One of the surprise announcements from Nintendo's big Switch presentation was that it would be introducing a new subscription-based online service for which fans will need to pay a monthly fee. This seems as though it could come as something of a double-edged sword, so we're going to break down some of the pros and cons of this approach.
To begin, we should touch on the broader subject of Nintendo charging for online services in the first place. With the PS4 mandating PS+ for online services, Nintendo became the last bastion of free online play for consoles, and now it seems that PC will be the only platform that still does this. Many fans have understandably been a bit upset at the introduction, and there's some validity to that, but this shouldn't be something that comes as a surprise. The money that it costs to run online services for a platform doesn't just appear out of thin air, and while there are plenty of ways for Nintendo to generate income to support its online features, the most straightforward and hassle-free approach is to simply charge a fee to those that intend on using the services.
And when it comes down to it, the asking price need not be all that much; PS+ costs $50 for a year and Xbox Gold costs $60 in the US, which shakes out to $4-5 per month for the service. Nintendo hasn't yet announced the pricing for its online subscription, but it's reasonable to assume it'll be comparable to its competitors. Some will no doubt still cry foul at having to pay for services that were previously free, but to do so is to ignore the fact that it costs money to run these services. Nintendo — or any other online service provider for that matter — is not obligated in any way to provide free online services to its consumers; those services are essentially a privilege, not a right. With that all being said, concerns over Nintendo charging for online are, in some cases, undoubtedly valid.
Historically speaking, Nintendo has always been a bit behind the times with its online services. Back in the days of the DS and Wii, you had to add friends using a confusing friend code system; it was difficult — if not impossible — to create parties with friends to play games together, there was next to no voice chat support, and so on. The 3DS and Wii U went a long way towards fixing these issues, but still left plenty of room for improvement in terms of creating a hassle-free, straightforward online experience. Though there have been marked signs of improvement over the last several years in Nintendo's online efforts, it still arguably has yet to prove itself in this area. That age-old conversation around a "unified account system" is still going on to some degree nowadays, and the question remains as to whether Nintendo is ready to take this step when charging for online. There's been a lot of catch up being played on the company's part this past generation, so why should we be so quick to pay for a service that may be limited or confusing compared to the offerings on other consoles?
Pricing around this new online service hasn't been revealed yet, but providing value will be absolutely critical to the service's success, and as of now it seems like it may be a little skimpy. For example, Xbox Live Gold and PlayStation Plus provide subscribers with a handful of free games every month that are accessible as long as the user remains subscribed to the service. Nintendo's subscription will provide subscribers with access to one NES or SNES game which will only be playable for one month before being replaced with another. There's been talk in the past of Nintendo offering some kind of subscription access to its Virtual Console library, and it seems like that would be a perfect fit for this new service, but it seems like we're instead being given crumbs.
Another point of contention could be the "exclusive deals" offered to subscribers. For example, PSN regularly offers sales on games that go well in excess of 50% off, and having a PS+ subscription often drives the savings up even further. Most notably, the games on sale are often recent releases that have come out sometime within that season. Nintendo's efforts are a different story. While it is good to see the company doing sales every now and then, they admittedly aren't all too enticing. The latest 'January Digital Deals' sale was passable, but it arguably failed to provide any must-have discounts. Nintendo isn't entirely to blame for this race to the bottom approach the industry has taken to over the past few years, but it's difficult to take its sales seriously when a physical copy can be found for pennies on the dollar. The new subscription service could mark a new era of competitive pricing for Nintendo's digital games, but it will have to make sure these are actually competitive for it to be appealing.
Of course, it's still early days yet, and there's plenty of room for Nintendo to continually iterate and improve on its subscription with fan feedback. For now, we're being offered one NES or SNES game per month that's only playable for a month, but we could easily be given a handful of games for a longer period a year from now. Similarly, flash sales and other such deals that are hard to turn down could become the norm, giving subscribers more bang for their buck in terms of how much they can save when buying games off the eShop. The point is, Nintendo isn't bound to the amenities it's laid out, and there's a good chance that the service will improve considerably as time passes and the company gets a better feel for finding that balance between crafting an enticing service that doesn't hand out too much to those who pay into it.
All else aside, the introduction of mandatory paid online services seems to show that Nintendo is being more intentional with its online efforts this generation. Though there are valid concerns over this new direction the company is taking, the fact that it's making a move as bold as this demonstrates that online is being taken more seriously with the Switch. For example, there'll even be a new smart device app that sounds as if it's solely dedicated to connecting with friends and organizing parties. Five years ago, such an app would have been a ludicrous proposition to be coming from Nintendo, and it shows that the company is endeavouring to get its online services right this time around. It's not entirely out of the realm of possibility, then, to hope that Nintendo's online service could finally grow into a worthy competitor to other platforms with the Switch, as opposed to taking a backseat as in past generations.
We'll likely be hearing much more about the online service in the coming weeks and months, but it seems like we've finally reached a point where common voice chat and a robust party system will be the norm for Nintendo. The voice chat in particular is something to be noted; while it may have been implemented in some fairly one-off ways in the past, it seems as though Nintendo is intent on standardizing the feature with the Switch, and its streamlined setup (or lack thereof) will no doubt be spotlighted by Splatoon 2 when it launches this summer.
It's a bit disappointing that — in a Nintendo-centric conversation — we have to be discussing voice chat as if it's an exciting new feature, and the practicalities of how it'll work through a phone app are yet to be seen in full; yet this is still a case of better late than never. Implementing such a feature shows that the company is taking industry trends more seriously, and is somewhat more concerned with providing a platform that can be competitive (in its own way) with the likes of the PS4 and Xbox One. Even if this is a step that should've been taken long ago, it's about time that the company take that step, and the fact that it appears to be doing so signifies its broader intent on communicating a new message with the Switch.
If nothing else, we're witnessing the dawn of a new day for Nintendo. There are many ways its online could go wrong with the Switch, but there are also many ways it could go right. It gives us hope to see Nintendo making an attempt on this part, and while not all may be too excited for what's to come, action on the company's behalf in this area is better than passive indifference. For better or for worse, the company is taking steps into new territory, and that's something to be excited about, even if experience of the big N's past attempts make us rather cautious.
Comments 201
The fact that you only keep the retro game for a month is ridiculous.
I'm ok with paying for an online service as long as the connections are solid and Nintendo offers some other nice incentives, similar to Xbox and PS.
Nintendo — or any other online service provider for that matter — is not obligated in any way to provide free online services to its consumers; those services are essentially a privilege, not a right.
This, so much.
Perspective, people.
i guess we're due a direct to fully explain all this.
As long cheaper than those 2 Nefarious game companies (Under $40 or as long still affordable price) and have very stable internet connection, i'm ready to spent for Switch paid online service.
Dear, Mr. Kimishima. Please ensure the connection have to ALWAYS in Perfect condition. We pay not for lags. We pay for smooth streaming and very fast internet connection. Thank you.
It's all about the pricing, and we don't know anything about that yet.
Nintendo doesn't have to offer anything extra , if it costs around 2-3 $ a month, and gives us a stable and reliable service. It must be much better than what we got for free on the Wii U, though.
Of what you get for your money the exclusive deals are the only temptation to subscribe. Game rental, online and voice chat are not top of my list. Hopefully these deals will be better than the deals Nintendo normally offer.
wait, I'll be able to play a classic game - that I already own - for a month? For Free? (or I mean for the subscription service fee?) Cool? Whatever - I'm gonna get the online stuff - but their rewards system really sucks. It was cool when Iwata was in charge.
Nintendo being Nintendo, they will do something with their online service that makes people say, only Nintendo would do that! For good or bad.
I welcome a Paid , online service. In business , this means that Nintendo will be able to provide better, faster, more reliable Servers and that the people you meet online will be more dedicated gamers within the Nintendo Ecosystem.
Also, with higher profits - Nintendo can offer us more, better quality games and products an dit will make it more worthwhile to do research and development for the future - a Healthy income stream is good for all of us.
Mitch, FYI, PS+ went up to $60 in the US back in September, maybe October.
I'm OK with them charging for online, once they have something to charge for, and right now all they have is MK8D with Splaton coming in the summer. That's not enough to justify it. And money they make selling ports of MK8 has to be profit, they sold 7.1 million copies of it on Wii U, surely it didn't cost $42 million to make. So those $60 copies of MK8D should generate enough profit to cover online.
Considering they are coming off of the failure that is Wii U, now is not the time to be talking about paid online. Sell a few consoles first and get several online games actually up and running online, then charge for it. They at least need FIFA and something people normally would pay for, CoD or Destiny 2. It's just too soon when all they have is a port of MK8. A port of SSB this holiday announced at E3 would help too.
Maybe they should come out and say it starts January 1, 2018, give everyone time to prepare and get a free week in after Christmas to see how it works. If 3 million people get a Switch for Christmas and the online chokes on the traffic - it has in the past for Sony on Playstation at Christmas - that's going to be a very bad blunder on their part. Yes, I'm thinking ahead 1 months out, it's what I do, and it's what Nintendo should be doing as well.
People quickly went from ''Hah!, at least Nintendo is doing online for free'' to ''I'm okay with paying for online''.
Even IF they're going to charge for this, I'd like to see a more versatile subscription service, this is where Nintendo could shine. I barely have enough time to play the games I want, let alone play games online. I don't pay for PS+, because I know that I won't be able to play online enough to make the most out of it. I enjoyed Splatoon because of its online, but I can't see myself paying for a full subscription for the odd online match once in a while. I don't have the time to spend several hours on online gaming in a week, let alone in one day. They could've charged for online play/hour, or left the NES/SNES out of the equation to lower the price, I already bought most of those games anyway...
It will all come down to the games you can play on it. At £40 a year, If there are 10+ really good online games, it could be a good investment. If the only games worth playing online are Splatoon, MK8, Smash and Arms, I think a lot of people won't see it worth investing in. I mean- would you really pay to play other users Mario Maker course on it? And the reality is, if people are paying XB or PS for online to play COD and FIFA, they're not going to pay another £40 to play it on the Switch.
Personally I'm not fussed with the online sections for games, especially with the added local multiplayer on Splatoon and MK8 to play against my Nephew and Niece. But if the service was £20 a year (chances are Ninty won't have half as many servers as Sony or MS), I could be persuaded to waste my money.
As long as they keep the price down I'm fine with this... I'll probably still pay even though I don't really play online that much (I prefer local multiplayer) as the other stuff sounds good.
I wouldn't be surprised if the voice chat was still more limited than on other consoles in order to ensure that it remains family-friendly, but linking it to smart phones sounds like a really handy idea.
The monthly game seems reasonable as well... you can typically complete most games within a month anyhow, and the limited time helps to avoid building up too much of a backlog of free games.
Oh, I forgot the voice chat app being on smartphones. Yeah, that was a brilliant decision Nintendo, announce people have to pay you to play online, but they also need a smartphone or tablet to do voice chat. What is wrong with that picture?
If paying for online means an overall better online service and/or connection, I don't mind at all; so long as the cost is reasonable enough.
The retro game freebie is irrelevant, I wouldn't be paying for that alone. It's all about the quality that the online service would give and I hope it'll be good enough to justify the subscription.
I'm okey with paying, but I find it hard to discuss without knowing the costs and what exactly we will get. Sure, the games are rented (as opposed to leased on the PS+), but what are the "special offers"?
It's one of the factors that's turned me off the Switch.
£30 or so would be okay i think as long as the online services are up to scratch and modern. With Mario Kart and Splatoon out before the fee comes in at least there'll be something decent to actually play online plus once Smash releases it'll be great. Also with a paid service maybe we'll see some MMO's coming in future.
I'm just taking the wait and see approach as we still don't know much about how this will all work, let alone how much it will cost.
Voice chat means nothing to me, though. I am very shy, so I would just end up muting it anyway.
A paid service is OK as long as you get some benefit from it. So far the communication app you use on your phone and the one game monthly rental doesn't grab me. Online multiplayer would be OK if there wasn't alternatives currently on the wiiU. Mabey if they provide some decent F2P games that require online like mabey get Bandai to remaster their Tank, tank tank!!! And the Lost Reavers titles to switch and get some other F2P games like World of Tanks then you can see in the short term some reason to pay online at least until we get a decent selection of online must haves.
