Topic: The Nintendo Switch Online Subscription Service Thread

@NintendoByNature
I forgot about the platinum point discounts. Either way it wasn't really a major part of the service. At least not until the dying days

I guess my question on your second point though would be why? If you agree VC ultimately cost more, which it did, how is it a better value? Why does "owning" the game matter? This is a media where selling off your collection once you've finished is a part of the culture. Why should you be afraid of expiry?

Just buy a year if and when you think it has enough value. Then let it expire once you've had your fill

Edit: clearly I'm not the only person with this view

Just to add on to this as I think people are forgetting this; games like Banjo and the genesis games are here due to licensing agreements. What happens when they expire?

Sure, they could renew the license, but will they? What happens when the 3rd parties want more money? Will the price of the subscription increase to match? Or what happens when the 3rd decides they have a better service for their games? What then? It's not like you will be able to play them in that instance.

At least with virtual console, you owned the games if you brought them even after they are removed from the store, a la Donkey Kong Country on the Wii. And that is a Nintendo game for crying out loud.

@Xyphon22 to your first question, mostly the Zelda games and a handful of mario ones. The 'now I get them all' is a fair point for sure. And that's one of the bonus' to having NSO.
@skywake I think your question of why again points back to my earlier point. Neither mind set is wrong. Value is a subjective thing. What's more valuable to me is having games I'll be able to keep forever( pending my system doesn't crap out). Sounds like a subscription rental service is more valuable to you, and there's nothing wrong with that opinion, or mine. Some would rather rent and pay less, and some would rather own and pay more.
The answer to your other question is, for me, a simple one. Having a game I can jump into at any time I want, is a huge bonus. For instance, I can still jump into games on my nes, snes, genesis, gameboy and 64 all these years later. Games nintendo doesn't even have available for purchase. Had I rented these 25+ years ago or had a subscription, I wouldn't be able to do that today.

I hope you guys know I'm really not trying to argue or anything like that. Nor am I trying to change your mind. There's something for everyone and I just happened to be on the other side of the fence for this one.

I'm with you on preferring to own games than having a subscription service, @NintendoByNature .... Although I don't replay most games, there's some I do
At least with, say, GamePass, you can try all the games & if you like it enough even after finishing it, it's also available to buy

@BruceCM there ya go. That's a great point.

Especially for NSO, as I don't subscribe, @NintendoByNature .... Guess that makes me biased, lol

That’s what I meant in my original post. If you want the DLC and plan on using it throughout the whole year, this is a good deal, but I don’t think too many people would use the DLC for that long. Although, I’m now realizing if you bought the DLC by itself, it wouldn’t really matter how long you used it for. So, yeah my math was wrong. It would be a deal if you didn’t use it for the whole year.

@NintendoByNature
I'd argue that technically one of our mindsets is more correct than the other. My point is more that you're giving way too much weight to the risk of losing access to these games. Your fear of dropping the subscription and losing access to a game is larger than the additional cost of buying these games one at a time.

Your example of being able to still jump on your Gameboy and boot it up to play games on it is nice. I still have my original Gameboy and SNES with a small-to-medium collection of games. But if I was honest with myself? They're display pieces and at this point so is my Wii and Wii U with all the VC purchases I made. I don't play games on them and haven't for years. Do I like knowing that I could? Yes. But I don't

There was a pretty good video on this a few years back. Not for game subscriptions but the psychology of loss aversion:

Well, I never had the Nintendo consoles before Switch, only a DS & then 2DS, @skywake .... I usually trade in most physical games after finishing them but there's some I played several times before doing so
As for NSO, I thus have no nostalgia for the games in that now or that'll come, so that makes it not worthwhile to me

@skywake
The switch online sub is far more costly than buying the games individually on VC. If you don’t play online and only want access to the games why are you forced to pay for the service? If Nintendo would use the account system we should be able to redownload the games we already purchased through VC (or at least a small VC transfer fee for say $5 to transfer all vc from one gen to the next). Right now I’d you wanted full access that’s $50 a year! In 4 years time that’s over $200! You could pick and choose games on vc for a lot cheaper and never lose access as I have in the past when I subbed for a month to switch online. I didn’t have internet at home (still don’t) so I lost half my sub time due to the check in policy and didn’t once play any online games.

@GameOtaku But if I had to buy all the games individually that I have really wanted to play on NSO, I would have spent well over that $200 already. But instead I've only spent $35 (I have the family plan). And that's before the more expensive N64 games come out. And how often over the years to come am I going to replay those games? I'll tell you. Precisely zero, so the fact that I don't "own" them is irrelevant. This way is much better, cheaper, and I get to play way more games than I ever would (or did) with a virtual console system in place.

@Xyphon22
But not everyone is the same way when it comes to games. I’m constantly going back and replaying older games even if I’ve completed them already. I find them to be fun and I like to challenge myself to try new ways to complete them. Just earlier today I spent $25 on four nes and one game boy game at a local flea market. So to me and no any others VC is by far a more appealing option over the switch online rentals.

