Nintendo Confirms Switch Save Data Is Tied To The Console And Cannot Be Transferred

This doesn't bother me personally, but I could see this being annoying to some people. Is cloud storage how you would fix that?

What I get from this is Nintendo really, really doesn't want people to save scum. I imagine it's especially a big problem for online 3DS games. Then there's all those security backdoors on the previous consoles that involve tampering with save data to get arbitrary code execution.

Take care of your Switches, everyone.

"Do you think Nintendo is cooking up a cloud storage option"

I think expecting anything "normal" on the subject of online from Nintendo is a bad plan at this point. History has shown the two realms (online and Nintendo) rarely overlap. So no, I don't see a cloud solution coming. I'm hopeful for just an update that lets us save saves to the SD card. And even then, I'm not getting those hopes up!

So when our Switches break we lose all of our save files. That's lame.

It seems kinda strange that you couldn't move save data to an sd card to free up the on board memory. Hopefully a future update might sort this out.

Cloud storage would be a cool feature and would resolve some of the buyers fears.
The only problem with cloud storage is that once the switch online subscription closes, you won't be able to change consoles/hard reset the system memory, etc.
Well, if the Switch isn't fully jailbroken by then.

So if my Switch is stolen, lost or broken that's it.

Personally not too bothered about this but I agree some would be.

As long as my purchases are transferable if disaster strikes that's all that matters, even if it means having to contact Nintendo support.

"...the firmness of Nintendo's wording makes us suspect this may end up being something of a non-issue; it could be that some form of cloud storage for save game data will form part of the company's online subscription service, which launches in full at the close of this year."

I think you're over-estimating them lol. This is Nintendo. Knowing them, there will be no save data solution, and if you lose your system/the system breaks — Tough luck. Start from scratch, valued customer!

Maybe they will have a way to transfer data in the future maybe by sending the console to them if they have to

Nintendo at its best

Is anyone surprised? This is Nintendo we are talking about.

Pathetic. This shouldn't even be an issue anymore.

@Switch81tch Nope, games aren't tied to the hardware. You can redownload from the eshop using your Nintendo account as you need to.

I certainly hope so because that will determine if I will buy another one or replace mine if it breaks past warranty.

This is why my partner and I got a second Switch. Frankly we both wanna play BOTW at the same time and right now we're working off one game card while a second one ships from Amazon Prime. But originally we were going to share the game and the Switch because save data was linked to the user profile. But when a game like Splatoon 2 was going to be released, we were always going to get a second Switch then and just transfer save data from one player's user profile to the new unit. Nintendo saying this isn't possible is what prompted me to spend 5hrs in the freezing Canadian winter for the midnight launch to get a second console (never doing that again BTW). So I'm hoping that Nintendo either offers a cloud based solution or patches the OS to allow for transfers to microSD in the future. Especially in the case of repairs and/or replacements. Because I'd hate to have to re-play BOTW just to get back to the point where I left off.

I hope for a cloud transfer solution, but it's Nintendo. Might never happen. Still not a dealbreaker for me as I like to replay games and rarely need my old save files. They really don't have consumer trust when it comes to modern features and services, and that's unfortunate. Something to work on Nintendo!

So wants the point of SD cards? Should have used a bigger Hard Drive...

Nintendo: Still generations behind everyone else in things that should be so simple at this point in time.

Wow. Even on the PS1 you had the flexibility of memory cards. Why has Nintendo got to be so backwards...

"The news that it's not possible to transfer data to another Switch system is a blow"

What Nintendo news isnt lately?

Fits well with the gigantic default storage solution.

So wait, if it is saved on system memory, and you have a few downloaded games, and you don't have an SD card, you will run out of space so therefore cannot save your game?

I think Nintendo doesn't care about your save files but does want you to buy more Switches. So get on that people.

@yomanation It's not how it's always been. You had memory cards on N64 and Gamecube. Wii, WiiU and now Switch all went backwards. on NES you had passwords or the game saved it. Same with SNES.

It has changed over the years. Don't shrug off bad hardware design and use Alternative Facts like, "that's how it's always been."

This is horrible and needs to change especially if we are going to pay for online. Nobody should be ok with this.

@yomanation 'how it's always been' sorry to sound rude but is Switch your first console? Previous Nintendo consoles like GC allowed you to move your data as you please.

I am sure there is a way to allow users to back up or transfer their saves but honestly I set my wiiu up like this so I'm not really bothered. Save games are on the 32gb hd and the actual games are on my usb stick. I do wonder if they will use pikmin again though.

@Bunkerneath In theory, yes. It's not any different from not having enough space for a save on a PC or other Nintendo consoles. Games reserve enough space when you first create the save file. It doesn't expand suddenly meaning you won't get into trouble in the middle of a game. Save files are really small too so it's something that rarely happens.

This would be to stop backdoor save data hacks, and copying / duping items in certain games that are bound to have online functionality in the future.

So all in all it is a good idea that they don't let us infinitely copy the data. Instead i'm almost 100% sure they will have save data tied to online accounts soon, after the launch all settles down a bit so the servers don't explode.

This is all tied to piracy I'm sure and Nintendo are almost paranoid about it. Imagine losing a 100 hour save file of Zelda: BOTW. Yikes! Don't have to worry about that on Wii U. Another tick for Wii U against the Switch. Now you know what that horrific baby game in 1, 2 Switch is all about.

It's training you to look after your Switch.

Incredibly stupid decision. Why go backwards from previous systems like the 3ds that let you do save backups? There better be cloud storage for saves then when we start paying for online. I adore my switch but damn... -_-

I'm so sure they'll implement cloud storage once the online service is fully up and running. I'm confident they've learned. In the meantime, I will carry on babying my Switch.

You should be able to have the save data on your physical card, in the system memory, or in the cloud. And, the cloud method in particular, is pretty essential of Nintendo plans on carrying accounts forward onto new consoles in the future. If it doesn't plan on carrying accounts forward onto new consoles in the future, that too is another joke in 2017 imo. I should be able to buy the next Nintendo console, access my user account, and re-download all the games I've bought on Switch, save data and all. Pretty much everyone else gets this in 2017, but not Nintendo it seems. I also shouldn't have to pay extra money for this basic account stuff either. And, this makes me worry that we're going to get another unnecessarily gimped Virtual Console service again—if we even get a proper Virtual Console service at all this time around. Christ, it's as if Nintendo wants to shoot itself in the foot sometimes.

Just bought the wife a Switch so she's having to start Zelda again.

Your Nintendo Account explicitly states that game data is attached to it, so my instinct is that this comes online with the online subscription.

I am not bothered by this too much considering I am fairly certain they will add in the ability to do system transfers in the future. I do recall them saying they were working on some form of cloud storage a while back ago.

To those worrying over losing their data. The same thing would happen if you had your data on an SD card and it got lost, or broken.

I wouldn't be surprised either if this was meant to stop backdoor save abuse

@SLIGEACH_EIRE No new games on Wii U, though. But yeah, I don't understand why they would take a step back like this.

A cloud backup solution better be on the way.

I understand the decision to keep saves on the system, to avoid accesspoints for hacking on the cartridges, and to allow for individual saves for each profile. But a complete inability to back up saves seems rather unlucky in this day and age.

There is immediately the issue of some games having rather large save files, by they would have to get around that somehow.

@Switch81tch Yes. That's exactly how it works.

I could see the save aspect being rather annoying, BUT I feel this is temporary.

For example, isn't save data for Miitomo and Fire Emblem Heroes already tied to the Nintendo Account? I have a feeling this is something that will be rolled out with the rest of the online services at once.

That being said given that hardware issues are generally more common near launch, this could be extremely problematic. They need to roll out all their online stuff soon, especially if these fixes are all rolled up in there.