I hope they announce everything about the paid online service before the Switch release to give me time to decide if a Switch is worth getting.
Most technical concerns should be easy to deal with thanks to the trail period, it's clear that they are confident in their service, else noone will start paying for it once the trial is over.
My main problem, as I mentioned too many times, is how these paid services kinda cut the userbase in half, those always playing online can pretty much pay and accept such fee, afterall they're gonna get back more value than they paid for, but for the users like me that just like some occassionally online sessions this is a terrible choice between giving up a small, but appreciated, part of our gaming life or pay for a service we won't use enough for justify the price.
I really hope Nintendo will address somehow this "issue" instead then ignore it entirely as the competition does (unless Nintendo's service will be so cheap to make all my complains pointless, but I hardly imagine them going much cheaper than the other consoles at this point ^_^;;; ).
I will be skipping the monthly subscription if it's only for online playing. Retro games are like "meh", I can get them for an emulator. Playstation+ at least has some goodies every month, and extra features, like save backup, big discounts and stuff
@MarcelRguez Urgh. People like you are the reason the industry is the way it is. It was never a 'free' service. You are paying £60 for a game and then paying AGAIN just to access certain features of the game you already bought.
It's a scam and apologist pieces like this are the reason that the industry has gotten away with it for so long. It's like if you went to a restaurant, ordered a meal and were then charged extra for a plate so you could actually eat the meal.
its ok for Nintendo to charge no biggie but it needs to be competitive and they seriousily need to change there eshop pricing. I don't think they can move forward if they stick to the same old formula of offering pitiful discounts on the same games. if there serious on keeping up they need to take a fresh approach. hopefully they will be.
Coming to think of it, in terms of Splatoon especially I am not sure if voice chat works that well on teaming up with random players if they don't separate the regions, as a lot of the players you team up with in Splatoon are Japanese and not all of them might know English and other barriers like that might affect Nintendo's voice chat experience I think.
I think voice chat most likely are just going to be in private match for Splatoon 2, but it will be interesting to see how Nintendo solves the potential language problem if there's voice chat in random matches and other gams beside Splatoon.
As for the paid service I am suppose I am fine with it as long as it feels fair and give us enough reason to continue to pay :+).
I knew Nintendo couldn't hold out forever. Servers aren't cheap. So I get it. Show me some games worth playing online and I'll sign up. I am not bothered by extras because I don't pay for live or plus for old games or game rentals. I pay to play online.
Any word on the VC at all yet? There's no way I'm buying the N64, SNES, and NES games for a third time without a very good deal. Plus the abysmal "support" the Wii U received makes it even harder to justify.
The 2 games you get per month are online games so everyone can play the same game and it then changes every month. Sounds fair.
If you bought a virtual console game for the Wii u and 3ds you can redeem it free on the switch. If you just bought one of the versions then there is a upgrade fee.
@BensonUii I would be happy with that. Try out an entire NES, SNES game and have it available to be purchased for only a dollar for that month.
Just my opinion but I think we're all just dismissing the idea of online fee because we don't know enough but hopefully more will come. I actually like the idea of two retro games per month online. Will be fun and extend that games play
Does anyone know if the Eshop will be there from day 1? I'm going to go 100% digital with switch. Will be pretty hacked off if I cant buy games on launch!
I'm fine with it if they improve the free games policy (In other words, they let you keep the damn thing) and it's considerably cheaper than PS Plus.
@rjejr I mean I use Steam and Discord for all my communication. Even people I know who have psn I rather use steam or discord. Just so I can talk to them outside the house. The worry for me is VC games, I'm tired of rebuying what I have a carts for or own on VC. I won't touch their service if I have to rebuy stuff again.
@617Sqn Yes, it will. It was like that with the Wii U too I'm pretty sure.
Does It back up game data online like ps+ I'll pay anything for that kind of peace of mind!!!
I dont care if its paid, i only hope its not that expensive.
I don't mind paying 50 or 60$ a year but giving us 1 retro game ? And it last for a month before vanish ? Really ?!!
I want something like PS us or Xbox gold ... giving us 4 to 6 free games a month and keep it as long as you pay the fee every year ... some of them AAA games other are indies ! I don't mind ... but one retro game !!! Really ?
I see this as a sort of bargaining chip. Nintendo offers a low deal, see how many bite. And then when/if very few people pay the subscription, they'll have to offer a better deal.
To be honest, unless they're charging $1-$2 a month just for seever upkeep, (which with they're player base could definitely cover the costs) I'm not subscribing any time this year for splatoon2. Which is a shame because that game looks fun.
The lack of true voice chat means I won't consider paying for the service tbh
Steam has the best infrasctructure, the best party system, the best voice system, incredibly fast servers, great online, its secure, has a big community and Valve its expanding on that.
For the modest sum of FREE
Ill never understand why PS+ and XBL has to be paid, they are terrible compared to Steam.
The reason I never played Splatoon, Mario Kart 8, and Smash Bros as much I wanted is because the internet was poor and frustrating. If they do improve to the standards of Sony and Microsoft, I couldn't care less about paying. It would be worth it to finally experience those games the way I wanted to.
I can't help but suspect that this will lead to a worse internet gaming experience. It is likely to lead to a much smaller fraction of Switch owners actually playing online games, making my experience worse if I do play. It also leads to my having to pay $60 for a game that I can't play without extra fees. Off the heels of the Wii U doesn't seem like the time to be adopting airline-like approaches to gaming. $300 for the ticket, $60 for in flight entertainment (or more like to go anywhere with the plane, since there's no pack-in), $70 to control it better, $70 for local multiplayer, and an extra $5 or so afterwards to actually use the system and game you already paid for. Next they'll be charging $25 to have legroom while you play, and $15 to eat snacks while you play Switch. I wouldn't have complained if Nintendo had wanted to be the Southwest of video gaming in an industry of Deltas and American Airlines. Add in the fact that they didn't reveal the cost before preorders opened and that the features included require another accessory to use, and I think people are justifiably aggravated. It's an annoying way to be treated as a customer.
The Switch has a year one library I want to play and a launch lineup that blows the Wii U and 3DS out of the water (they had more titles, but nothing worth buying a system for). But I don't see this as a customer friendly decision at a time where they need those.
I'm not really sure what is that any gaming company, be it Sony, Microsoft and now Nintendo, offers for online playing. The servers don't hold the game, you do. Are their servers really needed, for hosting a game? I've done it on my PC for years.
This is a candid question, because I really don't know any better. My son uses PS+ all the time because he plays with his friends, and without he can't host a game like in a PC. Also, the discounts on PS+ are really, really good. Recently, I gave him 100 dollars to spend for X-mas and he bought (not rented) like 6 games, including the full Destiny (all the dlc, the game, all extras) for 40 bucks (!), 2 Tom Clancy games for 30 and so on.
I hope Nintendo really changes its tune and gives away (not lend, like PS+) a game a month, or sell it to us at a huge discount (50% or so), for a 50-60 bucks a year service.
Now, Back to Left 4 Dead 2 on STEAM!!
I have 0 interest in paying for a service I've been getting for free for years, especially when the value of such doesn't seem to have changed.
Man...some of the VC games they release are pitiful. That slow drip-drip. I don't see that changing.
SO THIS WEEK, YOU GET TO PLAY SUPER MARIO BROS. FOR FREE FOR A WHOLE MONTH, THE SAME GAME YOU'VE PURCHASED ON NES, Wii VC, Wii U VC, and 3DS VC! ISN'T THAT EXCITING?!
@Faruko Steam is undeniably the superior experience, I've been subbed to PS Plus since the PS3 days because the free games offered at the time were really good. Since the PS4 released, they've become increasingly worse, and I'm not very happy about it.
Honeslty Monster Hunter is enough to make the jump.
@PotatoTheG Im with you there, PS+ was so good on the PS3, but its so bad on PS4 is not even funny.
@MarcelRguez It's about appeasing consumers and perceived value. If you charge for a service that was once free, you need to add value. In this case, we're seeing people who do not value what they're seeing compared to the competition. The result could possibly have negative effects on Switch---which of course should be cause for worry.
I also missed something in my comparisson
Paying for disscounts (PS+/XBL) while Steam offers the same or better value for... you guessed it ! FREE
So I'll be honest. I was going to make a crack about games offered for "pennies on the dollar" being worth what you pay for them, but I decided to check and discovered that Day of the Tentacle Remastered is available on PS+ for free right now. So, scratch that.
Now, if Sony could come up with some first-party exclusives that rival the quality of their multiplats, then the PS4 might be worth owning.
Nintendo will have no excuse for bad online services this generation. Better step it up.
Yeah I get to use my own phone for Nintendo's voice chat, friends list etc because the Switch cannot do it, that must of cost some $$$ to implant. Not only that I can demo one 20 year old game for a month, and discounts that saves me hardly anything exciting times.
Before I either damn or praise the move to paid online I need to know the price I'll have to pay & what I'll get in return. How anyone moaning that they want "full voice chat, better online, better features, free downloads, bigger servers & maps" and then also moaning "I refuse to pay for online because it's always been free" can't look at look at themselves in the mirror & take a breath I don't know.
@Faruko Steam is a very different setup, they have no hardware costs or development costs & also host none of the servers themselves apart from the store.
@banacheck It's not that the Switch can't do it, you can do it on the 3DS using Pokémon PSS. It's that they're trying to make it more convenient. They're wrong... but I think that's what they're trying to do.
Dont have a smart phone, also not interested in voice chat. What i want to know is when Smash Brothers coming out??? It wasnt anywhere in the presentation, whats going on??? I WANT MY CLOUD AMIIBO!!!
@MarcelRguez That sounds a bit like a cop-out: shutting down all criticism from other perspectives in order to avoid a legitimate discussion about what people view as a problem. No one is obligated to buy anything from Nintendo or any other online service provider, either. This is why Nintendo and the like shouldn't be callous towards the desires of its customers and their opinions, else they begin to lose them.
@Faruko No profanity, thanks.
PS+ and XBL don't have to cost the customer anything. Sony and MS choose for them to. And the customers pay it. If the customers didn't pay it we'd probably find the cost coming down.
Bears repeating - how much as I despise making cross-platform comparisons, I have to point out that Xbox Live Gold lets players keep a current gen game while Nintendo is dead-set on renting an old game for a month.
I deliberately used italics and bold to highlight the important points of the comment.
i'll do this one more time for playing Online, but please let their be a yearly subscription or a card like playstation plus and xbox live, (that well make me really happy) either one well do just find!
@gcunit should've been at the article at the end.
I remain on the fence with this one. The money doesn't bother me, as stuff like Netflix costs more, but I only opted back into Nintendo with the Wii (after going with Sony since PS1) because I didn't want the relative demands of a premium console (i.e., more than one upfront payment) as I normally only play games once or twice a week. I really just want something I can turn on and play for an hour on weekends, with no extra stuff begging for my money (overpriced memory cards, predatory online that holds free games over your head, extra controllers, etc.).
I think Nintendo probably needed to do this to be seen as a legitimate player again, but the move to premium branding is making me think I'll at least hold off on the Switch.
@Megas Wireless is gonna lag - period with just how it physically functions. Its a radio. Its data being sent out, in pieces btw, in all directions and expecting it to be picked up by the receiver (in this case the switch) in which case things in the air it had to travel through like objects or other frequencies in the air (yes they're EVERYWHERE.) get in the way and jumble it up a bit. The receiver basically takes what it got, tries to unjumble it and take a wild guess at the parts of the transmission it didn't get. Then basically respond and it all repeats until it gets to the gateway/router where that does the same thing.
tl;dr - wireless is BAD for gaming.
Wired works because its on a physical line with nothing interfering (usually) and on a straight path.
A game needs the available bandwidth first and then it needs low latency followed by stability (no packet loss/low jitter.) to not have lag. This is why most people on the wii u was indeed lagging.
Likely due to low bandwidth AND wireless interference. The Wii U required a lot of bandwidth. Splatoon and mario kart needed like 100 kbps down and 70-100 kbps up to function properly in the bandwidth part while most games need 30 down and 20 up if they're heavy p2p.
tl;dr - have good internet, get off wireless. it doesn't matter if its usb 2.0 - you want stability over everything, heck it could be 1.0 and still be fine. It needs a direct, proper path for it to work very well.
