Topic: The Nintendo Switch Online Subscription Service Thread

@dionysos283 Aim high, and lower the price later, get good press, profit?

That new subscription price is bonkers. It should come with a complimentary tub of Vaseline because really, they're just screwing you imo.

I just read an article (sorry I don't have a link, it was just one that my phone sent me) in which Emily Rogers says the price is almost assuredly due to licensing issues. Apparently, Sega is making a lot of money from this because they were mad at how little they made from the Wii VC, and that is why they did not support the VC on Wii U at all. And if they had to pay Sega so much money, imagine what they had to pay Microsoft to get Rare games.

@Xyphon22 Ya I'm sorry but no, Even if that was the case Nintendo should have just dropped Sega from the deal if it was that high, Nintendo is just being greedy.

@Xyphon22 I read about that on LRG's Discord this morning. I wonder how true it is. If it is true, I'd rather they went with TurboGrafx16 instead.

@Pokester99 Yes!

I think the real reason is because Microsoft (and later Sony) made it acceptable in the first place.

• DS/Wii - Free online though so was PS3 (the only one with paid online was Microsoft with Xbox/Xbox 360)
• 3DS/Wii U - Free online though so was PS3 (see above, 3DS and Wii U came out before PS4 and XB1 were announced)
• Switch - Free online initially because Wii U flopped but became gradually more expensive as the Switch became a gigantic success. PS4, XB1, PS5 and Series X|S all have paid online at $60 a year.

They ain'tz gittin my monies!!

Nintendo: Add GBA, GBC, many more N64 games, maybe Mother 3 and some other impossible to find games and then I will justify the price for myself and dip my foot in. In Australia this is a hell of a lot of money that I'm not willing to spend at the moment. I was lucky enough to have a stable full-time job during the rough past 2 years but a lot of people lost theirs (yes I'm in Melbourne, the world's most locked down city, still in lockdown lmao) and I can't imagine anybody looking at this kind of price and thinking it's reasonable in any way shape or form.

Yes, if you divide it into months then it doesn't look all that bad, but why can't we then get a monthly option? Also, the inclusion of the DLC boggles my mind. I don't understand why we can't dispose of all that and make it $15-20 a year instead.

I don't act entitled ever, because Nintendo doesn't owe me anything. Video games are a luxury but there are many other things to be spending hard-earned money on and this ain't it. I'll re-think this when they make a better deal. In its current state, this is bad.

Honestly I think everyone's maths is off here. Really this is pretty damn good value if you want the DLC and pretty bad value if you don't. And in terms of the length of time you're going to play it, if you're not going to be playing it for more than a year that just means you're not locked into the expansion. There's no other honest way to slice it

Lets look at this objectively. This DLC? It's pretty substantial, it could have easily been a full standalone release. They could've charged $60-70AU for it and would've been pretty bussiness as usual. I know for a fact that at least one person on my family plan would've brought it at that price. The family plan for NSO is only $55AU more, it's already better value than this scenario would've been for the first year

But it's not a full retail game, it's a $37AU paid DLC expanson. So this moves the needle a tad. If you are on an individual membership you're paying an additional $30/year for the expansion. A year of the expansion is justified to get access to the DLC. For a family membership? You have to have two people on your plan who would be in for the DLC and then it's worth it for the first year

Beyond the first year? IF nothing more is added that people in my family group are interested in it becomes a pretty poor value very fast. As you said it's unlikely people will be playing this DLC a year from now which, rationally, is part of what makes the expansion a better value for this year. But because of that there will need to be more content of that value or greater added before people loose interest in this DLC

So that's where I'm at. This is a pretty damn good value for me but only conditionally. If Nintendo add something of the value of the Animal Crossing DLC once a year? It'll just barely struggle to maintain that level of value and I'll probably drop back down the cheaper tier at the end of the year. If we get something reasonably significant monthly? Then it's a pretty good value service. TBH I'm expecting something in the middle.

