Topic: The Nintendo Switch Online Subscription Service Thread

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.

3 quid a month?

The price itself isn't much of a precedent. For a single user it's $60AU/year or $5AU/mo. For comparison PS+ is $7AU/mo, XBox Game Pass is $10AU/mo, Google Play Pass $8AU/mo. So price isn't really much of an issue here, the question is more whether or not it'll have enough content to justify that price. And at this stage the service hasn't even launched yet so we're really just speculating

Honestly, I think people romanticise the VC a bit too much. I get that psychologically people want to "own" content. Literally. I have shelves full of CDs, BluRays and Vinyl in a collection that continues to expand so I get it. But objectively the VC was a horrible value if you were even remotely committed to the service.

And the fact that you were curating the collection yourself, card in hand, wasn't a positive. All that meant was that playing something outside of your comfort zone was a gamble. Which isn't a great thing for discovery. Between the Wii and Wii U VC my N64 purchases were Mario 64, Ocarina of Time, Mario Kart 64 and Paper Mario, all incredibly safe purchases (a total of ~$60AU BTW, two years worth of the expansion). Was I interested in games like Sin & Punishment at the time? Sure. Was I willing to gamble ~$20AU on it.... no....

10 pounds for the year for NSO + expansion

Wish there was an alternative option of buying the games you wanted.

N64 games for £5 or so. I’m not paying that much to subscribe. No way.

It's a bad precedent because everyone gets to give a bundled game a go, where DLC is only of use to people who have the base game. How many of us would have even bothered with Tetris 99 if you'd needed to buy a base game just to get access to it, for instance?

Of course, if they were to offer all forthcoming first party DLC as part of the bundle that'd be a different matter. Then you'd at least be getting something, whatever your taste in games was.

However, if it's just for one random game per year, it can only go downhill after Animal Crossing because there's very little else that Nintendo makes of similarly broad appeal. I'm pretty sure there wouldn't be many people signing up if they were offering, say, Fire Emblem's DLC.

Nobody should be writing it off as too expensive without considering joining a group. £10 for a full year. That easy.

@skywake You are my favorite person now, thinking exactly my thoughts on all of this. With the NSO offerings, everyone is always clamoring for all the big Nintendo games. Well guess what? You can play those a million other places, just like the Genesis games everyone is saying they wish were not added for that very reason. My favorite part of the service has been the more obscure games I've never played before. If they were on a VC for $5, $8, or $10 a piece, there is no way I would buy them individually. I still have never played Sin & Punishment for that very reason, and I am super excited to finally get to.

@GamingBread shhhhh... We don't speak about that one...(but possibly yes)

The DLC thing is just bizarre. At the absolute very most only about 40% of the Switch Userbase will have any interest in it. Realistically it won’t be anywhere near that once you take out people who have New Horizons but aren’t interested in that DLC. So the rest of the Userbase now has the perception that Nintendo are asking them to pay for something of absolutely no value to them to get to the other stuff they may want.

I know people mate say the same about paying extra for free games with PS Plus/GWG to get online play. But at least those are standalone games the suer can try on a whim, rather than DLC.

Even by the baffling standards Nintendo have set with their handling of Online gaming going all the way back to Iwata in 2002/3, OTD a weird one.