It should be noted that there is absolutely no guarantee that a paid online service will be better than a free one, despite expectations and preconceptions. If they are forcing you to pay them for a likely central feature of the console, there is little incentive for them to make sure it is excellent. This would have been resolved if they offered both a free and a subscription-based service, but it looks as if they are stiffnecked and dull of hearing anything else about the issue.
@UK-Nintendo its NES "OR" SNES. You only get 1
Nintendo want us to pay for a month rental of SNES or NES Roms and if we like it we can then buy it outright.
Pretty scandalous when you think about it. How they felt this was good PR I don't know.
Taking away the game after one month is so bad.. such a bad decision
I don't care about the price if it matches PS and Xbox. If it requires my phone to chat, I might skip.
Not jumping on the online pay bandwagon until there is absolutely sure the online play for every game that support it is solid excellent.
If they charge for the service and it is terrible then Nintendo will be absolutely hammered by the consumer. They need to pull out all the stops with this one
i saw "Share screenshot to social media" in one of those pics, so no built in live streaming then i would have thought they would have included one, shame
as for paying, well it doesn't bother me both the other systems charge and as i'm not huge multiplayer gamer, especially on Nintendo games it's not going to be an issue for me, although i could see why it would annoy others but bets are they already have a PS4 a XB1 or P.C for their multiplayer games so i doubt it will make much difference to them either
still we just have to wait and see because it's going to be months after release when they start charging so some of these things could change
I remember when games came with a thick printed manual, everything included (no DLC), free online and didn't cost £60. Next, a monthly fee for the air we breathe?
There's absolutely nothing wrong with the consumer wanting the best deal. But, I think most of us saw this coming at some point. My concern is that the service will not be worth what they will charge. "Borrowing" for a month is less then what is provided with both Plus & Live. I personally don't mind just borrowing for a month, but I want the price to reflect this. The fact that you must also own a smart phone, that you already pay for, to chat online is ridiculous. I personally think this is a big mistake. How can Nintendo justify charging as much as the other two and force the chat feature to an off system app? Also, I'm not sure the library of games will warrant spending $60 a year to play online. This may come down to whether or not Splatoon 2 can sell the service!
What I'm saying is that the price better be no more then half of what the other two charge or I fear Nintendo dropped the ball.....again.
@LegendOfPokemon Why?
@Frosty_09 the USB adapters we already have should work just fine.
@Frosty_09 ouch.
@MarcelRguez
Nothing is ever free though. The cost for online services was always passed onto consumers through hardware and software costs. Nintendo isn't a charity and I don't think anyone would confuse them as such.
In a way, you could say that makes Nintendo games cheaper than third parties historically. But the other side is Nintendo tends to hold their games at launch price without discount for many years. For instance Mario Kart 8 is still $60 and it has been on the market for 2.5 years. Most other companies would drop their games to $20, $30, or $40 within a year.
I want to hope their online games can be more stable this time and not crash on me at times. The retro game rental service sounds kind of absurd but let's see what happens when the Switch comes out.
I want the system to do well. In an age where Sony and Microsoft are dominating the industry, this is Nintendo's chance to make amends for the under-selling Wii U.
I'll take it, or not, depending on the price. If it's aligned with the PS+, I'm not taking it. If it's cheaper, yes, maybe, but even then, the real question stands...
DO WE NEED ONLINE ON SWITCH? There's Splatoon and Monster Hunter, and maybe Mario Kart, but then? I'd rather all of those with friends on my couch (or theirs)
"Here common voice chat and a robust party system will be the norm for Nintendo" -> A voice chat having to use a mobile is the most wrong thing ever.
How you'll mix the sound of the game and the voice chat? -> You can't
You can't have to headsets (one for the game and one for the voice chat).
You have be dependent of a compatible mobile, with all the issues there: battery, calls, whatsapps, emails notificacions... This is is WRONG, and I'm neither getting a Switch of paying online for Nintendo while these issues are there.
Note: This one month VC Games is just a bad joke? I'm playing lots of Rocket League and other awesome and big games free thanks to the PSPLUS.
Nintendo has done terrible with the price of the system an these two details, and got lots of people out from getting an Switch, even Nintendo fans like me.
No thanks to this. Excited to see the comments from all the early adopters of this setup, but already sounds like a massive disappointment. Luckily I still have hardware and 100's games to enjoy NES, SNES, Game Cube, Wii, WiiU, Gameboy Advance, and 3DS. I really can never see adding to my monthly bills to fully enjoy a Video system. Good luck to all.
I am not too excited about this Nintendo is so behind the competition and with no3rd party games we will have to pay for essentially peanuts compared to what ps4 and x1 players are getting. They could have said the first year online is free when you buy the system what about later adopters... So many questions and they don't answer them
To run an Xbox/Sony style online service with voice chats, server hosting, lobbies, MMOs, moderation, security from hacking, cloud saves, etc costs money.
To run the type of service Nintendo have done so far, where players host their own games and there are little to no other services, does not.
Whether I'm willing to pay this price or not depends on whether they're ready to step into 2005 and finally make a worthwhile network
I will consider paying for the fee if Nintendo offers those free monthly games like those in Xbox One and PS4. If Nintendo just offers free SNES or NES games, then it sucks. In addition, Nintendo should have P2P chat. Now Nintendo is prohibiting P2P chat on Wii U.
I have no desire to pay for online play with the exception of Splatoon 2, but having to pay I am very sure my subscription will be VERY short lived. In fact considering how much I played Splatoon 1 I may not even bother buying it.
Retro games as a bonus is bullpoop. We fans practically have 4 copies of all of them anyway.
Mitch opened with an interesting point that I've been saying for the last few weeks. The creation of the games, consoles, and the running and maintenance of these services; cost a lot of money! That's why Nintendo prices their consoles and now is in a position to charge money for they're online services.
People never looks at the other side of things and want things their way. Sure we're paying for a game, but Nintendo doesn't get the entire amount of a game. There is so much money spent on the creation of a game that it take tens of thousands of copies sold before the game becomes profitable. I used to work at Wal-Mart and the mark up for videogames was anywhere from 20% to 50% percent! Which means that Wal-Mart would get that much for software and the gaming company, or companies, would split the rest! Only in the consoles, Nintendo would see a 99% return because consoles only have around 2% mark up.
People need to stop the entitled attitude and understand how things work in this this world.
No way I'm paying for online if it costs as much as ps+. Either it needs to be much cheaper or they need to make it worthwhile by giving us free games like Sony's offering does (usually 6 games a month!)
What if the subscription service also acts as a way to play online games anywhere wit out a direct wifi connection(like a 4G network of sorts)? I doubt it, but imagine that. It would explain the airplane signal in the Switch UI.
I just hope it will be cheaper than Live Gold / PS+
@Anti-Matter Unfortunately, that's just not how it works. They can't guarantee it will work perfectly all the time and technically unless a game has dedicated servers the game could lag if someone in the game has a bad connection.
Also, Sony and MS aren't perfect, but to call them nefarious and see what Nintendo thinks is a "benefit" to their service with just loaning people games compared to the other services is just pretty embarrassing.
@Yorumi "Long-time gaming industry leader Electronic Arts (EA) originally wouldn't produce Live Enabled games for Xbox because Microsoft wouldn't allow them to use their own servers. In 2004, Microsoft struck a deal with EA, and now EA produces Live Enabled games for the Xbox [source: Electronic Arts]"
And from John Bruno Lead Program Manager Xbox Live in 2013:
"Our intent was to enable developers to take advantage of server resources in their games without having to deal with the challenges that come with building, managing and running servers at scale. So, we chose to provide cloud features that allow the game creators to push the limits of their gameplay experiences and apply the bulk of their investments to game creation, rather than server and operational resources. In fact, we even give them the cloud computing power for FREE so they can more easily transition to building games on Xbox One for the cloud."
So to me, according to several information sources that I can find, it seems that Microsoft is footing the bill for servers that multiplayer games are running on, not the developers of the games.
I would very much like to see the sources you get your information from.
@Yorumi
My point wasn't that there was any value added. It was just that this is a price increase for Nintendo. It's a way to add fees and keep the Switch at the low low price at $300 and high quality games like 1-2 Switch at the low low price of $50. I mean come on this is Nintendo. Just hand over your money already.
This was the one arena I didn't want Nintendo to learn from its competitors.
'... room for Nintendo to continually iterate and improve on its subscription...'
Totally read that as 'irritate'. 😅
What a load of nonsense. Nintendo should be trying to grow their business not splitting the user base.
@Yorumi I've seen you comment on this in several articles now, and I haven't been able to find any evidence that backs up your claims.
Besides that, I've sold dedicated servers for several years, also game servers, and both buying them and maintaining them costs thousands of dollars/euros, so I have no idea where your unfounded anger comes from.
For those interested, here are some links that explain how it works and what it could cost:
https://www.quora.com/How-do-online-multiplayer-games-work
https://www.quora.com/How-does-a-multiplayer-game-work-in-terms-of-its-client-and-server
https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/2ve5m4/how_much_does_it_actually_cost_a_company_to_run/
@ThanosReXXX Thanks for the info. I'm used to play on STEAM so I didn't know for sure what were the costs of hosting a multiplayer game online.
Still, Nintendo better offer some value since PS+ does and STEAM is free,
As always with Nintendo, everything they say leaves more questions than answers given.
This close to launch they should be offering answers of substance, but it's all this wink and a nod bs.
Ninty has a history of not doing online well. The secrecy and scarcity of details at this point don't bode well, inho.
Nintendo has now two new partners who could be very important to their online experience: DeNA and Nvidia. DeNA has experience in mobile games with social elements which require netcode that supports vast amount of users playing at the same time without interruption and Nvidia is supplying existing serverparks with their latest GeForce technology for their service GeForce Now. The same technology can be used in Nintendo's servers or maybe Nintendo will be using Nvidia's servers.
I don't mind the subscription service, but it better cost less than the current services out there, because it definitely offers less. Besides, I don't mind losing discounts and such in trade for paying less for online services. The discounts are made to make you spend more money in the first place.
If it's £40-50 a year, offers big discounts, free games and lots of big discounts - them I'd consider paying. If not, I'm out. I barely use online as it is on the WiiU.
As for needing a separate mobile app to do voice chat. Really?! It's 2017. Even 3DS had voice chat.
@Yorumi I shouldn't feed this discussion, because it's becoming a yuh uh nuh uh discussion, but I assume the servers of your little MMO are of very little interest to hackers, whereas Microsofts $500 million costing Azure server infrastructure, on which Xbox Live is currently running, would be. So they need to make it as secure as possible, which will require constant upkeeping through regular maintenance. That costs money.
And as I said before, as far as I can't find Microsoft won't let developers use their own servers if developers want to be available on Xbox Live, so Microsoft is providing the servers.
About your repeated argument that almost all multiplayer games are P2P: someone needs to be the host of the game. If it's 1v1, I'm sure one can be the host and provide the game for the other, but when it's a game of Mario Kart with 8 online players, I don't think one of their Wii U's or Switches will play as host, because you can't be sure their upload speed will be enough to make the game runs smooth for everyone. So I pretty sure it is hosted on a server.
Expect to see some pretty empty game lobbies on Switch.
@Yorumi Well, fair enough although the secrecy part is of course a bit in the realms that I'll have to take your word for it, and no offense, but normally, it would be logical to have some reservations if a stranger says that.
As for COD, that does seem to cost quite a bit, as the link I posted, suggests.
And people and/or you mention Steam/PC gaming, but of course there are some distinct differences between PC and console gaming and how costs and revenue are integrated, so although you do have a point, they cannot be compared 1:1.
And Steam doesn't really compare to the three console manufacturers, because even though they do now offer a Steam Box, they don't really have any actual hardware themselves, if you catch my drift.
Personally, I look at it this way: Nintendo's own online service was a bad, convoluted mess with the idiotic friend codes and what not, but because it was free, you actually couldn't make any official complaint, since it didn't cost you anything.
Now, anything I DO pay for, immediately gives me a whole bunch of rights and a warranty. I have an Xbox 360 and since day one I've had Xbox Live Gold, and to this day I'm very satisfied with the service. It's stable, it's cheap (I buy a year or 13 months online for around $30) and you get around $600 - $700 of downloadable stuff back in the form of Xbox 360 and Xbox One games, so that $30 has already been earned back tenfold, whether or not paying for the service is justified in someone else's eyes or not. And if there's something wrong, I can file an official complaint, get my money back or some other form of restitution and so on, so sure: it costs money, but you also get better service in return, so you literally get what you pay for.