Yeah i think so too, it will be part of the online service l.

A "non-issue"??? Except the fact that Nintendo might be holding save files for ransom, forcing people to sign up for their premium service if they want to transfer.

Well, those leaked dev documents said Nintendo was working on cloud storage, so the question isn't if cloud saving will come, but when. The fall subscription seems likely, but perhaps they'll implement it beforehand.

@JamesR @audiobrainiac Not confident it will happen anytime soon when their "latest" update is:

and

And the attached "Game Data" is meant for this for the time being:

Not saying its not happening in the future, but there is zero sign whatssoever from Nintendo. I would rather think its a source of income.

Save data was one of the main entry points for exploits in 3DS. Web browser was another one. So, I think Nintendo is trying to avoid that situation again.

Nintendo said they'd use cloud saves for the NX two years ago.

There should be an option to save game data to your Nintendo Account, similar to how mobile apps allow you to save progress to Facebook to share between devices.

What if they do implement cloud saves, but you have to have a paid subscription to their online service to get them?

@Mega_Yarn_Poochy Not sure, following this statement:

"Rather than trying to compete feature-for-feature with Microsoft or Sony's offerings, Fils-Aimé said that Nintendo's goal for the Switch was in "creating products and experiences that are unique and really can't be copied by our competition""

And Reggies right, you wont have that save-game experience anywhere else.

@Qun_Mang I'd be down for that. Their fee for the paid subscription is so cheap, who cares.

@SLIGEACH_EIRE The wiiu is a pirated mess. They already have BotW mostly working on pc so I can understand Nintendo being more strict.

Guess I need to not be dumb with my Switch.

With a future paid online services it better be

@Switch81tch Yes, but I think you can only have one switch attached to your account at a time. Replace the old one with the new one on your account and you can redownload to the new system. Basically, they're not allowing you to download the game to multiple systems. At least that's my understanding. Haven't had any trouble redownloading on my Switch, but haven't had to test it transferring to a new one yet (and hopefully never will).

@Mega_Yarn_Poochy Yeah, but it's far more fun to ignore that and complain, sooooooo.......

When I saw this I was initially thinking they meant your downloaded games are still tied to the console. Have they said yet whether or not games are tied to consoles or do we finally have accounts like PlayStation has?

I do not know if I will pay for online service as I do not really play any online multplayer games on any other systems. I do hope they come up with a option that is not behind a pay wall. It would suck to have your system damaged and lose 100's of hours of play. Then to be told that you can back up your saves for a fee. I guess I do not understand the problem with backing up to a pc.

@Qun_Mang That's what PS4 does. You need to have PlayStation Plus to cloud save which is a minor annoyance.

This is another odd step back from what the Wii U was able to do. They should definitely offer a cloud saving option - for everyone, but especially for those who pay for the online, much like how PS+ offers cloud saving for subscribers.

Let's hope the paid online includes cloud saving like on PSN. I've gotten a lot of use out of that.

Oh, so you can't save game data to the game card itself (like with DS/3DS games)? I thought that was one thing cards/carts always had over discs? Piracy reasons maybe?

I'm not buying a switch anytime soon, but this isn't one of the reasons. If for some reasons as the article says, I were to be departed from a switch I bought in the future AND still possessed the game cart AND bought another switch, that's just a reason to play a great game all over again.

@ironside1911 Well yeah I know. I read the article. That was just my personal opinion.

"Good Switch. Bad Switch. Which one will we get, today?"

For every step forward Nintendo has taken with the Switch, two steps have been taken back. They already knew we all hated Wii U's untransferable save data. It didn't prevent piracy of the system, either. Why haven't these problems been worked out, yet? "The cloud" should've already been used for this.

this is just plain stupid. why did they do this??

Here's hoping cloud saves are part of the paid internet services.

I am really not sure why save data has to be so inflexible. I would really like to know their logic behind this because I really wouldn't mind being able to move my save data to an SD card as a backup when I finish a game. Are they worried people are going to start selling their save data or something? I was disappointed when I found out I couldn't transfer save data between accounts on the WiiU, I wanted to put a password on my account after I set up my kids with there own account but they would have protested when they couldn't play games with everything unlocked like it is on my account, so I just left it.Though maybe it isn't as easy as I imagine it should be with all of the online rankings, or other things that are tied into your account. Unfortunately I will just have to take the bad with the good in this case.

May be on their next update, they could allow copying it on the sd card, no need for cloud saving just on the sd card

@JKRiki precisely. Whoever assumes a cloud storage option is on the way is just being naive.

We're talking about Nintendo here.

I doubt that, even though save data is also getting bigger and bigger, this will become an issue anytime soon.
Still, a cloud save paired with Nintendos payed online services would be preferable.

I get why they are taking so many precautions, but this inflexibility is hurting them in the long run.
Prime example: 3DS family.
Many people i know would have gotten themselve a 2DS as a "travel system" simply because its much more robust.
Problem was: Everything was System ID bound, thus, you couldnt just take your stuff from one system to the other on the fly.

This is why account bound content will always be the better option. Both for consumers and for the company themselves.

I'm assuming that writing/reading in-game data from the SD card would be exploitable by hackers, so that's why it's not allowed?

But if Nintendo is going to implement a cost for online play, then that service should definitely provide cloud saves.

Yeah this is completely ridiculous and as others said before, a backwards move considering the options we have on Wii U and 3DS. I also don't understand why they don't allow the game cards to be rewritable, I love using my save file between the wife's n3ds and my own 2ds without worrying that the save file is stuck on the console. Even worse that we're only given one option for save files, where potentially there could be 4.

One step forward three steps back

@Einherjar if the game was physical you could do that, that's what I do. And you can easily have lots of physical games with you on a case.

@Switch81tch What about saves in games that use IAP? If something like Shuffle 2 comes on Switch (and that game is full of paywalls), you will not only loose your [rng based] progress, but your purchases as well.

Either as someone else mentioned its to prevent hackers, or its intended to push people to buy their online service subscription for cloud backups, sorta like PS Plus.

Or who knows, maybe there is some other motive

I don't care how they do it, but being able to make backups is a fundamental requirement.

This is a nightmare. My Wii U disc drive went bad on me so I went ahead and bought another Wii U. After talking to Nintendo they offered for me to send both my old Wii U n the new one and they would transfer all my saves data etc from one to another since I couldn't do it myself. For whatever reason they couldn't do it and I couldn't get my saves off of my Wii U.

Ugh.. One step forward, two steps back..

I'm very curious to learn more about their online infrastructure at this point, because they better step it up if they expect me to pay for it.

So we have to pay for the online service to keep our save data for games?

Wait... does this mean that physical games take up as much space as digital games?!

Nintendo has always been heavy handed about controlling how you play games and they opposed cheat devices like the Game Genie, even went to court over it (they lost). Why does Nintendo care how I play single player games? I don't do multiplayer and while I agree people shouldn't cheat online, I don't think they should punish everyone. Right now you can use an Action Replay to alter saves for physical 3DS games, guess that's over.

Well, save data isn't as much of an issue as losing actual games. Given a little time, you can get back to where you were with whatever history you had. Its just a little more of a painful process, but I'm guessing this is to ensure hackers don't have things easy.

Hm...
If I only play physical retail, will it saved inside the card ?
Like 3DS or NDS, right ?

@G-Boy No, it just means that your save data is stored on the console and not on the game cartridge. The actual game itself is not saved on the console (if you have a physical copy).

IIRC, both the Wii and Wii U launched with the same situation — saves were stored in system memory and could not be copied anywhere, but both later added the ability to store saves on SD cards or external HDDs with system updates. It could be that this capability is simply coming in a future system update.

Urgh! Why Nintendo? Why are you like this? When did you become so naive and pretentious?

