjoy it) wheres with the NSO, the classic games on the service are exclusive to the service, i know they are technically a "bonus" but i would love to be able to buy the likes of Banjo-Kazooie to own on switch.
@BigE Good, Rare Replay was cheap even at launch but it's usually included in the digital sales. Imagine how much Nintendo would charge you for a collection of 30 games with extras and a native resolution upgrade (1080p and 4K) and frame rate boost (Grabbed by the Ghoulies)!
@EVIL-C Yep, you are right. Virtual Consoles was impressive and convenient and it's a shame what we're offered now.
@Banjo- I've just ordered the xbox one version for four quid 😆. You're fault!! To be honest, mainly to relive my zx spectrum childhood days of jet pac, atic atac and all the 3d isometric games.
Most people who have a Switch and play games often enough to think about paying for an online subscription probably have Mario Kart. Which means for most people the Expansion Pack is going to be worth it now. AC appeals to a ton pf very casual gamers but Mario Kart is more core gamer Nintendo so I think that sweetens the deal for many more people than the AC DLC did.
Between N64, Genesis, presumably GB and GBA in the future, the two DLCs and presumably a small number of more DLCs in the future, the extra $30/year, literally only a very cheap $2.5/mo, is becoming a great deal.
It's already a decent deal now with MK DLC coming soon, and within a couple years continually added content people will forget they were ever outraged by the subscription. Sure Nintendo is adding games too slowly to it as they have done sinxe launching Switch Online, but what they are doing is just slowly building the ultimate Nintendo subscription that will be cheap and appeal to many tens of millions of gamers.
@BigE 😁 Cool! Can't beat that. It was the first Xbox game I've ever bought. I had not played Spectrum games before but with the rewind feature and crisp graphics it was a nice experience. I have beaten these Spectrum games this far with all the milestones: Jetpac, Lunar Jetman, Atic Atac and Sabrewulf.
@Banjo- The current membership concept is way better than the VC, unless you enjoy spending a ton of money to get a handful of games. There's a reason why renting movies almost completely died off in the wake of Netflix - people prefer cheap access to many options on demand. This is why Switch Online is so much better than shelling out $5 to $10 dollars for every old game you think you might want. The VC was cool, but Switch Online is soooo much better. The dollar to game ratio has plummeted and the games are better (nintendo builds online play into these old games). The only reason people complain is because games get added more slowly because they have to put actual work into each game to add the online play and whatnot. But thats well worth it for Nintendo building out the ultimate Nintendo online games service. And many retro third party games from Nintendo systems you can still get in VC-like form because many of them have been released in collections for the system, so thats not a concern either. Yes they should already have GB and GBA available and they are building it slowly, but what they're building blows the VC out of the water.
@Slownenberg Why not offer both choices and let consumers choose what is "better"? One thing I forgot to mention is that Nintendo Switch Online requires online verification if you haven't used it in a few days, not weeks or anything, just a few days and if you're not online at that particular moment, you can't even play.
Nintendo does seem to be dragged into these subscription models, kicking and screaming, thanks to Microsoft. It's a good direction to take, but it's apparent that it's still extremely early. The value of NSO in comparison to Game Pass is abysmal, and downright laughable. Let's see if they ramp up giving us actual value in a few years. $30 for some ancient retro games, one DLC for a current game, and one for an 8 year old game, is still not worth the price for NSO.
Well, it isn't anywhere near GamePass but to be fair nothing comes close to the value of GamePass at the moment. I still think NSO is solid enough for what it is. It's also cheaper, especially if you are part of a family membership.
I've discovered plenty of retro games that I enjoyed that I would never have bought if they were offered via VC like in the past. I do think the frequency of added games should be a lot higher though. I also question decisions like not including FE1 in NSO. Offering DLC with subscription is a pretty good call though imo and I hope we see more of that in the future.
@HolyGeez03 That makes $50/year for Switch Online, you can't simply purchase the $30 expansion if you want the DLCs.
XBox Game Pass has over 100 games in the catalog, half of them being quality, full $60 games.
There is a huge gap between both services here.
based on what they've done so far, i think they'll keep growing the service.
Well, I'll agree with one thing - GamePass it aint
Big Brain Academy on Switch, 51 Clubhouse Games, Fire Emblem Warriors 2017, Hyrule Warriors Age of Calamity, and Switch Sports are all new games and not ports, whether you personally like them or not. (Remakes are also not ports either.)
Objectively speaking, Nintendo has published far more non-ports on Switch than ports, but I don't think you are arguing in good faith at all since you seem to classify new games as old ports based on your personal biases, so I won't engage with you further.
@GannonBanned I don’t know about that. Arcade Archives and similar re-releases still hang around that 8-10 dollar mark, plus the fact that Wii VC transferred to the next generation (Wii U) and you’re only way to play on Switch is renting with apparently worse emulation and features, I think it was priced appropriately.