And now to get back to Nintendo's case: I'm pretty sure that this time around, DeNA is going to take care of the online environment, and they have quite a name in their own region and a lot of experience. They have also already helped Nintendo with the whole My Nintendo environment, and of course their mobile games, so I don't think that people will have to fear another bad Nintendo online experience, because that apparently seems to be what people think they are going to pay for, but in my opinion it will be a whole lot better, and if they can match Microsoft, then I'll be more than satisfied and I won't mind paying a dollar or 3 a month for it...
@maceng You're welcome.
@Snader Nvidia indeed, as well. Forgot to include them in the equation of why the new Nintendo online experience won't be nearly as bad as the old one...
I honestly will never pay for Nintendo's online for the simple reason that the service looks inferior to the competitor. No mention of cloud savings, you lose the monthly games at the end of the month even if you are still paying. Not only that but it sounds like the free games are old games where the competition, they offer more current games, even if a lot of them are just indie games. Voice chat is locked behind the paywall while needing a 3rd party device that has chat options for free.
As someone on this site said on another topic: Its pure arrogance considering the screwing up they did on Wii u. Its a terrible move!
Honestly, it's really irritating to hear people say that it's perfectly fine for Nintendo to charge. This is a greedy money grab at the expense of long-time Nintendo fans who have supported them and kept them afloat while they beta tested their mediocre online service on us. Charging for a service that makes you use your cell phone for chat and takes away your 'free' game at the end of the month? This is asinine.
The system is priced too high and the peripheral/controller prices are obscene. No charging dock for the joy cons, just a dummy shell to attach them to - an extra $30 if you want the privilege of charging your extra joy-cons that you just bought for $80. $40+ for a tech demo that should have been bundled - no pack-in game for your last-ditch effort to stay in the hardware game, a March launch (seriously... this is still a big wtf. Nintendo's Japanese execs need their heads examined - the only thing I can think of is that this is just to hit the numbers in the first and second fiscal quarters to appease investors and has absolutely no video game industry wisdom or sense behind it) in a fiscal quarter that is notoriously slow for video game sales. And they are doing so with what? 5... 6 games? And only a couple are stand-outs?
Ooooh... And let's not forget that Nintendo also wants us to pay an extra $90 for what is essentially a hunk of plastic that charges and allows for throughput of video to a TV. 90 freakin' dollar docks. $10 bucks more and I have an Apple TV, which is filled with far more tech goodness; Nintendo HAS to be out of their freakin' minds or their hive-mind has succumbed to a collective narcissism. And why are there no press asking... no, demanding answers to these questions and not just letting Reggie the pimp regurgitate marketing bullcrap?
And now there's news that there will be no streaming/multimedia apps or functionality at launch and possibly not in the foreseeable future. No Netflix. That's not unlike the Dreamcast launching without a DVD player, but worse; people expect it and are already paying for it. The easiest way to keep your system in rotation and keep other systems out of people minds is to make yours the go-to device for everything. Don't make people flip to their other devices because yours doesn't provide a service they want. Bad form. Really bad choice.
Everything about this launch feels broken, rushed and ill-conceived. And the online service offers next to zero value added propositions. The amount of free games and real discounts you get with either of the competitors makes the subscriptions worth the price. Nintendo's greed and arrogance are on parade again like it's the 1980s/90s. It's liked the Wii U was a huge success and we should all be grateful they took our money and are allowing us the privilege again.
Edit: And just to be clear, this takes nothing away from the concept, the system and it's features or the idea and promise of New 1st party games and New Nintendo IP that take advantage of what this system can do. I just feel that most everything else surrounding this interesting piece of hardware is broken, ill-conceived and over-valued. I really like the Switch.
Is it also possible to save your game files online on your account? So when your console crashes your files aren't gone? For me, that would be a big plus and I would definitely pay for that service.
I don't have a problem with Nintendo charging for online play- but I really don't play all the much online, so I will probably pass. Might try it during a month that has a cool game that I haven't played. Otherwise it is pointless for me.
Charging for online is a scam, and I don't support it. At least with PlayStation plus though your membership allows you to download several games to add to your library every month, and can be used as long as you are still subscribed. That's in addition to better prices on the PlayStation store.
Nintendo doing thinking they can get away with doing the same thing but offering less is hilarious. I'm willing to bet games like Splatoon 2 struggle to maintain a community of any great size. It'll probably sustain a small community of dedicated players.
@Billsama Because you get and KEEP free games every month on Xbox Live and PSN. There is no advantage to Nintendo's online service compared to those two that makes it more worth it.
@Yorumi All true, concerning Steam and GOG, but STILL the business model is factually different.
Let's get this out of the way first: no offense, but I'm not really up for a yes/no battle, which is why I've hesitated up til now to react to you on the matter across all these articles that you have already commented on it, so I'm just going to make one final post on it, and I'll leave it at that. It's my own point of view, mixed in with some facts based on my own professional knowledge of sales & marketing and IT.
A simple example: in PC gaming, I buy/make my own rig, Microsoft is not responsible for selling me the hardware or making a profit off of it, which it IS in case of an Xbox, where the hardware sold either has to be sold at a profit or at a loss, in which case the games sold will need to make up for that, and dedicated server gaming also helps to achieve that.
All in all, small server environment or not, maintenance costs money. It can be made cheaper, relative to the number of gamers, but let's say you maintain a server for only a small number of gamers, then the costs will be relatively higher than when you have tons of gamers on it, although in that case, it then also depends on how many servers you might need, making costs potentially rise again. And in Microsoft's case, and probably also in Sony's case, a lot of the servers are their own, NOT the individual developer's, so these costs will obviously always be factored into their cost/revenue model in some shape or form.
In any case, that is all I have to say on the matter, and I'll personally just wait and see how it pans out. If the current rumors are true, (temporary VC games, messy voice chat and so on) then I'll probably pass, but if it actually turns out to be a decent and stable service, then I will certainly consider using it, depending on the cost.
After all: as a more or less fledgling in good online services, they should certainly not make it cost more than the other two...
@MarcelRguez We do pay for the game when we purchase it. The online isn't "free".
To the ones that think you HAVE to have the Playstation Plus service, you don't. The free games on the system are playable without Plus...you can still play them online. The games themselves (retail and certain downloads) are the ones that you can't play online without the service. Other than that, I'm not a plus member anymore, and haven't been for a few years, but it was nice to get the free games (granted that you can play them whenever and however months you want, as long as you're a plus member). With nintendo, granted that their online services are not the best and haven't really gotten any better, this is what is making people mad. Deals by nintendo themselves on the e-shop have been bad or almost none, they rarely even mark their retail games down...much like you won't see player's choice games on the Switch probably until 3-4 years down the line. I guess nintendo needs to state a statement about their service...will it be better, will they offer enough for your money, etc. And as to everyone that thinks the $50 for Plus and $60 for live is expensive...you all know that nintendo will charge the same amount...it's not going to be cheaper, so people need to stop being fanboys and look at facts...all of them are the same, and I own all Sony and Nintendo consoles and enjoy both fully. There's no real difference except with exclusives.
My concerns with Nintendo charging for online is that Nintendo hardly makes that many games that utilize online. It would make sense if there were more games but as it stands the primary games Nintendo makes that are online oriented are Animal Crossing, Mario Kart, Smash, Splatoon, and a handful of others. In addition being given 1 nes or snes game a month to RENT is awful. Nintendo likes to act like it doesn't have to compete but it absolutely should if they hope to justify their services.
People are so angry with what piecemeal information the online service Nintendo Switch will offer.
@LegendOfPokemon I see one advantage, but this is merely an opinion based on my taste. Nintendo games worth more, period. Nor Microsoft nor Sony have the level of classic quality games that Nintendo have.
We can't expect Nintendo to just give away their decades old lineup of classic games just because. This are games that started entire genres and franchises, no any random game you can find around.
On the other hand we know how Nintendo have been doing things in the past. They sell their classic games again and again. It is not surprising that they pretend to charge for them once more. At least now we can try the games for a whole month before deciding to buying it. I have my 3DS full of classic games that I played and finished in less than a month and then never try them again. For me personally, having one classic game a month, means I can probably finish Super Mario World or Earthbound without buying it and then replace it with another game next month. That's brilliant. And well it is called Game Rental for a reason.
@Arehexes "I won't touch their service if I have to rebuy stuff again."
It's going to be funny when the first 30 months for Switch Online they give away the 30 games from NES Mini. Maybe the SNES Mini if they launch that at Christmas. How many people buying a Switch won't already own all or almost all of those NES or SNES games they'll be renting for a month at a time?
I have zero issue with Nintendo charging for online. However, I suspect Nintendo expects some loss here. This explains total lack of games. And lack of anything resembling an appropriate plan. They are going to milk every bit out of those early adopters. Those folks will pay for the first party games and be the guinea pigs for the online experiment. And Nintendo, in order to have third party games are going to need some sort of online infrastructure. They want to see that. I just don't think Nintendo only fans are going to be enough to keep Nintendo afloat anymore.
@BensonUii "allowing voice chat on the console "
My thought was they put the voice chat on the phone so you can use it when the Switch doesn't have great WiFi connection for online play. We are talking about a portable system playing Spla2oon. Perhaps Nintneod thought it better if they focused all the Switch WiFi on the games and then peopel's phones could handle the vice chat. If it were a home console only perhaps the voice chat would be on the system.
That was my thought anyway. Plus, then even if you don't have WiFi you can still play single player games on the Switch while talking to your friends on the phone on the app, cell signal being more widespread than WiFi.
Is it actually true that there's going to be one nes or snes game available for the month then disappears? I feel like something has been missed in translation.
For a company that barely puts any efforts into a rewards program (MyNintendo), this paid online thing sounds ridiculous. Back in the day, I'd consider paying A LOT for a subscription service on Nintendo systems, since they're possibly my favorite videogame company to date. But no. When I look back at 2015, 2016 and early 2017 customer policies, I just turn 180º.
You see, I've been sitting here with 150 Gold Points on MyNintendo, which means I've spent a lot on digital purchases in the past year, but every month I log in the MyNintendo website to check new rewards, all I get is more and more discounts for games I already own. It's ridiculous to the point it becomes insulting to people who gave it a chance for digital purchases (I was a physical-only customer a few years back).
So, temporarily free SNES and NES games. Yeah. Good for people who never played those, good for casual gamers who want to experience the original titles in the franchise once in a while then move on, just to see what it was like back in the old systems. But for people who want a wide collection of games in their systems, for people who support the paid online for something else? No, that's also insulting. Not to mention these games were available elsewhere - Wii, Wii U, 3DS - and, of course, if you want just a "trial" of a NES os SNES game, why not simply download a ROM and (legally speaking) get rid of it in 48 hours?
That was not a smart decision from Nintendo.
Just as long as it is similar to Sony, I am fine. I think it should be a tad cheaper considering all they are offering is Nes/SNes.
@rjejr A lot of people if I had to guess. I just hate how on Nintendo can get away with hardware bound licenses like this is the days of Securom on PC. Sony (dispite its issues) has it so the online license is just avalible for the next gen hardware (psp to vita). Same with the Xbone and games people bought digitally on the 360.
But with Nintendo it irks me I have a cart of Earthbound, but I rather play a digital copy. And now my WiiU license might not transfer? That's very annoying to say the least. And from my understanding 3DS VC games can't share saves (But MH3U can...). It makes using your own emulator and rom worth it. I have my the cart so screw what Nintendo offers for the VC stuff.
The only reason I would pay for online is because I am addicted to Monster Hunter.
Its not to say Nintendo can't amend it further down the line. If not enough users pay for the online sub, they're going to have to offer a price cut or offer more free stuff. I get it, a VC rental is not so great but they can't be offering full new games for free this early on, not with the Switch eShop being so new and empty come day one.
The idea that they'll charge for online, and then only give you a demo of a game for one month is an insult. The game should be for keeps, or else who cares, I could just buy each game each month without the subscription! Charging for online gameplay is quite sad really, and both Sony and MS give you free games to keep, multiple, each month, for their pricing, so unless the Nintendo plan is $5/year they're going to have to sweeten the pot!!