"On Nintendo Switch, game save data is stored on the console's System Memory. This will not change whether downloadable software or software from a game card is being played".

WAIT! WHAT?! Are they serious?! Even using the physical game card still saves to the system and not the game card itself??!! Why even bother with getting Micro SD Cards if everything is gonna just save to the system?! No...I must be reading this wrong. I have not eaten yet so maybe I'm seeing things. Yea, that's it. THAT BETTER BE IT!

@SEGATA_DREAMCAST
I think Nintendo try so hard to prevent piracy, hacks, etc. By tied the save data, maybe can prevent illegal way of gaming but it also have some consequences...
I think Nintendo have to take a risk by doing like this, to save their games.

@WindWakerLink
Actually, there is a 3DS games did same way like this, it was Fantasy Life. Fantasy Life save data is NOT inside the card, but INSIDE internal System Memory.

Each days gives me less and less reasons to buy a Switch. I don't want to miss another generation damn it.

Its like DRM, all have blown up in the developers faces, and the less flexible it is the blow up is bigger. Sometimes I think Nintendo managment is mentally impaired...

@Kmno
Nintendo is still fighting with the "Storm", whether their stiff policy or market situation. Just be patience and keep strong. I know these news doesn't sounds good but keep your faith on them.

@DanElectrode Nintendo, designing OS features like it's 2006.

@DanElectrode
Ooh....
An update for Wii U last time help Wii U to transfer save data ?
Hopefully Tatsumi Kimishima hears about this situation, add some updates...

This is still one of my absolute only points of serious annoyance for me with this system. I will almost certainly have a second switch at some point. I will want to move my games from one unit for certain games to the other unit. And if my saves are locked to one unit, I can't viably do that at ALL. That's a major it, so I'm strongly hoping there are cloud saves. It sounds very unlikely to me, though. But I'd pay if it did.

Super-disappointed with this revelation.

However, as others said, I think it's all about save scumming. People need to understand not only was scumming rampant in Splatoon on WiiU, most of the scummers strongly devended the position as "it just speeds up upgrades you can buy anyway, it's not like it removes the randomness or is changing game data to have double damage or something, so it's ok" and "I'm just using the features of the console, there's nothing unethical about that at all, Nintendo let me do it and even documented how to!"

People will justify anything they can find a way to do that benefits them as "entirely ethical". Sadly only the heavy hand of absolute power seems to be capable of stopping them from doing so.

How do we reconcile this? I don't know. But I still want to be able to copy my saves from one machine to another, and not just through full system transfers, either.

@NEStalgia 'How do we reconcile this? I don't know. ' I do, don't lock single player saves.

is there any reason why the save data isn't stored on the gamecard like on the 3DS? this is terrible news for families where several people might share a switch but are used to having their own versions of games.

Dear Nintendo, stop tying things to a system. It sucks and doesn't make gaming any better.

@gspro15198
Multiple people on one switch is not a problem, each person has their own local account. Run the game as your user, get your own save files.

The problem here is the opposite one, one person on multiple Switches with the same Gamecard can't have their saves move with their Gamecard.

@Crono1973 Well, I don't know how that really works out since there's no way to differentiate online save versus offline save and separating 3rd party etc.

Server-side saves tied to accounts for online games would probably be a better solution at least for that problem. Still can't enforce it for 3rd parties though.

PS4 allows copying saves to a USB stick or cloud saves. Yet they don't see to have the same level of scumming problems, so there's something to it I suppose.

This is so weird, why wouldn't save data go back onto the game cart like every other Nintendo console with cartridges? I hope they add in cloud-saves or AT LEAST the ability to move all save data between consoles by copying it to the microSD card...

@BoFiS You know that if they add in cloud saves, it won't be free.

I've been hoping for the cloud save service from day one. This need has been significantly soothed by a truckload of internal memory you free for the save files once the memory card is in, but force majors like console loss/theft/untimely demise leave the feature welcome anytime it would arrive.

@NEStalgia Putting a flag on a save file that can be used online should be simple enough. Any save file with a flag will be locked on the OS side. Unless every damn game has to have some online multiplayer worked in, that should work fine. Let me be clear, I don't give a damn about online gaming and I am primarily concerned with being able to move single player saves between consoles. I also don't think a non-free cloud save system is a good solution. I am frankly surprised people didn't put up more of a fuss about locked saves two generations ago. I guess we get what we deserve.

They should have been tied to cartd as It always was.

@Anti-Matter Really??? Huh. I'll double check my file when I get the chance.

You'd think they'd at least give us a save backup option like on 3DS. It wouldn't help with a broken or stolen console, but it would protect you against a lost, stolen, or corrupted SD card.

@Bruh at first it kind of nerved me, but after realizing that oftentimes save files are used to hack the system. So this is probably there to safeguard their hardware. Cloud saves would ease our pain though .

@jaymacx In the name of security, anything goes eh? Sometimes people use actual games to hack consoles, like they did with Twilight Princess so maybe Nintendo could just not allow you to have the entire game all at once. How about an always online connection that feeds you parts of the game that you need while also deletes the parts you don't need. After all, it's for a good cause in the name of security.

I wish consumers were more concerned with consumer interests than with corporate interests.

WHAT?!

On Wii U you can make a backup of your save data (although I'm not sure whether you can use it with other accounts), but your purchases are not tied to your Nintendo account but to your console (which means if you get a new console, you can't redownload your games).
On the Switch, your purchases are tied to your Nintendo account, so you can redownload them in case you get a new console. But you won't have any of your savegames.
What's worse of those two? Honestly, both are important, but if I had to choose, I'd rather loose 50-60€ instead of 100-600 hours (per game) of my lifetime.

I have to say, Nintendo might be improving in some insignificant areas but in return they're getting worse in those areas that are crucial for a gamer/consumer.

@Exy You mean Nintendo wants +potentially+ millions of people to suffer to prevent a few people from savescumming?
Besides, tying the savegames to the console doesn't prevent you from save scumming anyway...

@shani For digital downloads your purchases are tied to your account, but you're only allowed to download them on your "active" Switch. If you lose your Switch and buy a new one and can't locally deactivate your old one, you have to call Nintendo and beg them to clear your "active" one. If they feel so willing to do so then you can re-download them all. I'm HOPING they will add "active console" management to the Nintendo Account dashboard in the future like most device-lock (Kindle, etc) services. If you eliminate having to call Nintendo and can manage it yourself, that part is fine. If you have access to your "old" switch you can deactivate it yourself already. You just can't do it if you don't have access.

The saves however, is worse. You can't move your saves, and no phone call to Nintendo can help you.

@Crono1973 Same, I'm not an online gaming fan with the lone exception of Splatoon (which somehow fully roped me in.) And I was infuriated both by the scumming, and by the explosive, angry, argumentative defense of the practice attempting to point to whoever isn't doing it as being the one acting improperly. I lose a little more faith in the human race every year...

That said a flag maybe makes sense...but that sounds too easily hackable. Paid cloud saves are "industry standard" but since Sony does let you move it to a USB drive too, I see no reason not to demand the same of Nintendo. We really do need to see large pushback on this issue...it's a feature step backward from Nintendo's own existing consoles, not a relic of Nintendo being "out of touch."

@Ryu_Niiyama time to dig out the card again, we've got a beauty of a comment section here!

@shani Tying it to the console does prevent scumming. Local drive should be encrypted. WiiU scumming was done by backing up the saves, and overwriting the saves with your backed up version if you didn't like your results. Scumming gear was common that way (people spent many hours scumming perfect sets), and justified it. Others scummed their way to S+ rank, ruining the balance and scoring system (that was generally not so defended though.)

@WiltonRoots I played on another article earlier. This is pretty much an easy win. I may start putting usernames on my card.