I think we have to look a bit beyond just what's on the table now if we're assessing long term value. And this is just speculation at this point. But given this DLC? I think it's fairly safe to say retrospectively that if this was there from day 1 it probably would've included stuff like the Smash Bros DLC. If it was on the Wii U it probably would've included stuff like NES Remix and Wii Sports Club. If this is the tier of stuff this service includes and they maintain that level of content? I'm ok with the price

Yeah, it's a fine deal if you're an Animal Crossing fan and arguably a great deal if you play AC and want N64 games, like me.

However, it's a really bad precedent to be offering DLC as part of the subscriber bundles. Even for a signature game like Animal Crossing there are two thirds of Switch owners who don't have it, and things generally get worse from there in terms of finding a game where the DLC would make a compelling offering.

It's also a really bad deal for anyone who just wants the N64 games particularly seeing as there'll be no other way of getting them. Well, at least not legally; I'd imagine that the pirates will be rubbing their hands with glee over this announcement.

At least with the Sega games you're going to have other options. I've already got most of them via previous collections that they've put out. Also, if you don't really want any of it, you can stick at the $20 tier.

So yes, I'll be subscribing, but I'm not exactly enthusiastic. Unless they hit the jackpot again with a comparable DLC offering that I want or really pull their finger out when it comes to the retro games offering. For $30 a year, I'd want the entire Rare back catalogue for the N64, GoldenEye included, or at least half a dozen of the best GameCube games.

If people are interested in joining my family subscription. I might have space.
It will start on the day of release. Will charge a fair price through PayPal.

I feel like the original Animal Crossing used retro games to sell Animal Crossing, and now they're using Animal Crossing to sell retro games.

Naah, Animal Crossing pretty much sells itself these days and I'm sure that'll be the main driver for the subscription.

It's a slap in the face for those who just want the N64 games though. Nintendo put the announcement out, got a lot of feedback as to what people would be willing to pay and then decided to charge three times as much.

@Matt_Barber
Yeah, the long term value is entirely dependent on how much it expands beyond what is currently anounced for it. I'd be pretty damn confident in its value if before the end of the year there is one or more things added to it outside of the current scope. Basically, if they add some other DLC or even start releasing Wii/GC titles to it I'm pretty happy

But if we get to E3 next year and there's nothing added outside of what's already anounced? I would be dropping the subscription. Also I wouldn't be subscribing to this just for the Animal Crossing DLC. In my mind at this point I'm paying for just the Animal Crossing DLC at a discounted rate in exchange for access expiring after a year. The N64 titles are a nice bonus but are not worth continuing to pay for. And beyond this next year I'm out unless something (or somethings) else of a similar value that either me or someone in my group is interested in is added before the subscription expires

I have two spaces in my family group available. Open to anyone worldwide with a PayPal account. £10 for the year, maybe even a bit less, for the full kaboodle. Hit me up on the email address in my sig if you're interested.

I've seen a few comments around the place that adding DLC to a subscription sets a "bad precedent". I'm not sure I buy that argument. How is having DLC on a subscription any different to having games in a subscription? I don't see the difference

There's maybe(?) a case to be made for Nintendo to justify questionable pricing by giving away DLC more often in those over-priced things. The only bad precedent is the highly questionable pricing imo.

The logical thing do do would be not to subscribe to nso or renew it. As far as retro offerings are concerned VC was a far better deal in the long run especially since you yourself were curating your retro library with what you wanted. Locking the legacy offline content behind a online play paywall is just bonkers.

I think that 50 bucks is not a great deal, especially if you already played the NES or SNES offerings. But I think it will be a good deal at some point. Right now Nintendo are just setting the price point for the next several years of the service. At some point they will add enough new content to make it worth at least going back for a 3-6 month plan.

The thing about 64 games is that most of them, while being more substantial than the SNES, they are all pretty much one and done for me. The only one worth dipping into again after completion is probably Starfox or Mario Kart 64, but the later already has an improved version on Switch.

So I'll be waiting for more games down the line, then sign up again.

But it would be a slick and slippery move by Nintendo if they collect people's sub money, only to then add games one every 3 months or so. What they did with the SNES online was disappointing. Put on some truly terrible Jaleco games once in a blue moon, while ignoring some of the greatest fighting and RPGs on the system.

They need to expand the service every month with content people care about, especially if the consumer is paying this premium subscription price.