I like the idea of playing old NES and SNES titles with online multiplayer. As long as they do it for the cool ones. Like those old beat-em ups, like Double Dragon, Final Fight and Battletoads.
@greengecko007 I don't think it's a scam at all. it costs a lot of money to acquire and maintain all those servers, not to mention the development issues.
No i don't want to pay for that
I hardly game online these days. For me it's a no go anyway. I do hope it's free at the shopping network to download games and having the possibility to pay with Paypal. I don't have a credit card so i don't have much option here if they don't allow Paypal
Earlier I posted about my concerns regarding this added cost and this insane launch. I wanted to add one more thing:
While we are talking about the added cost of a subscription to a potential $400 to 500 investment without a game, let's also talk about the storage situation as it all factors in when you're talking about digital downloads, the potential and possible need for cloud storage services and how they may factor into Nintendo's online service offerings in the future.
Here we go. I'll use the PS4 as an example, as it has the greater breadth of genres and plenty of jrpgs/rpgs... something Nintendo is pushing with early software support news.
You can get one of the competitors system's with a game and 500GB of storage for around $299.
To match that on the Switch, you'd have to pay $299 for the system (which will have nom streaming/ multimedia capabilities at the very least at launch), $60 for a game and to match the storage, around $300+ dollars for a 512GB card (Even if you only wanted a 256 card, it's still $150 - 200 depending on the brand/quality). Then add extra controllers for $80.
So to break it down, I could buy a PS4 Slim Uncharted 500GB bundle for $318 right now, bundled with an extra Dual Shock 4 controller, and I could add a PSN subscription for $50 (with free games every month), and I'd only be spending just under $400 with tax.
To get the Switch with extra controller and 500GB of memory and one game (but no online subscription): $740.
This is insane... and they want you to pay for online service too?
@Yorumi I do think you need to be careful here. I talked with you a bit on another article. After looking awhile and thinking about it more I feel like you are the one who may not have all of the facts. I think it is reasonable to conclude that companies like Sony, and Microsoft do need to spend a considerable amount of money to support some kind of online, I suppose the only way to know for sure is if we could get a hold of official financial statements that show exactly how much they are spending to provide their online services. They way I understand it the higher the traffic the more it is going to cost. If you have millions of people playing online you need to make sure your system can keep up with that. That means more resources, infrastructure, personnel, security, hardware, etc. One site I was looking at said the cost can be in the millions and although I didn't save the link I don't have any reason to doubt it. That cost has to be covered somehow so they will have to raise the prices of the products they sell and perhaps by using a subscription service they will be able to offer better discounts or cheaper overall prices on the eshop. Time will tell. I respect your opinion and experience in the industry but I think you are missing some pieces of the bigger picture. Nintendo for instance has intimate knowledge on what they are spending to provide online services and I am sure this was not a decision that was made by saying, "How can we gouge our fans for more money? I know let's charge them for something that doesn't cost us anything." I trust Nintendo but mostly because in the past they have given me good value for my money. My heart sunk when they mentioned paying for online but that is because I enjoy online play but I don't think I use it enough to justify paying monthly for it. However we also hardly know anything else about it at this time. I guess as details come out I will continue to see your "There are no servers it is P2P connections" comments. I for one think there is more going on than that.
They should be netflix with their entire VC catalog. Add in online multiplayer for a lot of the classic games too and people will eat it up even more. Then have different pricing options so they can be sure to get the maximum profit out of it by having pricing for various users and wallets
@coolaggro Like Playstation Now. I agree. Funny you picked Netflix as the example though; there isn't going to be a Netflix app on the Switch. At least not at launch and there's speculation there won't be for some time.
A subscription service that included a Playstation Now type service would be far more viable and attractive than what they are suggesting.
Nintendo's slogan should be:
"You don't get another chance, life is no Nintendo game. Time to Switch."
Allow me to put this in your minds... If Nintendo worked and did well to have good priced DLC at a time when DLC was (and still is) criticized for overpriced DLC and season passes... WHY NOT PAID ONLINE?! Im not saying it will be, but its within the realm of possibility that it would be better than the cost of Sony and MS services.
Dont care how DLC on whatever media works. If they cant get it out in time, they have to put in DLC or updates. Otherwise, longer game droughts abound. Wait, shut up, and be a good gamer is what I do. Its not their fault that greedy gamers demand a full experience like in a week. As they say, Rome was not built in a day, and so was Splatoon.
Hope you saw that, Yorumi, before I deleted it. Lennyface.
My biggest hope for the Nintendo online service is to transfer purchased Virtual Console titles and in particular - their saves. I will reluctantly pay the upgrade fee, or even buy some of these titles again, but do not want to start my progress all over for the 5th or so time. PS Plus offers save syncing, come on Nintendo! These VC games should read their saves generally the same way, regardless of platform, so it shouldn't take extra work for each title
Yorumi, gamers like you are whats to be out the door, if Nintendo wants to be successful with the Switch. Besides, I saw what Nintendo is really planning. They are targeting the naive mobile market children and casuals to secure a new, better generation of gamers than the one we already got. If anybody still wants to have their voice at Nintendo's table to make a difference while those people are coming as well, then they better SHUT UP and COEXIST. And thats what Im doing. Really, I look forward to seeing whiny gamers with their political correctness of whats right and wrong out of Nintendo's fold, when all thats left is just the available cards on the table in the big game of business in what they, Nintendo and all the other devs, have to live in, facing against the very thing that overtook console gaming in popularity and trying to claim it as their own. The mobile audience will be ripe for the picking and by the time Sony and MS try to catch up to Nintendo with their versions of the plans to attract the mobile market with their consoles, HUGE DISADVANTAGE FOR THE BOTH OF THEM, because Nintendo's brand power is whatll stand out to the children and families. Integrity? Thats political talk right there and not pushing yourself in reality to make a difference. And I hate politics which are nothing but barks and whines with no self esteem to create and provide their own resources to get what you want or even be creative with less resources. (Ive been on the path of doing more with less stuff, and plenty of surprising good things happen. You should try it.)
Yeah, as was already pointed out this is an unwelcome change. This could also negatively affect 3rd party support ... again. If the prize is not right (and I'm sure it won't) then nobody will buy it. Games like Fifa and CoD pretty much rely on online play . Nobody will buy them if they can't even play online.
Furthermore, they would have to severly step up their online features. If they do the 2 maps every 4 hours system in Splatoon 2 again, then they've seriously lost it. They need to step it up big times.
Don't even get me started on the "smartphone required for voice chat" system. That should be in the paid service. That's just flat out ridiculous.
I remember when companies like Ubisoft tried to charge you extra for online play with "online passes" and people showed them by not buying into it. Well, people had their chance back when Microsoft introduced paid online, then they had another chance when Sony did it. I guess it's too late now.
"The money that it costs to run online services for a platform doesn't just appear out of thin air"
"but to do so is to ignore the fact that it costs money to run these services"
@MitchVogel:
First of all, let me say - though I'm quoting you directly - that this isn't meant as an offence against you in particular, but rather goes out to everyone who justifies that subscription model with the costs that Nintendo (or any other company) has.
That argument is just nonsensical.
Because, if you'd follow that logic, next thing you know, Nintendo would introduce a monthly fee for their manufacturing (of the game cards) costs. Then, they would introduce a monthly fee for their transportation costs. Then, they make us pay for their IT equipment, which they need for development. Then, maybe the want us to pay the expenses Nintendo has for their cafeteria. And so on and so forth, until they finally let their customers directly pay the wages of their employees.
We as customers shouldn't have to care about the costs that a company has, period. It's none of our business.
The only thing a customer should care about, is: "Am I ready to pay the costs of purchase or not?"
Why should customers pay for Nintendo's (or any company's) internal costs on top of what we pay to buy their product? There is no precedence in any other sector where the customer has to balance the expenses of the producer.
This outlandish idea is only to be found in the sector of gaming consoles and it only became a thing because people actually started to pay for that and let themselves be fooled into thinking that it would be justified. Or maybe they just didn't care and paid anyway. Not everyone thinks about how they spend their money.
Retroactively justifying a pay-wall that prevents you from playing online with server costs and other stuff is just wrong. Nintendo could increase the price of the console instead, that would be fair and transparent.
But it is not the customers responsibility to come up with the money that Nintendo has to pay to some hosting company or other services in the first place. These are their expenses, not ours.
That's actually how economy works; you've got your expenses that you have to pay in advance and then you get your money 'back' by selling your product. You choose the price for your product so that the revenue covers your costs + interest (of course some companies set the purchase price lower and try to make up for the loss by selling more software, for example).
I'll admit I was skeptical at first, but mulling it over has allowed me to basically reach the same conclusion. It does cost money to provide online services and we're lucky enough to have gone so long without needing to pay at all. But now, in needing to pay for the services we will undoubtedly be getting, Nintendo will no longer be able to make excuses for itself. It's online has to be top-notch, because we're paying for it. The effort needs to be there. Because otherwise I know plenty of people will just ignore it entirely and just not bother.
On the other hand, people who keep saying "Nintendoomed" and "they're finished soon" will be unable to say so after a certain point. Because the steady cashflow of this paid service will be another means for Nintendo to make the money it needs. Nintendo's not going away anytime soon.
@N1ntendodo While it is fair enough to wait for pricing, given the way they've overvalued everything else for this launch I don't see that changing when they are looking at SONY and Microsoft raking in $50-$60 dollars for a sub. The difference being, both of those services are proven and established and offer far more value at that price with free content and games. Not some pathetic trial period. And having undervalued online services for so long, I don't know if they are ready or able to handle a real online service as most gamers understand it. And what in the hell would I want with a service that requires I use my phone to interact and for voice chat (while killing two screen gaming and interface for their system).
None of it makes sense or screams 'added value'.
Personally, I'm really hoping they can come up with a way to make it so the Switch is consistently online, even when you're out and about.
If I can play online Mario Kart while on my lunch break at work, then the price of admission becomes far more worthwhile.
This has probably already been mentioned but the problem isn't just the ridiculously limited access to just a single free retro game each month. It's also the fact that with little 3rd party support just how many Switch games will be playable online?
Looking at Wii U, the answer is not very many. So compared to other platforms you will be very limited with the games that can be played online.
Anyway, who pays for the online servers is it Nintendo or the game publisher? On Wii U I believe it's the publisher, so Call of duty servers are paid/maintained by Activision. NBA 2k servers were switched off very early, presumably by the publisher, not Nintendo? Does anyone know the answer to this? Even the Wii versions of CoD Black Ops and MW3 are still playable online because Activision have kept them running.
And why would I pay to play MK8 Deluxe and Splatoon online on Switch when I can play virtually the same on Wii U for free?
And why on earth should you have to use your mobile phone to communicate during online games? So you have to charge your mobile even more and tie it up whilst playing online. This is just stupid.
And Nintendo better not think about switching off the online for any of their Wii U games anytime soon or I'll never buy one of their products again.
@Yorumi
Some games run on P2P. All WiiU games run P2P. Better games run on dedicated servers. Sometimes the servers are run by the publisher (Activision/Blizzard runs dedicated servers), sometimes they're run by corporate vendors or university connections (shooters often have questionably hosted university servers, at least for PC versions.) But someone's effectively donating bandwidth in those cases.
Nintendo's servers for basic matchmaking, not even gameplay hosting, have crashed numerous times due to load. I swear their current network infrastructure is an iPad sitting on Tezuka's desk.
@rjejr I think now is the time to be talking about paid online. If they didn't talk about it now and introduced it in a year it would be a bait and switch that would confuse normal consumers beyond end, and infuriate the internet. If the console will have paid online, say it from the start, even if it's not the popular thing to say. Good on them for doing it now.
And Splatoon surely is something to charge for if they got the servers right. Who else remembers their servers going down for half a day during Japan's splatfest last Feb? Or when they went down during the global splatfest? Or the half dozen other times they randomly went down? They massively increased capacity to handle that each time (usually after it was too late.) They need more infrastructure desperately, and it's no surprise they're charging for it.