@Anti-Matter its hard to do when they have been making dubious choices for more than 4 years in a row. I love, love their games but the way the manage their hardware and software is sometimes baffling.

They have to put something in place, because losing all my save data if I lose my console is kinda craptastic. Putting it behind a subscription wall isnt that great of a solution either.

Medieval approach in 2017. Hopefully this gets fixed, but I'm seriously curious what those boardroom conversations look like when Nintendo makes these decisions.

@Ryu_Niiyama that would make it too easy! There's a right spammy fella who's come out of the woodwork recently who should definitely be on that card...

@Kalmaro Nintendo will try their best in stopping piracy, but all they're really doing is stalling the inevitable, while also annoying their consumers.

@yomanation My Nintendo 64 memory card begs to differ.

@NEStalgia How does tying it to the console prevent save scumming? If you make a backup on your own device and then overwrite the active save game with your backup, it should work, no?

And also, if we take the example of Splatoon: Save scumming could've been easily prevented if your rank and gear were stored on Nintendo's servers. It's totally mind-boggling for me that in a (mainly) online multiplayer game, the most important data for online gaming is stored locally.
You wouldn't find this in any multiplayer game on PC, there all the relevant data is stored online with your profile.

And about the purchases: Seriously? You still have to call Nintendo to get back your games? I thought that was the whole point of tying the games to your Nintendo account. Wow, it's getting worse with every bit of information... what a screw-up.

This is annoying.... I can redownload my games, but I can't get my save files back? What do I do if my unit gets stolen, just moan and whine about it?

As much as I adore Nintendo, they really need to get on with the times. At least, if something happens to my 3DS I have a backup in my pc.

@Bruh that or a firmware update down the road.

@shani Exactly. Which is why you CAN'T make a backup. That's the thing we're complaining about

It's not that the saves are "locked to a console serial number", it's that they're actually locked INSIDE the console, you have zero access to them, there are no backups. Thus, you can't scum. But you can't move your saves between machines either (not even for a price, it's just not possible to do.) Even making console-locked backups would be an improvement (though a small one.)

No argument about online character data though. I suspect they're fixing that this time around with paid online.

Yeah, I was pretty shocked seeing that about getting the games too. Online one Switch is active at a time and must be deactivated to download (or play!) a download game on a non-active console.

FWIW, Koizumi said they're looking into something for that (playing downloads on multiple systems) so possibly the subscription online adds most of the "cloud services" for your Nintendo Account.

@WiltonRoots Am I correct in assuming this is NL Bingo we're talking about?

@Crono1973 great comment 👍🏻
I had to post it again

"I wish consumers were more concerned with consumer interests than with corporate"

I really wish Nintendo would get out of the 1990s with the way they handle save data and games in general. The idea of purchases and save content being locked to a piece of hardware as if they were tied to a ROM chip in a cartridge has to go. I have a Nintendo account with a login and password. There is no good reason to keep my stuff locked to one machine. I was bringing save files to friends' houses on memory cards for my PS1 back in 1995.

Damn that is kind of lame, they should have known people weren't gonna like this

Either they'll have a Cloud service to go with their subscription or they'll firmware the device to allow our game saves to be saved anywhere whether its planned or they respond to our cries of complaints.

It'll come eventually, much like many other missing features.....

I knew about this a few days ago and its Nintendo, it shouldn't surprise you. Nintendo Cloud saves, thats a good joke i'll remember that one.

I step forward 2 steps back.

Suggesting there might be a cloud storage system is just making up excuses when such a thing shouldn't be necessary in the first place.

What is even the purpose of tying the save data to the console? I can only imagine it's some asinine anti piracy attempt.

Save file editing is a big issue in some games, in Pokemon it's a massive problem where people bring hacked pokemon into competitive tournaments.

In some cases this seems like a good thing.

@Alshain01 Locking all saves is like preventing everyone from driving because some people suck at it.

@NEStalgia We are indeed...eyes down for a full house!

@NEStalgia AH, now I understand! I actually thought the article meant it was tied to the console, as in tied to the hardware ID or something. @Damo: Could you maybe clear that up in the article? I wouldn't be surprised if other readers misunderstood that as well.

@NEStalgia about online profile in online games: What's strange though is that almost no PC online game is demanding a subscription for that. Many publishers changed their business model in recent years to adapt to the demands of the players. I think Blizzard is the big exception with WoW and they only get away with it because WoW is such an established, successful and addictive game (from what I've heard).
Those companies like Valve must be really stupid and make huge losses on the biggest gaming platform there is. Their losses must be so big, they probably won't survive. What a bunch of losers...

Yet again another thing wrong with the switch.. It's by far the worst console in ages. So many negatives.. It's not even a finished and tested machine. Dead pixels,screen scratchers,dud left joy-con,no Web browser.. No wonder they delayed zelda on wii u,because without it the switch would have had a worse launch than wii u.. It's ironic that it took a wii u game to sell it,imagine the line up without it.. So glad I didn't buy the switch day1.

Pretty annoying.. they should let us transfer our saves to SD cards at least

@NintySnesMan If you don't have a Switch and keep reading the swirling negativity on the internet, it sure might look like that. If on the other hand you actually have one, odds are none of those internet repeated problems are affecting you in most cases, and you don't care about the web browser because you're busy looking for shrines. Things like this are certainly an unfortunate quirk that I strongly hope is resolved, but the system itself is an absolute dream. If you liked the Vita and what it SHOULD have been, the Switch is everything it was and more, and that's with the launch day warts included!

@shani Well PC's such a different market. For one, there's no such thing as used game resale which tons of publishers insist costs them a fortune in console. More importantly PC is supported with a lot of "donated" bandwidth and server capacity. A lot of the big online games have dedicated server software that people, for whatever odd reason install and allow themselves to be a server. This is a direct violation of the TOS for consumer internet plans, but people take their chances. A lot will do it at universities (sapping the school's bandwidth for game servers.) Some run it on their business networks (some allowed to....some not so allowed to ) So PC has a lot of distributed and donated services going for it. Console is fully commercial and expects the host company to do the housekeeping internally, so there's added costs. Blizzard runs most of their own in house servers as well, and funds most of the Starcraft/Diablo bandwidth through the endless cash cow that is WoW. Some games claim that the software sales pay for servers, but these are generally smaller games with small "for the love of he art, I'll eat instant ramen for the rest of my life" kind of teams, not big corporate studios with 400+ people who expect pensions

@WiltonRoots Do corners count?

@NEStalgia
Fair enough mate. Yep I do like my Vita,when I have time to play it,but also I would say I play my GBA more. Can't beat a bit of DOOM and DUKE NUKEM on the go. The switch ain't for me until certain games come out,don't want any that have been announced.. Wait for old school shooters and racers like Redout .. EDIT I am not really interested in this modern gaming,

@NEStalgia You're absolutely right about that (although I'm not sure if this applies to all PC games - especially multiplatform ones - does the PC version of GTAO for example run on different kinds of servers than the console version?).
It's just that I don't believe the same couldn't be done for consoles. Modern consoles are basically just PCs as well and they use the same internet every other device uses too. So the only reason why console are still somewhat cut off from the benefits (and yes, isadvantages) of the PC world, is because Nintendo, Sony and MS (although they're actually changing that) are insisting on that separation.

So you could say, the point I was trying to make in my previous comment is: Why are console producers insisting on keeping their devices separate from everything else, insisting on 'doing the housekeeping internally' when clearly the system with distributed and donated servers works marvellous on PC?
It's not like the same wouldn't be possible for consoles if they would just allow it.

And it's also not like the PC market is suffering badly from cracks or hacks. The fact that the PC market is the biggest games market and the PSN hack should be enough evidence.

Jeez, Nintendo still hasn't learned? I hate comparing Nintendo to other companies, I really do, but I own two PSPs with the same save data on both. Why that is beyond Nintendo consoles' grasp is anyone's guess.