If you want to argue if a game has value that’s more subjective. I love Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde on NES and would buy it in a heartbeat on VC but I’m probably in the minority but the opposite is true of games like Tecmo Bowl which is well received but it’s not a game I’d buy in any capacity.

@GameOtaku That's fine, and like I said before, everyone is different and neither way is inherently better. But just today you spent more on five games than what a year-long NSO membership costs, so how can you say it's cheaper? And while I have never done any kind of research, there are two things I am willing to bet are true. First, more people are like me and only play a game once or twice and then move on. And two, if there is a game you want to come back to over and over again, you probably already have it on its original system, or at least in some manner. I know I do. The original Legend of Zelda is my favorite game ever, but I never bought it on any VC because I own the NES cartridge and can play it whenever I want already. So what would be the point of a VC? You already own those games!

@Xyphon22
But with vc being digital it should be easily transferable and it will last longer than my physical copies. There are only a finite number of carts available after all for something 20-30 plus years old. It would certainly make certain games more easily accessible.

@GameOtaku Yes, they should be easily transferrable, and that would make them easily accessible. But that's not how the VC is done. Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde would never be on the VC, and even if it was, it wouldn't transfer to the next system. If that's another reason you want to be mad at Nintendo, fine. That's fair. But in the meantime, that's simply another reason why I personally think NSO is way better than VC ever was.

If it has no value to you then it has no value to you. I'm not trying to convince anyone that they should be subscribing to this service. The only point I'm trying to make is that the perpetual ownership of the VC model was not "better value" than the "rental" model of NSO. Especially for people who sunk a lot of money into the VC and would have continued to do so

@GameOtaku
It's clear you have some kind of thing against online so there's nothing anyone can say or do to make you happy. Nintendo could make this service $10/year and add every single system upto the Wii and you'd still have issues with it I suspect. For what it's worth I agree with your point that VC purchases on previous platforms should have been honoured. But they haven't been, which is just another reason the VC wasn't a great value. I'd much rather a subscription that opens up a larger library than Nintendo asking me to pay full price for Super Mario Kart again.

Also, excuse Australian pricing, but for me I'm on a family plan shared amongst four. Effectively I'm paying $26AU/year for NSO+. If the Switch was just VC as usual I know I would've picked some up more classic titles. I would've brought Stunt Race FX, Super Mario Kart, Super Tennis and probably Donkey Kong Country. N64 I probably pick up Mario Kart 64, Sin & Punishment and Banjo. On the Wii SNES titles were $12AU each and N64 was $15AU except for Sin & Punishment which was $19AU. $100AU right there, 4 years of NSO from 1/4 of a family plan. Basically gets me through a console cycle which no doubt if we had a VC model they'd reset my classic purchases again

But it's also worth noting we get other stuff in NSO+. For that same $26AU this year for a shared NSO+ I'm getting a $37AU DLC which, while I'm not as hyped about it as some, if I'm being honest I was going to pick up anyways. There are also the game vouchers which I've used twice this year saving me ~$10AU v cheapest retailers in total or ~$50AU compared to full eShop pricing. Before we even consider the classic games I'm conservatively ahead by ~$20AU this year. So for me this is definitely a service worth subscribing to. If I was on a single membership? I'd be down by ~$15AU this year, so for this year for someone who uses the service like I do it's effectively ~$15AU to get access to SNES and N64 titles. Which is pretty decent

If you're in a different boat? Fair enough. If you have no ability to get on the internet in your day to day life? No judgement, some people have it rough. But yeah, for you it doesn't make sense to subscribe to NSO. But don't pretend that VC was amazing value in comparison

@skywake
It was a great bargain compared to prices of the games on the original carts as of now. The base switch online isn’t a bad price for what it is compared to its competitors. However I don’t see the value in paying for an online service since it’s not for me. It would be great if both could exist. It’s more money for the devs of these retro titles (probably more so than the small change they get off of the subs). That way you don’t need to sub to play and you get the games you want to play anytime or any where you choose. The subscribers get the benefits of online and the drop fed library.

The expansion pack is tempting because my wife was kind enough to either take or toss a chunk of my collection into a dumpster. However, I got super psyched for NES/SNES games for the same reason and never use them on the NSO platform. Besides, I just got a ridiculous deal on a bundle of consoles and at most I might grab a Dreamcast to round things out.

Yeah, I was more suggesting the virtual console as well, @skywake .... So, like GamePass, you might be happy just playing what's on there but the games are also available to buy if you want
That'd also suit people who don't want to subscribe, if they already have half the games or only want to play a few, etc

@Mauzuri
We never got it on the Wii or Wii U VC which you have to assume was because of licencing issues. It does have Banjo and Conker as playable characters which Rare owns and now technically Microsoft owns. But we're getting Banjo on this service so I'd say there's an agreement there. And if there is an agreement for more than just Banjo I think Diddy Kong Racing would be the most likely other Rare game to come to NSO+