OTOH the price increase for PS+ was obscene. "We need more infrastructure", no the cost of supporting me as a customer did not increase. The cost of serving online features and cloud saves to me did not increase. I don't download digital games, they're asking me to pay more to further subsidize other people's free downloads. I stopped subscribing. Bundling the online fee and the free games was a weird idea, as it prevents anyone but heavy digital downloaders from seeing real value for their increasing fees. (Maybe they can spend that money on hashing passwords and credit card numbers, though....that would be new!)
@Rontanamo_Bay You just repeated what I wrote:
"In every business, the cost of manufacturing a product is built in to the retail price of the product."
You said it yourself, the cost of manufacturing is built into the retail price, not into a separate subscription.
And you write "because the company must maintain servers and a community that facilitate online play. That is an ongoing service that Nintendo must fund continuously".
Really? They must? Who forces them? Is anyone putting a gun into Kimishima's face and holding him hostage?
No. They choose to do all of that. Nobody forces them. It's their choice, so they should have to pay it. They never asked the customer or gave him any choice, they (like MS and Sony) just force the customer into it.
Besides, you still haven't explained why customers should pay for the servers and everything. You only wrote "That is an ongoing service that Nintendo must fund continuously, so consumers should pay for it continuously." Which is not an explanation, just a mere proclamation. You're basically saying "The customer has to pay because Nintendo said so".
And if anything, the server costs etc should be included in the price of the console, not the price of the games. Because the online service is not depending on any game in particular, it can even be used without any game and it's also not just applying to online games, but to all games.
From what I currently know about the service, I won't be subscribing for now. I rarely play games online, plus eshop access is free. The only category that piques my interest is the "exclusive deals" section, but I need more information on that aspect of the service.
It will cost 19.99US a month and have no annual payment option
This wouldn't be so bad if Nintendo beefed up their servers so there were less issues. However, I'll need to wait and see whether this actually happens.
@Yorumi
There's definitely network infrastructure. Whether they intend P2P or dedicated servers for actual game hosting is something we don't yet know. But even the matchmaking infrastructure required is clearly more than they've previously had available given the technical failures they keep running into that grinds the online experience to a halt. Even matchmaking and stat tracking for 12M clients takes some bandwidth and hardware.
I'll give you the chat app though. It's an odd call, and the only two reasons I can think of is liability limitation for staying kid friendly and not having chat on the console and tying it to real communications devices you already have, or they know they didn't know what they were doing, so they let deNA do the chat stuff, which meant phone app.
As someone that doesn't go for voice chat, I like the limitation, but I know I'm in the minority of the net.
@shani If I don't intend to play games online why would I want the cost of online built into the retail price of my console? Why shouldn't the people who intend to play online pay for the price of maintaining online. That's no better than Sony forcing me to subsidize free game downloads for other people when I don't use them as part of my subscription.
The chart above clearly shows that the only thing paying is for is for playing online games and the voice/chat/matchmaking app (which goes with online games.) Everything else is free and built into the cost of the console. Seems fair enough for a pay-for system. Pay for what you use. That will depend on price though.
Some fans still don't understand or may be just avoid to talk is that many negative comments for the paid service is not because of the fact that you need to pay money, but because of the high possibility that you can't get what worth the money: either the fee will be too high, or the service is not enough, compared to all other competitors. So far the announced services are far less than competitors while we can't expect the price will be far cheaper as well (considered how much it will cost for the additional controllers). The negative comments here don't really want the service to be free, but hope that Nintendo can take it into consideration and either announce a reasonable low price, or announce more exciting services that worth the money.
@jimi The voice chat app, though we know nothing yet for sure, almost certainly doesn't use your phones cellular data, just the local WiFi (that your Switch is also connected to, considering it has no LAN port.) It might also just transmit the audio over the BT connection and actually transmit it via the Switch's connection.
OTOH if Ninteno could somehow run an online service via that app that could run Splatoon stably over a modest cell connection and not consume a gazillion gig of data I'd pay $60 a MONTH
@Rontanamo_Bay What, that was your 'explanation? That the costs are continous? If that's the case, everything else from my first posts also applies: the employee wages, the transport costs, manufacturing costs, the costs of having internet and electricity in Nintendo's offices etc.
So following your argument, it would be okay if Nintendo charged us for buying the console, and then they would charge us several monthly fees:
1. for their ongoing online services
2. for their ongoing IT maintenance costs
3. for their ongoing employment costs
4. for their ongoing electricity costs
5. for their ongoing internet costs
6. etc
I did read it in your first response but I didn't think it'd actually be your justification for the subscription fee. I thought maybe you just left out that part where you explain why people should have to pay for something that's not their business in the first place.
Sorry, but that's not a justification. I have continuous fees to pay too, should I maybe charge Nintendo to pay my rent? Why you say? Well, because the costs are continous.
Did I respond like that (your description 'deliberately trying to be dense' nailed it) on purpose? Of course I did. But only because I couldn't find an explanation or justification for the subscription fee. It sounded like your explanation was "they must maintain those services".
Sure, I even agree with you, they should offer these services. But they should do it unconditionally (and then calculate the costs into their product's prices), because they want to (or because they think it's beneficial for the players), not just to make more money.
@NEStalgia Well first of all, I didn't see that chart on my phone and until now I thought they would prevent you from generally going online with the console. Which would've made more sense, actually. Now this is even more ridiculous! They basically say, "you may use the internet and you may not use the internet"? Which is it?
And about the other thing: I totally get that you wouldn't want that if you only play offline (actually, before Splatoon, I rarely played online myself - basically only the occasional Mario Kart Wii session). But aren't we all already paying for stuff that we don't use? Some people hate motion controls, yet they paid for the Wii U Gamepad (by buying the console). Others don't like downloading games, yet they paid for the eshop (by buying the console). Some never used Miiverse, the browser or other features the device had, but they still had to pay for it.
The thing is, once the costs are included in the retail price, you as a customer don't even realize what exactly you are paying for. You pay for the whole package and are happy with it. And since everybody has different needs, I think that's the only feasable way to make it fair for all. The only other way would be to make people pay for every tiny feature (like rumble, for example) and nobody would want that, because it overcomplicates things and basically splits up the console purchase into DLCs.
@UK-Nintendo
It's one retro game per month. NES or SNES.
@electrolite77 yea. That makes more sense.
@Cyberbotv2
One game. It says "Monthly game download
Subscribers will get to download and play a Nintendo Entertainment System™ (NES) or Super Nintendo Entertainment System™ (Super NES) game (with newly-added online play) for free for a month" on this link....
http://www.nintendo.com/switch/online-service/
Its a joke to me. Not a huge online guy, but I have a Vita, PS4, and PS3 and each month I get like 5 to 6 titles, with 1 to 2 of them I really enjoy. Whenever I do get a Switch, ill just be sticking with local play and probably still keep ps+
@shani
It seems fair enough. You can use all the internet services on your console for free. If you want to play online games, you have to pay for the service maintenance. Now, we can all debate if the server support provided is worth the fee or not, and we don't have the information yet to know that. But in terms of fairness of WHO pays it seems most fair that the people that want to play online multiplayer games are the ONLY people paying for that feature is sensible. Nor is that different from what PSN/XBO are doing.
I agree with your general point on the second part, but when I run down the list of features:
Motion controls: Have you never used your motion controls? Ever? Not for aiming in Splatoon? Not for aiming the bow and arrow in WWHD and TPHD? Not for shooting in Starfox? I don't think many people have actually never used them even if they say they hate motion controls.
You're not actually paying for the eshop unless you buy from the eshop. The funds to run that mostly come from the purchase prices on the eshop. The excessive prices Just like Amazon makes money when you buy things, and can thus fund the site.
The rest of your point, browser, MiiVerse etc makes more sense. But the costs of running a server farm for online gaming are pretty high. I imagine a stipend of that goes to publishers for maintaining their online experience in 3rd party games too.
I'm in between. I hated MS for charging in the beginning, and cringed when Sony added it. ANd yet I also understand the ongoing costs of running a server farm, and given how high a share an estimated use of that for, say 5 years would be, it's unfair to foist those costs on every console buyer. Think real estate, electricity, backup generators, bandwidth, staff, insurance & liability, security, and then the actual server hardware and constant upgrades, security reviews, etc. etc. A lot of money goes into that, that never existed in games before. Maybe they could sell online games for $150 instead of $60 to cover your "likely usage fee". I wonder if that would really cover it all? Better make it $200. But what if the game tanks and nobody plays much....then you paid $200 for a paperweight instead of just cancelling your $4 subscription. And Mario Run proves that nobody wants to pay $10 once, they want to pay $0.99 600 times.
@mullen If PS+ is the bar for comparison, all Nintendo Online has to do is work 10 months out of the year and it will be a win. PSN is AWFUL. People love it because "free games!" I don't want free digital games. I just want the online service to work. The free games are what's driving up the costs there. If Nintendo undercuts them on price, I can see this model being much more desirable to more people than the "charge me out the ears and give me 1TB free downloads a month" crowd.
That Nintendo is asking for a subscription free is in no way evidence that they plan to drastically improve the quality of their online.
The reason (at least one of them) why people are so upset is Nintendo has always notoriously been known to have terrible online, far worse than on Microsoft and Sony consoles. Their terrible online isn't just routed in connection speed, but online and communication features are often bad to non existent. The communication features available in most Nintendo games are consistently so bad it's highly probably that Nintendo prevents communication between players as an intentional decision.
The fact that the the Switch Online Subscription Service is proposing to only offer 1 NES or SNES game per month, at which point that 1 game is taken away when the month is up, as an incentive to using the subscription service, is frankly insulting when compared to what Microsoft and Sony offer for their subscription service, and the much larger number of good multiplayer games available on those consoles.
As far as we know, there are still no plans to start linking digital purchases to your account rather than the console.
This, combined with the fact that a connection to the subscription service app on a smartphone is required for voice chat to work at all on the Switch is further evidence that shows people that Nintendo still has no idea what they are doing when it comes to online.
The only thing Nintendo could possibly do to not make this service complete ludicrous is if they make it very, very, very, cheap, but at that point, why charge for it at all? If they are going to make the subscription service incredibly cheap, they might as well have not made online play require a subscription service, and have free online play as an attractive feature over their competition.
I'm happy to pay as long as the games I want to play online have voice chat.
Monster hunter
Splatoon
Mario kart
Dragon quest
@jimi as a pc player to another: counter strike has micro transactions out the wazoo that people purchase out the wazoo as well. just like how tf2 survives cause of micro transactions...out the wazoo. and dota 2...out the wazoo.
what i'm saying is they get plenty of income to support such a model.
Just because PC is an open platform makes people think they can't charge. They absolutely can. They just make plenty of money and take (last i checked) 30% of the cut on ALL initial purchases from the devs. Thats a pretty hefty chunk.
You're acting like its free cause its free. Thats not true in the slightest. Valve IS getting the money to pay the servers just in a completely seperate way. Online membership is just another form of it, Valve is directly taking it from dev purchases. Theres a reason not all pc games show up on steam.
Steam is just 80s - 90s nintendo stance on companies. If something else pops up with a better deal for them chances are they might take their chance on it like they did with sony back in the mid 90s.
@jimi Games back then worked fine on a dial-up connection. The amount of bandwidth and processing power required back then was way smaller than it is today, and the required layers of security were not even a blip back then.
Your point is somewhat valid, and there will be backlash from the Splatoon community if there are no dedicated servers. People have been begging for dedicated servers, even if it required a subscription, for a year. We just don't know yet. It's possible some games will go dedicated and some won't. If it's dedicated servers for that game it will make a lot of people happily pay. If it's not people will vocally resent the fee.
RE: security, yeah but I'm pretty sure the joys of the infamous Sony hack are why Nintendo has avoided serious online until now to begin with
@NEStalgia Of course I have used the motion controls, I love motion controls! I meant other users, it was only an example (like eshop etc). What I was trying to say was, we always pay for things that we might not want or use very often (or never), because it's included in the whole package. And I think nowadays - even though I still mostly play offline - online gaming - whether you use it or not - has to be considered as an integral part of any gaming device, just like the included AC adapter, internal memory or a HDMI-out (I'm aware that I'm mixing hardware elements with software elements here, but their all integral parts of a modern - not retro - console nowadays).