Yet another reason why I'm content to wait to pick up a Switch. Save data is extremely important to me, and losing something like a save file that I've spent 100+ hours on would leave a horribly bitter taste in my mouth. There sure as heck better be a cloud solution or some other means of backing up save data.

@NintySnesMan Yeah so far from what we're seeing that seems like one of the best things of the Switch. Like you were saying before about how PS4's been treating you, it's kind of this throw back to the old days of gaming....Switch seems like it's willing to spend tons of time with the more old school games and indies and with the "modern" type games. I've never taken indies too seriously, but if Switch continues curating the indie market like they're doing now, I can see it being a really neat having for getting the good indie content. Something for every kind of gamer. Of course only time will tell how the library shakes out over time, but I've got a good feeling about it. I think the games you're looking for probably will start arriving (other than eShop/VC games) once they start winding 3DS down more fully.

So far I've been doing BotW docked, and Bomberman handheld....it really has those vibes of what Vita was when it first came out (but then fizzled badly because Sony never really cared about it.) I loved Vita and thought it would be my favorite machine...and then the library just became so bland.

But there really is a huge canyon of difference between the internet perception of "this is wrong and that's wrong and we found some other problem to talk about" versus actually holding the thing in your hand and just playing and everything just "works" just like it says on the tin

So I take it that outside of possible cloud services, the only people who will have portable save data will be the same people they're attempting to lock out by doing this.

@shani I think it's more a perception thing. People are willing to (possibly illegally) donate their bandwidth and capacity in part out of tradition...PC gamers have just been doing it for a long time and there's this sort of lingering presence of how we used to do it back in the day) but there's this sense of community about it, where for console the sense is you're donating things to help a giant corporation make money.... So the difference between "hey I'll use some bandwith so everyone can play games" and "hey I'll donate my bandwidth so Sony shave some operating expenses on their next quarterly!" feel different

I think the other part of it is the tech support aspect. Setting up servers involves understanding the firewall setups, being responsible for your security etc. PC is the wild west....and is riddled with tech savvy users. But if console depended on that for their backend for less tech savvy consumers it would be a mess. And consumers aren't even supposed to be running dedicated servers at all. Plus in PC, the servers are PC, the clients are PC it's just PCs everywhere. For consoles, it's a little weird to say "here's your cheap plastic PC box, but go download this application for dedicated servers in your datacenter, or be sure to leave a desktop running all the time to keep the server up! "

The point of buying a console is it's not a beige box PC that needs system administration. If Nintendo started releasing Pikmin server software, how many of their customers would be interested in running out and buying a desktop PC to leave 24/7, understanding how to configure the firewall, and against the terms of their ISP contract, run a server? It's just such a different group of people. PC is pretty much core tech geeks exclusively.

As for cracks and piracy, that was super rampant on PC. It was "solved" by basically ending physical sales entirely and chaining everything to always-online DRM. MS tried to do the same to console and that certainly didn't go over well

@Tyranexx
Pros and cons to each method.

Store on cartridge, and if you trade the game in or lose it, your data is gone forever, while on the system you can sell a game, buy it 5 years later and pick right back up from where you left off.

It also prevents hacking via powersaves which will lead to homebrew.

It has all the advantages provided they offer cloud backups, and at this point I'd be shocked if that wasn't part of the online services launching later, once the infrastructure is in place.

If they don't do cloud saves, then there's not much benefit for us over storing on cartridges (although they still prevent potential hacks). But ya, cloud saves. They need to happen. And I think they will, come fall.

@NEStalgia
Yeah am all about old school,for the Vita I have Duke Nukem 3D Megaton edition,Metal Slug 3,Another World,Adventures of Mana and original Ridge Racer.. Modern games are OK but I prefer modern mixed with old,like Bomberman R and Oceanhorn that's coming to Switch and Vita.. Also I am looking forward to a game called Rainbow Skies for Vita,it's like a modern old version of MEGADRIVE(Genesis) classic LandStalker

@NEStalgia 'It's just such a different group of people. PC is pretty much core tech geeks exclusively.' No it isn't in either case. Many people go Nintendo console/PC because PC is a replacement for the HD twins, not for Nintendo's consoles. Also, many people on PC's are not geeks but Steam has made PC gaming much more user friendly than in the days of configuring audio drivers and finding your own updates on shady websites.

In fact, let me just ask (because I hate this belief that Nintendo fans are different from everyone else), how many people do you know who ONLY play on Nintendo devices? I bet for most people on this board it's zero.

@NEStalgia Oh wait, that's what you meant? I'd say what you're talking about is a rare exception. I'm pretty sure most PC gamers (at least most that I know) have never set up a server in their entire life. And many of them aren't tech-savvy either. The PC gaming market has actually outgrown that nerdy era a long time ago (ask all those Dota, Lol, Overwatch, CS or Rocket League players).

I never had to set up a server for any online multiplayer game on PC. You just start the game, go to multiplayer mode in the menu and join a game/server (depending on the kind of game).
From my experience, it's pretty straight-forward, a few clicks and you're in-game, just as it is on consoles.

And about the shared bandwith: Are you really sure about that? Not that I know for sure, I'm just asking. What you're describing is essentially a P2P connection. P2P is not illegal - actually, it has become quite common in other areas as well - only filesharing is.
For example, Splatoon and other Nintendo games rely mostly on P2P connections for online multiplayer.

And yeah, piracy has virtually become a non-issue due to digital downloads, key-shops and Steam sales. MS might have screwed that up for XB1, but I'm pretty sure the same can be done for consoles. It's just about the right way to communicate it. MS pretty much blindsided their fans with their initial decision and you can't just do it like that with gamers.
Most gamers are pretty conservative and like to stick to their habits. So even if it might be beneficial for them (digital downloads are a lot cheaper, you don't have to worry about storing your games without the media getting damaged, cloud saves mean you won't ever lose your savegames), you have to ease them slowly in until they get used to it. Remember, Steam didn't become a success over night, they just started long before anyone else did it and over time, players got used to it and saw the benefits.

Actually, Steam had to be forced on players as a DRM method, you couldn't play some games without activating them on Steam. I remember a friend of mine hating Valve for that about ten years ago, so he never played Half-Life 2 as a result. I've only joined Steam four years ago because of that lasting impression from before and I quickly realized how convenient it is. That's why I went digital-only with my Wii U.

I fear file save sizes could get so big we couldn't keep them all (could you imagine!?)
Trust Ninty will sort something long before then.

@HollowGrapeJ Yes but on the PS4 you can just copy saves to an external drive (like a pen drive or a hdd), the cloud storage is just an 'extra' to people that have ps plus..

@Damo Yeah now that I know how it was meant, it's clear to me too.
But isn't there a difference between 'the savegames are tied to your hardware ID' and 'there's no way to backup your savegames on an external drive'?
I definitely thought the title meant the former, not the latter. And because of previous incidents, it wouldn't surprise me if others thought the same as well (until they read the article).
Of course now I'm aware that it can be read both ways.

@NEStalgia Yep, try and get a straight line in any direction. Tonight's prize has already been won, Ryu gets a nice crisp £25 note and a bag of living pixels.

@XCWarrior I'm pretty sure Wii allowed transfers of save files using an SD card...

@NEStalgia You answered your own question, server side saves for online mode and client side saves for offline mode. This was done on the Xbox and PS2 over 10 years ago. It's not difficult to do that, Nintendo is just using their so-called "heavy hand" and trying to give an excuse for it which isn't logical.

@SLIGEACH_EIRE They aren't just "almost" paranoid about this, they're deliriously paranoid about it. Who else would do this?

This is pretty dumb. Did I also read once internal memory fills up it starts deleting older save data to make room for new? That's stupid as hell.

