Topic: The Nintendo Switch Thread

@-Green- I still think they should offer a manual back-up option. As of now, they're the only ones that require you to pay to back-up your saves. Manual back-up is possible on Xbox and PS4, and Xbox even has free cloud saves.

Though I wonder what's stopping people from teaming up with a group of eight and getting that family deal.

The whole find 8 people and split the costs sounds like more a hassle than it's worth to save a few pennies. It's $2 a month are people that cheap?!

My BotW save is under a different profile than all my other gaming on my Switch, so if I want to back it up I'll have to suck up the family price. Who wants in on my sub?

While $20 a year is basically nothing, it is still an extra cost. The only thing that even remotely costs Nintendo anything is the voice chat and that is something people have complained about over and over again. I disliked the pay full price for game + sub in the MMO area, but in that case it at least payed for the servers.

I remember when Nintendo announced the switch and people was outraged about the $300 price tag. Now people applaud the same company when they are trying to increase that price to $400 (if you have a switch for 5 years).

I feel like it's only good quality is the cloud saves. Putting online capabilities in NeS games, while neat, seems like such a waste of resources when we still don't have regular virtual console.

I want to be hopeful that the information they haven’t shared yet will make the online worth it for me, but my brain tells me it won’t be.

It’s just a pretty unfair and greedy move on Nintendo’s part. Which is a shame.

I feel like anyone who criticised a $300 price tag for Switch shouldn't be taken seriously. PS4 launched at $400 and X1 at $500, PS3 at $600... Complaining about a $300 hybrid more powerful than their last console in light of a $200 3DS that's 240p and can't dock... seems ridiculous.

And people just don't have the energy to care or muster outrage about $20. No they shouldn't charge, people get that, but everyone does and that's the way it is and people have accepted it for years. This is nothing new. So ya, people applaud it because it was inevitable, but at least it's cheap and gives us cloud saves.

If it bothers you, don't sub. Nobody forces anyone to sub.

@Tsurii oh yeah I know. I will be getting the family plan as I have 2 kids and we have 2 switches. I was more so referring to people that are actually trying to group together with randoms online to split the costs 8 ways. Just seems excessively miserly imo.

@Tsurii That's what it is though, it's a subscription service for monthly games. The online aspect hardly costs them anything as it's all P2P based, the online is being held ransom behind the paywall because that's an easy way to secure subscribers. I expect Nintendo will follow the same path. Offer SNES games paired with a price hike to €30, N64 games with an increase to €40, and before you know you're paying €60 a year, and it's no different from the competition. Well, I guess there IS a difference, you're using your phone for voice chat

The one thing I hope for the NES games is that it'll be like the Xbox game pass, where you can just download the games and then you lose your license for it when the subscription runs out, rather than PSN, where you have to stream the games.

@Scrummer You don't stream the games on PlayStation (that would be way too expensive for Sony), you download them too. You just loose access to them.

Kind of. They have to be registered as child/sub accounts, but it's really complicated. I really like the family plan though, especially since you can share it between multiple systems, so if a family has a switch, and then a kid gets their own, they'll still be able to use online and there probably won't be some convoluted restrictions.

Streaming one second of SMB probably uses up more than 10x the download. If not more, it is a tiny game. And you would also lose access if you don't have access to internet. Unless they are really worried about piracy, it isn't a good idea to stream. Worse service and would cost them way more.

@Octane No, I probably should've specified that I was talking about PS now and not ps plus. Ps plus, yes you just download the games, but with ps now, you have to stream them, but it's very laggy. I'm just kind of worried that since there's a collection of games at launch, you'll only be able to stream them.

@Therad I don't think you're streaming the games though. You just download them, and you loose access to them when your sub ends, that's how PS+ does it too.

I know, I think it would be insane to stream it. But this is nintendo... sometimes they think in mysterious ways.

@Scrummer I see. Well, Sony never bothered to release PS Now outside of a select few countries (mainland Europe doesn't have access to it as far as I know), so I have no experience with that. I can imagine it's laggy though. It's also a lot more expensive than PS+, about $20 a month I believe. And that's because you're streaming everything, so Sony has to run the games somewhere. Streaming video games is pointless really, especially if we're talking about older games.

Even older games is bad when streaming. Slow-paced games could get away with it, i.e fire emblem.

@Octane ps now is a great service but granted it does come with some caveats though, strong internet, right country etc. I bought a year subscription a couple years back and feel it was worth it. Some games did lag a bit but overall we got our money's worth. I highly doubt Nintendo would go the streaming route tho.

@Therad Especially older games. Those games tend to be a lot smaller in size and could easily be offered as a download. Plus, most systems can run those 20-year old games by now.

It could work for streaming a high fidelity game to a device that cannot run it, but you need a pretty good internet connection for that to make it work. Plus, I cannot imagine that it's cheap, since you're not only streaming the data, someone else also has to run the game.