I'm also aware of the costs that hosting those servers - although I still doubt that they will be actually necessary or even used for games like Splatoon - is costly for Nintendo, but as mentioned before, that should be their concern, not the customer's. You don't see any other companies (aside from Sony and MS) in any sector charging customers separately for their expenses.
And I think that's the right way, because using online features
isshould be a basic right that everyone has.Furthermore, one could even argue that what Sony and MS are doing right now (and what Nintendo will be doing in the future) is directly violating the principle of net neutrality. Because net neutrality proclaims that no data stream should be favoured over the other against payment.
But apart from that, I agree with a lot of things you wrote. It just feels really wrong that they charge customers for something that should be available to everyone. As if, after millions of years of free supply, they suddenly would start charging you a monthly subscription for drinking water (which is already financed by taxes).
@Yorumi well Rontanamo_Bay answered the "how does Steam do it?" question somewhere on here. Not everything is a scam just because one business model is different than another. Why do some businesses offer me free popcorn just for walking into the store but when I go to a movie I have to pay for it if I want it? Why should I pay for a magazine subscription when I can think of numerous places that let you just take a free magazine? I mean my public library is offering all sorts of books for free, I just take them and return them when I am done. Why don't all book stores do this? Surely the books don't actually cost much if the library let's me take them for free. Some how they still manage to cover their costs. I don't know man, I guess I just see things differently. I tried PC gaming and I just couldn't get into it and I don't fully know why but that's how it is. I think they are justified in charging an online fee but I don't have to like it or pay for it. If Nintendo starts making games that I don't like I won't buy them. I also don't think I will rage on them for it either. Times are changing, the video game industry is changing and Nintendo is often accused of being behind the times but I think that is something that resonates with me more about them. I don't want them to be like Sony, Microsoft, or PC. I think if their games became more like the competition I would play less video games. Sorry, I kind of went down a rabbit hole there.
@Tsusasi Ok, then allow me to put in another viewpoint. In the current now winding down gen, children/families and casuals with smartphones and tablets likely owned another console to their device collection. What is that console they see first more likely as the best first choice? PS4 or XBone. Now we know all the problems the Wii U suffered despite its brand and first party titles, so we dont have to go over that again. Now, they are the clear winners. BUT NOW, a new console is emerging and its trying to take some steps like Sony and MS did, like the paid online stuff. PLUS, those who owned said consoles are used to them by now amd how they work. So, HOW do they try to be the first thing in their minds when getting their own console?
Well, Nintendo is trying to relate to them more closely. Having a console on the go is a good concept to them, can be sellable. And the subscription price, yes, the price... If they are used to paying subscriptions before OR be willing to pay if you are a first timer, then Nintendo has to have a lower price than whats being offered right now. $40 max, any lower will be a bigger dream to us. Also, if they have the money to pay for an PS4 or XBox1 at launch/first year if they are so confident in the first place, then getting the Switch should be an easy feat. If you have trouble seeing things now, look to the holidays.
Other things to deal with is data management... Its not that humungously hard, really. Just dont do digital at least for the time being. With the way things are, the physical media crowd is going to have a heyday. I mean, none of us dont want to have Zelda digital now... We are going to avoid digital like the plague until better solutions come up. If we do it right, it could be that we can just get more 32 gb SD cards, one at a time and at a good time gap before the next purchase.
@electrolite77 : Thanks. I'm assuming they give a fat discount to own the game after that 1 month period. I would hope they include licensed games now too. It would give reason to pay for such a service, because I have little interest playing online. I ventured online a few times with Gears of War on my xbox, and was blasted to bits in a few minutes. I can only imagine what hardcore maniacs would be waiting for me with a Nintendo game.
@jimi now you're twisting my words.
Few games on steam use dedicated servers. out of the 300+ games on my steam library i could count on my fingers how many use dedicated servers. You're calling everyone here a nintendo shill, yet you're clearly being a PC elitist. This doesn't help your arguement in the slightest. now then...
"Counter Strike microtransactions are COSMETIC ONLY."
Microtransactions are microtransactions. Income is Income. this changes absolutely nothing. You don't NEED cosmetics nor do you NEED to play online. If its something someone wants, thats that.
"But they don't. You can buy tons of games on Steam.
Just like I can and actually did buy tons of games on WiiU.
But I DID NOT HAVE TO DO THIS. No one is."
Yeah. ok? you can buy tons of games on the switch too. No store requires anything to buy stuff off their digital front.
also i think you completely ignored why i said "they don't."
"No, I never said that. You are twisting my words.
I said that I DO NOT HAVE TO PAY MONTHLY FEES to Valve to be allowed online. That's a fact. I can actually just continue playing Counter Strike and not buy a single item."
theres a difference between twisting words and saying what you sound like.
Not having to pay monthly fees, sure, but then willingly say its ok to buy optional cosmetics. Can't say i see the difference between paying for a $5 cosmetic or a $5 fee. Then again, most games on pc allow you to buy dlc cosmetics with in game money. not valve. huh. interesting.
"COUNTER STRIKE USES DEDICATED SERVER"
Gee and where do you think the funding for those servers come from. Sure as heck not their left foot.
Theres more than just matchmaking servers to upkeep. I'd sure as heck prefer them to keep their login servers and store servers up an running. Unlike how steam likes to drop out on us so much (aside from tuesday maint. thats reasonable.)
Don't even get me started on the two days my entire steam account decided to not exist. Real fun.
"So Nintendo is not selling games anymore and just giving those away?"
I don't even think my 7 year old sister could've twisted that so far from what i said. its almost laughable if it wasn't sad.
Theres a reason many games use p2p over dedicated servers and its not to just be "cost effective" as you so love to point out. I'd explain it to you but it'd just go over your head.
tl;dr - get a grip. Not everything is all roses an sunshine under the hood. Take off the rose tinted glasses and you might start to see it: all buisnesses want your money, lord gaben is no different. Doing it differently still leads to the same end.
I know we have some details, but the jury is out for me on if this is a good or bad model until I see it full swing. The biggest question I need to find out is a) Do I "want" to be paying for a subscription service or b) If I do, do I "approve" of my ROI of it. We shall see...
@Snader I think it would be a great move for Nintendo to offer a 'GeForce Now' service. It would expand their game library immensely and immediately - which given the line up revealed is desperately needed. If that cost is included in their online service, I think that would go a long way to make it a justifiable expense for gamers.
In addition, to make the mobile aspect of the Switch more appealing, expand the game library and to make use of the the touchscreen, I hope the Switch is a system that will see mobile games - similar to Android and iOS.
Right now, at least for me as a life-long Nintendo fan, the Switch is barely appealing. So, I can't see how it is appealing to even the casual market. None of the games seem like they could be done on the Switch. Most are ports and content-added but few are ground-up dedicated for Switch.
Nintendo has talked about wanting to follow a model similar to Apple - so I think the above is possible and could go a long way to improve the value proposition of the Switch. It might be a bit confusing having a lot of avenues to play games - Switch-only, eShop, Virtual Console, GeforceNow, mobile but if they can make it clear I think it could expand the gameplay options available - which consumers would value.
I'm surprised that I haven't seen much of any discussion about what Reggie said in that Wired article. He said that the system allowed players to play online on-the-go. The smartphone interface allowed for voice chat using earbuds instead of bulky gamer interfaces, and that people could play online wherever they went. This seemed really key to the whole Nintendo online approach.
It seems to me that they've designed it the way they did for the purpose of mobility. The smartphone becomes the 'second screen' in a sense. you can chat while playing your game without the tv interface being used for that purpose. Voice chat can be done, etc... and at the very least because of hotspot capability, you can play online wherever you go, with all the chat features...
Obviously, since all the communication is being done via the smartphone, no resources need to be dedicated to the switch for this, and you probably will be able to get a game request in your regular feeds... so you know someone wants to play with you, even away from your system.
wired interview quote below:
"The reason for that is, it continues to reinforce our commitment to online, and do so in a way that will enable the consumer to enjoy their Nintendo Switch and to still be able to play those connected experiences—like Splatoon, like Kart, like fill in the blank—while they’re on the go. Instead of having some sort of bulky gamer headset, you’ll be able to do it right off your smartphone, put in your earbuds that you use for your standard mobile device. We think that’s a pretty sweet solution. That’s part of the overall opportunity that we see in a subscription service."
https://www.wired.com/2017/01/reggie-fils-aime-nintendo-interview/
@PGS_71 , I remember when 2K shut down those servers. It was like six months in. Nintendo must be forced to charge a fee from their customer presumably to pay 2K to keep their servers up. I'm sure the fall is when this goes into effect because most third party games arrive at the end of the year. I'm only guessing though.
Its too early to tell without the price, or what the new online mode they mentioned for NES or SNES games. If it is as we know it now, and it is $60, it will be an utter failure when MSFT and Sony both offer full games for free, as long as you stay subscribed.
I'm not paying for online until there's a game that I expect to be playing for a long time. There's no reason why I can't do local multiplayer in the meanwhile.
Since I got five @ from my original post and at times your arguments get a bit redundant, I'll try to answer them as a whole. Sorry, but it's just easier for me. However, I do want to single out the assumptions made by @Mogster. Please, do tell me how "the industry is", I really want to hear what you have to say on that matter. Regurgitating food analogies and throwing around terms like "apologists" is not exactly a lot to work with. I'm positive it will take you a bit more effort to produce some original thought instead of the same old tired "fight the power, stick it to the man" discourse, but by all means, give it a try.
With that out of the way and in regards to my original post, the "perspective" part was directed to those who seem to think Nintendo live in their own bubble and are not conditioned by the reality of the market. As much as they like to pretend otherwise, the competitors actions do affect what is expected from Nintendo, and I have to agree with those claiming that charging for this service is the first step in Nintendo's way of getting rid of the preconceptions surrounding their infrastructure. I am very aware that this borders in "Nintendo only makes us pay because evil Microsoft did it first", and that would, in fact, be apologetic of me. Unless, and keep with me here for a second, I can understand why Nintendo would do that while disregarding my personal opinion on the matter.
In fact, as far as my personal opinion goes, it falls pretty much in line with what @LUIGITORNADO mentioned: I see what Nintendo has to offer, and I'm far from impressed. In that regard, I completely understand the disappointment.
What @Gauchorino mentions is precisely my point. None is obliged to get a Nintendo subscription, but that goes both ways: you can just not pay. No, really. It's that easy. I know this for a fact, I have never paid for online services. I do not mean this as a way to shut down others opinions (in fact, I'd argue that a conversation about what Nintendo is trying to offer as value is extremely necessary), but am also of the mind that talking about the value of a service without knowing what subscribing to it entails is beyond asinine. The tl;dr of this is as follows: there's nothing wrong with criticizing the value of the offer, but there's a lot wrong with complaining about what could be Nintendo trying to improve their services, especially when their entire offer is not on the table as of yet.
Am I expecting something revolutionary compared to what the competition is offering? No, of course not. The fact that they decided to focus on their VC rental system is enough for me to say the whole conversation has started off the wrong foot. Nevertheless, it has just started. A bit too early to pass judgement, as we don't see the whole picture just yet, it's all I'm saying. Never mind the fact that you're not asked to pay from the beginning. The service will stay free for months after launch. Enough time to give it a spin and make your own decision based on user experience, not knee-jerk reactions.
About the cost of online being covered by the price of the software (@Yhdekskymmenen ), that's such a sweep generalization that I'm not going to bother much with it. I'll just say that comparing consoles and PCs as if they are the same market is ridiculous, especially when you take into account the fact that DRM platform holders are not concerned with things such as manufacturing costs, can monetize their service with much ease and, by virtue of being on PC, have infinitely more potential consumers than dedicated platform providers. Valve alone (hi, @jimi) is proof of that: their service provides them with so much revenue that they've dropped software development altogether.
To summarize that, I'd say that you can't single out something like what @cleveland124 mentions about third-party games devaluating quickly as a way to defend or attack Nintendo's actions in this topic. There's no single factor that justifies or condemns this strategy, it's a bigger picture. As a counterpoint: if the price of online is included in the price you pay for the game, then the price of software should have increased since the 90s. Guess what? It hasn't. In fact, accounting for inflation, games are cheaper than ever. So, to me, when you argue that online costs are covered by software prices, you are effectively asking for games to get pricier. Again, perspective.