@Crono1973 Fair enough with Steam, I left PC gaming during the early rise of steam BECAUSE of Steam.... But on the same hand too many people think PC=Steam which is also untrue. That's just turned PC into a glorified console as well. But you're parsing parts of a comment. My point was that technical base IS there on PC, and the old timers like me who spent forever configuring the audio drivers are still around (except those of us who left for console's simpler pastures), but the bulk of the console user base is NOT terribly technical, it wasn't a Nintendo-specific comment.

@NintySnesMan I wonder if that's a game that never came out in the US...I was often looking for games to play on my Genesis, and thought I'd exhausted the available library at the time...and never heard of that one!

Bomberman R is a blast. I never played the series before, always skipping over it on the rental shelf in the SNES days. I keep getting quite addicted every time I pick it up. "Zelda? Yeah, I'll do it...just one more level...."

@WiltonRoots Ryu can keep that prize...I'm holding out for the grand prize: A bitbox full of Zelda save files and a stainless steel screen protector.

@JaxonH: All valid points. I just have the mentality where I don't like all of my data in one place. This extends to cartridges. If one of my games is lost, traded in (very unlikely these days as I carefully research games before buying), or stolen, then yes, I've lost that data. However, I'd rather risk losing one game versus all of them, something that could very well happen should a Switch system fail. I only take a few of my games with me when traveling anyway, so I run the risk of only losing a few games instead of all of them.

I've been wishing for an account-based cloud system for a while, one which I would happily pay for. IF this were to happen, I would be more likely to buy more games digitally and wouldn't have to worry about having another storage device sitting around.

@shani I didn't mean P2P, I meant the actual server infrastructure coordinating the games, lobbies, etc. There's lots of games for PC with dedicated server software out there being run by volunteers, which every ISP loathes. It's not illegal in the "you're going to jail, do not pass go" sense, it's a violation of the EULA/TOS, and your service can be revoked if caught. But PC though it may now be accessable for more people due to steam, still has the old core tech nerd base as a central part of that more than the consoles (take a look at HardForum....and similar sites, they're there!) and they're willing to run services and have the knowledge to do so. Some of the publisers like activision and EA are running their own servers for part of it for "free", sure, but they're also selling season-passes and such per-game. People are complaining about Nintendo selling $20/yr online service for the whole platform, but then there's COD with $20+/yr just for one game. Sure COD will do that on Switch too if it comes, because that's Activisions policy, but you won't have to pay for a "season pass" for MK8+Splatoon+Whatever. Those companies are making their money one way or another, they just disguise it via different means. The PC crowd isn't getting away without paying in many cases. Steam is making money to run their servers by taking a cut of sales from games everyone else is selling. An aggressive cut, at that. There's no free lunch, there's just discounted lunches in the world of PC thanks to some volunteers.

@Damo The title is pretty obvious but now that @shani pointed out that it can be interpereted easily enough to mean "save files are locked to your console id (even if you back them up)" rather than "save files are perma-locked on storage and can't be copied" he has a valid point!

@Tyranexx
Honestly, just knowing that I'm not losing my games anymore, I can deal with losing my saves if it came to it (although it's more peace of mind than anything- in all those years of games being tied to hardware, not once did it ever affect me) but, if they expect me to upgrade to a newer Switch revision a few years from now, they're going to need to implement cloud save backups. In fact, it's because of that reason I know they will. Because if they don't nobody's going to upgrade.

Hopefully they will have it sorted when the online system rolls in.

....So we get game carts...but the game is still saved on the system...wtf?

@NEStalgia Ah I didn't know there were that many volunteers running the servers - despite the fact that I consider myself (at least somewhat) tech-savvy.
But you're right, that core tech nerd base is definitely more present in PC gaming than in the other sectors. I honestly thought those times were over, now that gaming has become more accessible and mainstream, with all those big publishers beeing more organized and professional than back in the 90's.

What, COD charges money for their multiplayer service? I didn't know that, IIRC that wasn't the case with Modern Warfare 1 (the only COD I've played, but only offline). ^^
And it's true that Steam and others get their money through other channels, but overall I'd say the situation has vastly improved for gamers.
I was aware of that (them getting their costs for online services back through sales and other means) and I'm totally fine with it, because it gives you a choice and doesn't force you to pay for online multiplayer.
I think that's the main criticism about the online subscription (something I am very critical about), because it's a paywall and they don't leave you a choice.
In my opinion, it would be fine if Nintendo raised the price for their devices and/or games slightly instead of charging a subscription fee. It might not make a difference financially, but it would be a lot smarter because no one would really notice it and it wouldn't feel forced.
Yes, no one really forces you to do anything, but they take advantage of people's desires in a shady way. For example: I don't want to buy a Switch, but I'll desperately want to play Splatoon 2, so not only will I be 'forced' to buy a Switch, but I'll also be 'forced' to get the online subscription.

In other areas, like online journalism, you always have the freedom to choose another news site, that's because paywalls don't work so well there. There are actually sites who'll ask you to pay for viewing the article but still give you the option to decide against it and read it for free.
But when there's a specific online game you'd like to play, there are no alternatives, either you cave in or you boycott and effectively keep yourself from doing something that you love.

@Crono1973 I think your analogy is a bit lopsided. Locking all saves is more like requiring everyone to have a license to drive because some people suck at it.

@JaxonH: I used to not be as OCD about my save files. In theory, losing a save would give one the excuse to play through the whole game again. However, my life vastly changed after leaving college and entering the real world. XD My time is way more limited than it used to be, and I cherish the time that I do get to spend with games; a lot of work went into those saves. That's why it's extremely difficult for me to even delete one of my own save files and start a new one (in games where you only have one save file of course, like Pokemon). As a kid, there wasn't nearly as much of a thought process involved.

...Rereading my first post in this article, I realize that it may come off a little more negative than intended. Overall I'm still very pleased with what I've seen about the Switch. Really, the only things influencing my decision to wait are my budget/other things that need money poured into them (this homeowner thing eats up resources, lol), my current Wii U backlog, and the Switch's relatively small library for the time being. Plus, if my laptop keeps behaving like it has occasionally been lately, that may be my next electronic purchase....

@Alshain01 No because even licensed drivers sometimes suck at driving. Locking all saves to prevent save scumming by a few is closer to banning all people from driving because some suck at it.

@Tyranexx
Ya don't get me wrong, we're on the same page. I'm 100% confident we will see cloud saves because otherwise how is Nintendo going to convince people to upgrade... it's just logicical- there's no possible way they're going to screw themselves in that regard. So I'm not too worried about it.

Not that I'm worried about it anyways, I mean like I said I'm just glad that I won't lose my games if something happens- I love to keep my saves but, when it comes down to it it's the games I was worried about- if I ever do go back to play a game I'll probably start a new save anyways. Of course I still want the peace of mind of knowing it's backed up but it wouldn't be the end of the world where as losing all your games very much would!

But ya, I wouldn't stress it- there's no way they don't get this sorted. One of their biggest tactics to sell 3DS was released revision update a few years into the cycle, and they know good and well people will want their saves to be linked to their accounts along with their games. I don't think it's a question of if but a matter of when.

@WindWakerLink
I have checked on both my 3DS XL and New 3DS XL. I played Fantasy Life on older 3DS XL until finished + DLC installed. After I bought New 3DS XL, the machine didn't have DLC yet so I must purchase again $9 for DLC. And guess what ? After I inserted my Fantasy Life card on New 3DS XL, I found Nothing but Blank Save data on New 3DS XL. When I checked again on my older 3DS XL, I still have the Save Data. So, it was clearly that Fantasy Life Save Data was NOT inside the card, but outside the card, written inside internal memory. Well...kinda suck. But, anyway I can still continue my Fantasy Life on older 3DS XL.

