Topic: The Nintendo Switch Thread

Well. This turned into the Smash thread.

I expect this Direct to be significant. Very deliberate wording there.

Not big. Not huge. Just significant.

I can say that with absolute confidence as it's the first Dorect to a year with only a handful of release dates already.

Yeah, I expect the direct to have big news, but I don't expect to see MP4 until E3 for example.

Its going to be big, just not E3 big.

@Dev I was thinking of having the Squid sisters as the Smash Move and then Off the Hook for a Splatfest Plaza stage, but your version makes more sense.

A Inkopolis Plaza/Square would be awesome but I'd really like it if there was a stage that changed every two minutes to reflect the cycle of stages in the game. So you might have two minutes in The Reef but after an announcement it could change to Moray Towers. Something like that maybe?
It would be a good way to change the songs.

A more sensible way would just do the same as the AC stage and just change it when it's loaded, but where's the fun in that!?

But anyway, I see smash as more of an E3 thing. January's Direct should go into detail on Kirby, Yoshi and other games coming soon that we don't know about. More info about the online service, VC and other things like that would be nice. Seems like an appropriate time to share that kind of thing.

Well they need to get on with it already.

January is well underway and we still know next to nothing about this year's lineup.

And honestly, anything less than what was shown in that supposed 5.0 video... will be unacceptable to me as far as paying for online. We had most of that stuff on previous consoles. Apps, folders, custom sorting, themes, browser... all that was on Wii U and 3DS. The only thing new would be system level chat and cloud save backups (but even the cloud save backups are only needed because they took away our ability to back up to SD). So it would essentially just be one new feature above and beyond previous Nintendo consoles and handhelds.

And I say anything less simply isn't worth paying for. If they want my money, they better do at least as much as what we saw in that video, if not more.

I'd pay $20 dollars a year if only for Splatoon 2.

I didn't watch the video for potential spoilers, but what I hear sounds great.

Personally I think MK8D, Splatoon 2 and a future Animal Crossing game would convince me to pay for online, because those are the games that have an almost endless amount of replay value with online play.
I hardly get bored with playing Splatoon online and if I grow tired of it MK8D is even better anyway. There going to (hopefully) be plenty of online games coming in the future which will hopefully be just as good. And I'm mostly a single player kind of person, some people play almost all of their games online. If they throw in some form of Virtual Console then I'm willing to pay for it.

The price doesn't seem TOO bad when compared to the services that Sony and Microsoft are offering. The only thing missing is cloud saves, because I'm a paranoid person that believes that his Switch is going to die randomly, but an SD card option would also work in an update.
A cloud option would be less of a security risk for Nintendo though...

To be fair there are only three things in that video that could realistically be behind a paywall. Lobbies, messaging and cloud saves. And they've already stated at one point that Cloud Saves will be a thing in addition to deals and other content on the eShop. All at less than what the competition is charging.

Honestly? I'm ok paying what they're asking just for cloud saves and a regular flow of content. I'm not happy that we're paying now and I'd like to be able to continue to have online play for free. But it's far from the worst deal in the world even with what we know now.

People talk about PS+ being £50 a year but in the last year they’ve had Deus Ex Human Revolution, Metal Gear V, Batman Telltale, Until Dawn, Darksiders 2 as free games, and they’re just off the top of my head. I doubt Nintendo will be giving away AAA modern games somehow.

Then there are the numerous multiplayer games on PS4 which make it worth while. Switch has bugger all as yet.

@Roamer As @Octane will tell you, where do you think most of that £50 a year goes? Free games.

You ain't paying for servers, it's all Peer to Peer. You aren't paying for network improvements, because god knows the Store is still a pile of ass that doesn't even run properly or use the on-screen keyboard, and you can't do basic stuff like alter your username, as the network hasn't actually upgraded outside of adding more systems since it was first created, and seemingly built on sand.

Most of what you are paying for is empty. The money you spend is for the same quality of service you'd get anyway. That's before you add in PSNow subscriptions for backwards compatability via streaming, and then spending on the internet connection to do it properly, assuming you can access the game you want to play, because there are queues to play games.

The games exist to sweeten the deal and make that £50 feel worth a damn.

Also to add some things, if you don't have PS4 and only own PSVita, don't get PS+, the selection of games suck like hell and the only thing you'll get is a cloud save. So I guess that's the only reason...

I still would rather not pay for pointless things that I’d never/barely use. If we have to pay just to play online games that I already bought, I probably won’t buy them in the first place.

It’s annoying.

@DarthNocturnal
Sony and Microsoft also charge ~3x as much as the rate Nintendo has published and as you said one of them does have cloud saves behind a paywall. Really for the price Nintendo are charging all they need to do is have one 30-50% discount on one retail game I wanted once a year and it has paid for itself. Or alternatively if you can use My Nintendo gold coins to pay for the subscription I've effectively already paid for it.

I just think it's probably just better if we wait and see what is actually on offer before we complain about what they are and aren't charging for.

@DarthNocturnal
It's because you pay on PS for the cloud backups, and because we desperately need an option to back up saves on Switch. And because of that I take no issue having to pay for it, as long as it means they provide that service.

It would be even better if we don't pay for it, but I don't see that as a likely outcome. $20 a year is not an issue for me. What is an issue for me, however, is not having a way to backup saves. Hence why I will gladly exchange something I couldn't care less about ($20 a year? Pssssh... that's chump change) for something I very much do care about.

But the reason I refuse to pay for online without that service is not because the money matters, but because of principle. If they can't at least provide cloud storage then I see no reason to give them more money for a poor service. In fact I'm not even sure I'd do it if the online is tied to the phone. Not that it's too much of a hassle- but if I'm gonna use a phone, I'll just use Discord (not that I could once games are behind the sub paywall). It just boils down to principle.

Of course, I already got my Splatoon 2 and MHXX out of my system, and there's really no other online games I intend to play on Switch. So there's that.

https://twitter.com/noelfb/status/949469531168169985

I'm not interested in online multiplayer and other online services (except a common browser that I hope will be available for everyone), I would prefer local, personal backup of save files instead of cloud even if Nintendo cloud service will be free, you can only imagine how much angry I'd be if the cloud will be the only backup option and it will be locked beyond the subscription.
I can accept that one have to pay to get online services (expecially since I'm not interested in those services lol ) but having some guarantees about your saved games, knowing that you can restore them easily and immediately by yourself if some problem occur with the hardware it is not an online service, it can be done in other ways too, that's why I absolutely don't want to pay for it.

@DarthNocturnal Cloud saving should be free as long as we don't have the option to back up our own save files. Sony charges for cloud saving through PS+, but at least we can back up our own files, for free.

The biggest issue is that there's no transparency whatsoever. For example, I still like to know how expensive online play (P2P included) truly is. How expensive is cloud storage? Frankly, I have no idea, but I don't think it's €60 a year like Sony and Microsoft are charging. I even don't think it's €20 a year. If I'm paying Sony €60 a year, and that's enough to fund all those ''free'' PS+ games, and they still have enough left to make profits worthwhile of boasting about, then I don't think the actual online was ever that expensive to begin with.

Is the online maintenance this tuesday a sign that a Nintendo direct is happening? It used to be, right?

Don't they do online maintenance like every week though? Or is this one different from those

Some people think it's to do with the Nvidea security flaws, though I don't really understand exactly what it is all about despite reading the Nintendo Life article about it.

According to this listing, "Broken Sword 5" is Switch-bound. (In German-speaking countries, the games go under the title "Baphomets Fluch", or "Baphomet's Curse")

https://shop.kochmedia.com/shop/de_DE/productdetail.html?medi...