Sorry if this gets too rambly, but it's hard to talk about so many topics at once with five different persons. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have a Fire Emblem Direct to watch.
I have a lot of confidence in Nintendo's pricing for this service. Everything about Switch screams value for money right now.
We'll be lucky if it doesn't cost $100 a year, with extra to use the voice chat via your smartphone.
Since I had always been a pc gamer before I became a console gamer one of the main reasons I chose a Nintendo console was the free online services. Now that all of the major consoles charge for online services, I guess I'll be getting a proper gaming pc again. the 300€ that the switch would cost will be a good start, and I probably only have to spend another 100 - 200 to get a proper system, especially since I already have a great projector, so I don't need to buy a screen or anything, and my wii U pro controller work fine as controllers for the PC as well.
I've never payed online before (I have a Vita, PS3, 3DS and PC) and I don't intend to start now. That's the beauty of PC gaming. It's an open platform. Nobody 'owns' PCs. Paid online will never happen on PC.
"For now, we're being offered one NES or SNES game per month that's only playable for a month, but we could easily be given a handful of games for a longer period a year from now. . . . Nintendo isn't bound to the amenities it's laid out, and there's a good chance that the service will improve considerably as time passes"
With all due respect, that does NOT sound even a little bit like the Nintendo I've known in the last 10 years. A person doesn't wake up one day with a brand new personality, and neither does a corporation. For a long time, now, Nintendo has acted very self-assured as it decides what little things to trickle out to their fans, and they certainly don't seem to listen to what their fans would like to see - they do what they want, generally not what their consumers would appreciate. (Their 3 minute ad months ago led us to believe that the Switch would be a more traditional system, but one that could be both a console and a handheld. So what do they do in the hour-long presentation? Focus mostly on the Joy-Con motion control gimmick.) And FWIW, I'm a lifelong Nintendo gamer - I don't have much interest in the games offered by Sony or Microsoft. Nevertheless, I'm calling it like I see it. One NES or SNES game a month to temporarily have? . . . What more can I say?
@FullbringIchigo They couldn't possibly have implemented live streaming or it would have become impossible for them shut down all the YouTube channels uploading their content...
@polarbear That's certainly the direction we're headed in, here in this wonderful world of endless taxation.
I would bet it's $60 for a year. Keep in mind for that you get the privilege to play last generation ports or maybe SF2. I mean I loved that game 20 years ago. Or maybe I get a free trial of a NES game I've already paid for twice in the last 10 years. But I think what will really make it worth it is a 10% discount on digital games so I can spend $50 on a SD card to store them. I can handle a subscription I just have to feel like it's value for my money and sadly I don't have faith in Nintendo to deliver.
@jimi Glad I'm not the only one feeling like some people on here really are shills rather than regular commenters. The apology is real. Prease understand!
@Rontanamo_Bay Did it ever occur to you that people here that have negative opinions and views might be life long Nintendo fans that are feeling burned by the Switch? If gaming is "just a hobby. For fun", then why are you taking @jimi 's criticism so seriously? Additionally, nobody has to try "really hard to find reasons to trash them". Nintendo have provided plenty of ammunition with their ineptitude and disregard for their customer base.
@MarcelRguez
"To summarize that, I'd say that you can't single out something like what @cleveland124 mentions about third-party games devaluating quickly as a way to defend or attack Nintendo's actions in this topic. There's no single factor that justifies or condemns this strategy, it's a bigger picture. As a counterpoint: if the price of online is included in the price you pay for the game, then the price of software should have increased since the 90s. Guess what? It hasn't. In fact, accounting for inflation, games are cheaper than ever. So, to me, when you argue that online costs are covered by software prices, you are effectively asking for games to get pricier. Again, perspective."
None of that really matters though. From a value perspective you pay more for Nintendo games. I'm a Nintendo fan and I know I pay more for Nintendo games. I justify that because I think they are good, but from a market value Nintendo games are more expensive.
And when you think about the price of games, you can't just factor in inflation, you have to look at many factors. The first is cost of manufacturing. I mean that's why the PS1 beat the N64. N64 cartridges (when they were getting big) costs $30+ to manufacture. Whereas a PS1 disc cost less than $1 to manufacture. So from that perspective costs have decreased a lot. Plus, you have to look at what game development is. It's largely a fixed cost. I.E., if I spend $30 million to create and develop Super Mario 3D land, then that's my cost. If I sell 30 million copies, my development cost per disc is $1 per disc. If I sell 1 million copies, my development cost is $30 per disc. That's why game companies have tiered price drops. After they recover their costs, it's basically all profit. So why are they not going to try to sell to more people that don't think their game is worth $60? That is particularly important because of the large expansion in the gaming market. As the market has increased substantially, video game companies can make more money be reaching a wider audience than raising prices. NES/Master system sold 75 million units. Our last completed generation PS3/360/Wii sales topped 260 million. It gets even more interesting when you look at tie ratio which has crept up as more disposable dollars are spent on video games than have been in the past.
So I don't really care what Nintendo charges for their games. If they want to charge more so be it. But that puts them in a poor position compared to their competitors and it'll cost them sales. The whole supply/demand curve always holds consistent. Higher price = less demand.
Only thing I like so far, is the free monthly old-school game (with apparently online multiplayer to boot.) Though, I hope you can still purchase, and download ones you want to keep.
They should also give discounts for VC games you already bought from the Eshop for 3DS & WiiU.
@NEStalgia it's not a matter that whether you care about the free game or not, it's about general publish, millions of users. If most users think it matters (you know, people goes for many free bonus even they are useless) and thus paid service for Switch doesn't worth, it just means you can't find friends and many active players online and your online experience will only be worth.
An online experience has to be worth paying for. PSN or XBox Live aren't perfect but they give gamers something tangible to attain for having a subscription. Nintendo needs to match these efforts with content or make their subscription cheap, like cup of coffee cheap.
@Cyberbotv2 That's what everyone is saying. I wouldn't put it past Nintendo to do something like that.
@Beau_Skunk Unfortunately, I don't think there's any way for them to do that.
@upsidedownjim I was not trying to imply that Nintendo would bring a sevice similar to GeForce Now, just that their online experience regarding stability, matchmaking, smoothness, etc. could benefit tremendously if they would use servers from Nvidia or which uses tech from Nvidia.
@Yorumi For me the whole discussion of Steam vs consoles is mute, since Steam doesn't offer the Nintendo games I want to play. I've been seduces to buy dozens of games on Steam that I've never played, because I always wind up playing on one of my consoles.
Futhermore I rarely play online, so I don't see myself jumping on the Nintendo paid online service. I'll just wait and see what it will cost and what it will offer.
I find incredibly naive how people can miss tge most important part of "paying to pay online"
Unless you pay for the access to online gaming you are not getting the entire experience of the game you actually paid full price for
Why the F do i have to pay a monthly fee to access stuff on a game ive already paid for ? Why is part of MY GAME being stuck behind a wall ? Theres so much wrong with this paid system that it blows my mind people just go and pay like its nothing.
I paid full price for the game, now please let me access everything in to without having to pay extra.
Since it was suggested that Nintendo online games fully run on servers, I can definitely confirm that MK8 is p2p during races: all the consoles are synchronized with each other, to the point that if one console claims to have won the race after 1 lap due to console-level hacks, the player wins, the players can also get any item they want, when they want, using RAM hacks on their console. This wouldn't be possible on races running on servers. So yes, there are Nintendo games running on p2p connections.
@Snader Ah, fair enough! I haven't used the service but it looks to me like the Switch could benefit from it.
@Faruko
On the other hand, say they dont' charge, they let you access "all of the game you paid for for free". But, well, Zelda has no ongoing costs to them. THey make the game, they ship it, you buy it, their expenses are OVER. So, say that online game, they spend nothing more on it. Now you try to connect to play that online part of your game. It works well. Now next month more people buy the game. The server is busy/unavailable most of the time. A few months later, the server's gone. It crashed and, spending no more money on it, they never fixed it. It goes back up after a time, but now hackers/cheaters are rampant and the game is TERRIBLE. Because they didn't spend money policing the system and fixing issues in the game.
That's the catch. It's fair to say "the price should be built into the game" rather than charging a fee. I kind of agree with that...I'd much rather pay one time fees than recurring service fees. BUT...do you think you'd get that game for $60? The same price as Zelda, or Mario Odyssey or Wonderful 101? No. When they shipped those games to you their costs stopped cold. The cost of development was budgeted to make the game, and when they shipped it, that cost stopped. When you buy an online game their costs do not end. They continue as long as they support the game. Server,s staff, maintenance, expansion, bug fixes, cheat police. So if they don't charge you monthly for all that, they're not going to DONATE labor. The cost would be built into the game. So what is a fair price for an online game you might play for 2 years and use server capacity for? $80? $100? $200? And should the person that plays it 2 months pay for the 2 years estimated costs?
I'm not on either side of the pay-non-pay argument. Just playing devils advocate so it's not one sided either way
The only "fair" way to do it is eliminate online and games as a service, and stick to old school "host your own server somewhere else, and plug in the IP to connect to it. You're responsible for hacks and the rest, have fun, there will be no patches." But that runs contrary to console convenience.
Me? I miss that era. Then again, Switch supports local LAN play (this is more or less a console first, again why is nobody talking about this? Heck even PC games rarely support local LAN these days!) And you don't need to pay for it.
@mullen It's a little biased though. To say it's OK to bundle the cost of free games in the subscription for everyone, even though not everyone wants or is able to download the free games (bandwidth caps, storage limits in the included drive, etc), because at large people find value in it, but to then say that Nintendo can't charge for just the online without free games at a theoretically lower price because it's not offering free things they MAKE you buy whether you use them or not, is to give Sony a pass on overcharging but fault Nintendo for charging at all.
Sony's a "better service" for people that want to digitally download games, have the bandwidth and storage space to download those games, and actually want the games they can download. But not everyone that wants to play online wants to download digital games. The ones that don't are subsidizing the ones that do.
There's a great chance for Nintendo to win those customers (and disrupt the gravy train of free elsewhere by luring the subsidizers.) I don't agree entirely with @Yorumi on his stances, but I can't help but think, if you're into paying subscriptions and downloading everything anyway, why not just go PC?
Sony leveled a price increase against users specifically to subsidize the users maximizing their free game benefits. That's an online ecosystem that doesn't benefit me and has me paying for other people. Therefore I left the service (not the console but the service.) Nintendo should have an easy time convincing me to pick theirs up if they ask for a lower price that's not subsidizing other's features. We all pay for online play, we all get online play. Same price, same benefits across the board.
Really excellent article! My biggest concern is that Nintendo will charge something like $50 a year for this online service while suffering from a lack of 3rd party support. What's the point when your platform isn't getting the Destinies and Battlefronts? For that matter, what's the point when people can get those games on rival platforms which they are already paying an online service fee for? Ultimately, as lovely as Splatoon and Mario Kart are, they are not reason enough to pay continually to play online!
@Mogster Except, it's not like you're paying $60 for games that don't have online and $70 for games that do to cover the cost of running/maintaining servers. If you play Mario Kart online you are getting more than if you just play it alone or locally. If you don't need that extra value, you don't have to pay for it. Covering that extra cost with a service beats having the game itself be priced higher for a feature you might not even be interested in.
@MarcelRguez Thanks for the response despite having to also respond to several others. I understand your point, but the thing is is that we already know Nintendo's basic plan regarding this: to charge us for something that was once free. That's regardless of what sort of improvements or additional value the new, paid service provides. Some of us don't want to pay for online functionality at all, despite whatever new features that may entail, and it isn't unfair nor irrelevant to the subject to argue that we shouldn't have to. Arguing against this broader concern and more nuanced ones all in the same fashion as you would more particular ones is missing the point and is effectively brushing perspectives that voice this concern under the rug. So, again, Nintendo is arguably in the wrong if they ignore their users' desires in favour of forcing what they think they will pay for and enjoy. This contrasts with creating innovative gameplay and accessories (eg, motion control and the Wii Remote) which are not compulsory to enjoy playing other games on the console to their respective fullest extents (but neither are they above criticism, of course), which things I do support, personally.
I am curious how the whole online will work with Nintendo. Will we finally be able to redownload games since we are paying nintendo more money, or are games set to the hardware still? Haven't heard any info on that yet.
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...