And may I add, LIKE ON THE WII U TOO.

Another blemish! What if you have many downloads on a micro sd-card, and your internal memory is totally full of saves? Unlikely since those save-files are probably very small, but its something to consider...

@shani to add to your reply to @Exy
I will just remind that Swapnote (Nintendo Letter Box in Eu) service was ultimately cancelled because of some nasty stuff people were sending. Every 3DS user was punished. Instead of banning the accounts in question (and send police where the law was broken).
Though the acts there were much worse than save editing - it basicaly sums up Nintendo's mentality.

Oh right, their online system. Let's set aside the notion we'd be paying functions our system or extra data on our end used to cover. What would happen if for some reason you're knocked offline? It can happen at home and especially while travelling (I don't know about you're region, but my area is spotty as all get out) Are you just screwed because the system can't find your save?

@Henmii

I agree with you that this is odd, especially since you can't move your save data around to your micro SD card instead. That said, I have one game so far and the save file is 241MB. It would take roughly 100 games to fill 26GB if they were all about that size. Granted, when you start downloading games directly to the system memory, you have far less to work with. I dunno, 32GB was on the Wii U, and that was poor to start with even in 2012. If they were going to prevent you from copying data, more memory should have been available from the start. I really hope an update fixes this cause I buy a lot of games.

@shani Whoops, totally forgot about this thread!

COD doesn't charge a fee to play online. No, of course they don't. That would be wrong. That would upset consumers. And Activision is committed one-hundred-percent to providing their fans the simplest, most value-added gaming experience possible. Therefore they instead sell season passes which ostensibly is a pre-paid commitment to purchase all the insignificant DLC packs released through the year, many of which will be required to keep up with everyone else because everyone else will be buying them too, and you wouldn't want to be left behind, would you? Would you?? So you pay for your season pass.....which is beautiful camouflage for a subscription online fee

Imagine if Splatoon on WiiU released with it's initial steady stream of weapons for a few months. Added it's three ranked modes. BUT to participate in Splatfests after October, and to get Sheldon's Picks weapons you had to buy the DLC as it came out, or pay the $25 season pass to get the full content of the game? Basically a service fee to play... It's just a shell game. Shuffle the "fee' into some other less offensive charge, but they get their money (per-game!) anyway. Nintendo's fee can't offset that for third parties, but it can for their own games.

I think your opinion on pricing doesn't line up with the general public's though. Most people look at the initial up-front costs only. Hidden service fees are "paid without noticing it." that's way it's harder to sell a phone for one payment of $800, but easy to sell it for "just 20 easy payments of $49.99." (which is MORE expensive )

If you make games $65, people notice the price increase. If you make them $60 but charge an all-encompassing $20/yr, people seem to be willing. It also means only people playing online games are paying for the online infrastructure rather than, say, Zelda fans paying for Splatoon player's servers. Not that I don't prefer free! But if they need to justify costs...at least it's direct. And if you played Splatoon 1, you'll know their infrastructure needed an overhaul! (Remember the server failures during splatfest?)

But pricing is a sensitive thing. So Nintendo needs more servers. Do they A) Take a loss via operating expenses (and expect shareholders not to fire the BoD? Publicly traded companies MUST turn profit wherever possible!), B) Charge an extra $5 across the board on games? The biggest fans will be hit the hardest and pay way more than the online fee. C) Make Splatoon, MK, etc. a $75/80 game to include the "fee" in the box. But what if I only want MK for local play? Or Splatoon for that matter? D) Keep it free but expend minimal resources on it, ensuring a second-rate overall experience?

I think consumers would rather they pick option A, but it's a business, they exist to turn profit, and investors don't sink money into them for them to be generous and give away things people like, they invest because they think they can sell it. A lot of the well loved (free online) PC games don't have investors and profit goals to meet. Those are smaller companies that are ok with lean earnings. Battlefield is going to make it's profit on those season passes though

@NEStalgia My reaction to the COD/Activision part: 😆

Usually I would also be against hidden costs, especially if they turn out to be higher than a one-time-fee. That was and is the case when you buy a mobile phone with a contract, you often end up paying more than you would if you bought the phone separately. But at least the monthly fee for the phone isn't hidden anymore as it was 10 years ago.

But if I had to choose between buying Splatoon for 65€ or buying it for 60€ and pay 20€/year on top of that? Of course I would go with the former because it's cheaper. Even if it was 70 or 80€, it would still be a lot cheaper because you usually play these games for several years.

I was a non-online player (except for Mario Kart Wii and Pro Evolution Soccer 6 ^^) about two years ago, but I think nowadays most people at least occasionally play online games, so it would be fair to let everyone pay a small fee instead of letting predominantly-online players pay a larger fee.
Besides, there are many other features included in a console (or any other product for that matter) that you don't use but have to pay for. Online gaming is just a small part of the package.

To go back to your Splatoon example: I never understood why people buy season passes and before MK8 I was totally against DLC (unless they're story-DLCs like those for GTA IV, those were absolutely worth it). But the MK8 DLCs showed that even non-story-DLCs can be worth it - as long as the price is reasonable and the content is non-essential.

So if they had put Splatfests and Sheldon's picks into a DLC, I would've been totally fine with that. Because both were non-essential parts of the game that I could've easily done without. I actually somewhat disliked Splatfests because they prevented you from playing ranked. And while Sheldon's picks were a nice addition, they didn't add anything new. None of those weapons really stuck with me, the only one I pushed over 100000p was the N-Zap '83.

But you've mentioned an important point: Nintendo seems to be controlled by its shareholders in recent years (especially since Iwata passed away), they have way too much influence and already lead to some bad decisions in my opinion. The whole stock market is just a game played by people who are easy to manipulate and panic over the most insignificant things like a Tweet, for example. Their decisions are often not based on facts but on perception.
That's a really dubious and unreliable influence and sadly there's no one at Nintendo anymore to resist and fight against it.
That's why I believe that commendable business decisions like the well-priced MK DLCs or the free updates for Splatoon - yes, they said it would be the same with Splatoon 2, but I don't trust Nintendo anymore, they've broken too many of these 'promises' in the past two years - won't be made in the future.
Nintendo is slowly turning into a normal gaming company that - although they always had to make some money - is now more focussed on making profits than on anything else.

@shani Slipper slope though. You might mostly be interested in Splatoon and want everyone buying all games to contribute to the fees. I on the other hand buy probably 20+ games a year, of all of them, Splaton is the ONLY one I've played online (I take that back I dabbled in cart for about a month, same with smash) and did so for a year. So instead of a one time $20 fee for Splatoon I'd have payed $100+ every year to pay for online! Helps some players, hurts others. I'd be ok with an $80 splatoon, kart, etc, one time fee....but that hurts those that want it for local only, too.

Interesting that you'd rather pay for DLC than get free DLC and pay for online, even if it's the same price or more? Price perception is why they mess with us! I'd rather not get down the slippery slope of buy all the DLC that should be free. Especially if it's just $20/yr, that's to play ALL online games rather than having to pay it for each online game. It it includes cloud saves and server-side player data, there's cloud storage too that's all the better.

Which is all more fair than Sony's, what are they up to now, $40/yr or something...or is it 50? Which includes "free" games, but I don't want those free games and don't have bandwidth to download them all, so I'm paying more to give somebody else something for free. I cancelled my PSN subscription last year. Won't be going back at that price!

Splatfests locked behind a special paywall would be pretty awful. It's one thing to pay for online, but another to pay for the events that are part of the online. A general admission/cover charge is one thing. Event tickets for premium shows are a special kind of profiteering! Imagine the microtransactions that would lead to!