Also, Wii can hook up to old CRTs which I’m pretty sure modern systems can’t without some expensive adapters. I think that’s adds value as well.
Wii U VC also added GBA which is still absent from Switch. How much was the Castlevania Advance Collection just released for?
I think your “overpriced” is subjective, but if you look at the market over time, it’s ended up being a pretty good value objectively.
@Spiders that’s a fair rebuttal - I just remember them wanting an absolutely melting $19.99 for Ms. Pac Man in 2011
@westman98 "but I don't think you are arguing in good faith".
I don't understand why you wrote this for me. I just gave a personal opinion. I didn't mean to state anything as absolute truth. The cool thing about this chat is to exchange experiences. Nobody is absolutely right or wrong. I quoted Big Brain because it is very similar to the wii version I have. Very much so. 4 more minigames only. Clubhouse Games 51 is extremely similar to Clubhouse Games on the 3DS. For me (my personal opinion)...it's like Street Fighter 2 and Street Fighter 2 turbo. But it's ok if you have another opinion. There's nothing wrong, all right. I will never assume that YOU have good or bad faith in an online conversation like you did with me. But I'm not upset. All well. I'm not an enemy for thinking differently
A sequel being similar to the predecessor does not make it a port.
Like, I am no fan of all the annual sports games but FIFA 22 is not a port of FIFA 21.
@westman98 I understand what you mean. People who have the perception that Nintendo has made a lot of ports on Nintendo Switch are using the word "port" to express how they are feeling about Nintendo with Nintendo Switch.
And you are correcting them, including me, by saying that these games are not all ports. Your point is correct. I will change what I wrote. Instead of writing "port", I'll write: port or games that are too similar that give the feeling that these games are port, like Fifa 2021/Fifa2022."
Criticism from those who are not viewing a lot of games other than the Nintendo Wii U, or who expected games with a higher level of differentiation, compared to the previous version, or games that were too similar to each other, or less port, is still valid. Because these games really seem too similar to each other, or are ports. They just used the word port wrongly. But criticism, with the right words, arrives at the same place.
I know that you can answer me comparing other consoles and all, but the feeling that there could have been more different games on the Switch is real.
It exists and it's important information for Nintendo's marketing department to work with. Because it's a consumer perception . And the consumer needs to be understood. The consumer doesn't have to make an effort to understand the company. It's the opposite. And it's better to analyze this perception of gamers than to hide or pretend that this perception. the does not exist.
I would like Donkey Kong Tropical Freeze, for example, to be a brand new Donkey Kong, and not a port of the Nintendo Wii U. It's just an example. You and anyone else have the right to answer: "the wii U didn't succeed and Nintendo didn't want to invest money in a sequel or an entirely new game". Okay, that must be it. But in the perception of many Nintendo customers, it was not the best decision. Or it wasn't a pro-client decision, just a pro-company decision.
Of course, space to write here is short. And my text is too big. It's not possible to write the whole idea in a single post and I want to avoid a very prolonged conversation. But yes, I understand your point. Did you understand mine?
Sorry, but the blanket complaint of "sequel is too similar to predecessor" could effectively be used to discredit most video games. Very few games are like Breath of the Wild that totally smash franchise conventions; sometimes, even new IPs are very very similar to older games (i.e. Elden Ring is "open world Dark Souls").
I never denied that Nintendo has ported a ton of Wii U games to Switch - that's one of the reasons why the Wii U eShop is being shutdown by the end of March 2023. Most of those Wii U ports have sold well, with Mario Kart 8 Deluxe in particular having become the 2nd best-selling Nintendo game of all time, so I don't think there is really any actual negative consumer attitude toward those Wii U ports, despite what you claim.
I think this in an interesting conversation. @Rykdrew adjusted his position and introduces the idea of a pejorative “port”, and I think @westman98 should back up a little bit trying make disqualify “port” as a knock on releases to similar to their predecessor because it “could discredit everything”.
Just like “shovelware” has grown beyond it’s definition of cheap knock-offs and ports to all low-budget, low-effort seeming games, maybe there is a case for “port” expanding as well.
Splatoon 2 and Smash had this problem, and though I thought it was unfortunate because the rumors were that they were actual Wii U ports caused a lot of confusion, ultimately, it maybe it should be up to the players (and good couplets) to decide wether a game has done enough to distinguish itself from it’s predecessors to be worthwhile.
So while I think I actually agree with @westman98, I think their losing the value of a really good point by @Rykdrew in trying to win an argument.
I think “update” is a better term than port because it has less meaning already, but there should be some kind of pejorative to games people feel are low-effort, low-change cash grabs that are in some fuzzy way “ports”.
Tap here to load 147 comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...