The problem with the DLC like sheldon's picks is you couldn't be in a lobby with people who did by them, meaning if most people pony up the money, then you're stuck at the kids table with the losers waiting for a lobby until you do

As for shareholders, such is the breaks of a public traded company. WE are not their customer. Shareholders are. It's not just a factor, it's a legal requirement. They are in business to serve the interests of the shareholders, and can be penalized if shown they are not serving the best interests of the shareholders. That is what a public company IS. We are mearly a means of serving that end. The Nintendo of our youths was a private company that could do as it pleased. When Yamauchi took the company public to fund the GCN/Wii/DS, he sold that company to the interests of the fananciers. Same for EA, Activision, Ubisoft (who's feeling the hurt of going public now as Vivendi tries to consume them). That's why Valve refuses to go public (I hate Valve passionately but respect Gabe for that point.) Yamauchi made that choice, and that's what we're left with.

People rant about "Nintendo's not doing what's best for us!" They miss the point. They're not supposed to. They're not allowed to! That would actually be criminal if it ran contrary to the best result for investors.

If I were declared Earth Emperor tomorrow, my first edict would be the end of the public company. It's blight on the actual marketplace. The original idea was great....but as with most man-made ideas, it's flaws were rapidly exploited to the worst of ends. Buying into companies is fine. The institutionalization of the purchase led to the willful gutting of any public company.

@NEStalgia In the case of the Switch, I'd actually be interested in playing Splatoon 2 and ARMS online, and only online.
I did play more games online on the Wii U (Splatoon, MK8, Smash, Runbow, XCX, Lost Reavers, Chess ^^), but the majority of my online gaming time went into Splatoon, yes.

"Interesting that you'd rather pay for DLC than get free DLC and pay for online, even if it's the same price or more?"
Yeah, because with a DLC I get actual value (content) for money, whereas paying to play online feels like charging me for nothing.
Sony and MS might have established the subscription fee, but I still believe online gaming is an essential part, it's like making people pay for being able to use savegames, or paying people for breathing air. It's just forced on the customers and has been for free of charge* for a long time.
It is about perception but that's not all of it. I'd be fine with it even though I'm aware that it's a blended calculation (is that the right term? I also found 'hybrid costing' and 'combined costing' as the correct translation). After all, blended calculations are found in almost every kind of business. I mentioned this in another comment a few months ago: I believe it's the companies responsibility to cover their costs, not the customers. So if they're providing online services, they should distribute their costs for that over all of their products instead of charging the customer directly for their online service costs.
Nintendo is already doing it, because ultimately the commercial failure of the Wii U wasn't such a big financial problem, it was mainly a perception problem (= the public, the shareholders). But Nintendo did fine overall because Amiibos and 3DS sold very well and the mini NES did too. And because their savings from previous successes like the Wii meant they were safe anyway.

Despite what we discussed in our previous posts about volunteers and hidden costs, I'm actually okay with it. I played GTAO on PC without paying any additional costs, but others have to pay for the PS+ subscription to play GTAO. I could never imagine to pay for that, especially not on an annual basis. 1-1,50€ per month would be fine though, because then I could temporarily cancel it when I don't need it.
And of course Nintendo's subscription fee is way more reasonable than that of the competition, no doubt about that.

Your other points make sense though, I'm just not so sure that Nintendo's so-called online service will actually offer any improvement over what they offered before. I was totally fine with online gaming on Wii U and I don't see how it could be improved.

Also, about the Sheldon's picks weapons in online mode:
I never understood why in MK8 people who had the DLC couldn't play with those that didn't have it. They could've just let everyone play online on the new maps (but everyone could only choose the vehicles and characters they paid for). The non-DLC players still would've had the disadvantage of not being able to practice them offline so there would've still been an incentive for them to eventually buy the DLC. That way, the online mode would've functioned as a demo or even advertisement for the DLC maps.
That first-hand-experience of "wow, that guy beat me as Link on the Epona-bike" or "wow, that map was gorgeous, I want to playit offline too!" is more effective than any other kind of advertisement.
Another way would've been to offer two lobbies, one with DLC maps and one without.

Similarly, if Sheldon's picks would've been a paid DLC, I don't see why it would've been a problem to let everyone play together. Those who paid for it would've had those new weapons and everyone else would've played with the old ones. There's no reason that couldn't have worked.

And regarding everything your wrote about public companies and shareholders: I couldn't agree more! I didn't even know Valve refused to do it, but since I actually like Valve because of their great products (Steam, Steam Controller, Steam Link, HTC Vive), that only makes me like them more.

I don't know how these posts get so long every time, but I have to say I do enjoy these back-and-forth exchanges/discussions very much.

@JaxonH: I get where you're coming from as well. Losing the actual games would stink too, which would be why I would consider making more digital purchases if Nintendo does come up with a type of cloud solution. They've heard gamers' pleas for awhile, so I also believe it's a matter of "when".

"That said, I have one game so far and the save file is 241MB. It would take roughly 100 games to fill 26GB if they were all about that size"

That would be quite a amount of saves. But as you said, it depends on the sizes. Yeah, Nintendo should fix this with a update. This is nonsense.

@shani With price point preception that's kind of what they're going for though, right? You think of DLC as having more "value" than a subscription.....for story DLC and such, sure, you're getting actual game content. But for online game DLC? New weapon packs, new maps? Sheldon's Picks were certainly a generous value filled bonus "we gave you tons of content already, but here's some more just to say thanks", but that's not the norm in the biz. Normally it's content planned during development as part of the game, then they sell it to you later to get you to pay your $20/yr (and to stifle the benefits of used resale.) They PRESENT to you as value for your money what is really just holding parts of the game ransom until you pay up your extra funds. And they let you feel good about having bought "value", which is precisely why they use that model rather than a subscription You put the pitchfork down and pay them! Doesn't mean they're not gouging the same (or more!) money from you for exactly the same thing though. They're just presenting it to you in a way they know they can manipulate you into accepting it without resisting it!

In that regard, subscriptions generate more backlash, yet I can respect it more. It's honest. "We're running servers, they cost us money, we're going to make you pay to access them." Versus "we like providing constant enhancement to or free services which is why we'll bundle the next 3 weapon packs that were totally absolutely definitely not planned from the drawing boards (giggle) and held back on release day for the low price of $20! for the year which is really not a service fee at all (gigglegiggle)!"

" So if they're providing online services, they should distribute their costs for that over all of their products instead of charging the customer directly for their online service costs."

Both models are valid, ultimately it's about choosing the one with the best sellthrough and the most gains. The cots of game development are skyrocketing to the point that $60 doesn't really cover the costs of a game like BotW, or Mass Effect, that's why they add more DLC onto those. Consumers won't pay more, yet $60 is worth even less than it used to be (stagflation - costs increase, wages remain the same), so the company makes less real money per game sold than they used to and spends more to provide it. The big publishers have argued for years the need for $70-80 price points. People watched the PS4/XBO unveiling holding their breath to see the price points revealed. Adding the costs of online into those games makes it challenging and could cut into sales. Charging everyone for the services only a few games use can be beneficial if you're trying to lower the barrier to entry into those online games to increase sales. But there's no benefit for them to increasing those particular games sales over offline games. If they thought the cost barrier to entry was limiting the sales of online games to the point of hurting the bottom line or brand viability, they'd cost blend it. But increasing the barrier to entry of all games isn't going to do them any favors just to make online services cheaper for what is generally the most hardcore group. It's worse actually. The hardcore online players tend to play one or two games very heavily rather than buying a variety of games. They make less on those players YoY, and have to spend more on infrastructure to keep them.

The model you suggest isn't a "bad" one, but they no doubt ran the numbers and determined that the sales they'd gain from "free online" are almost zero, the sales they'd gain from charging for online are equal to the online player base, and the lost sales from a price increase in games over the competition would be catastrophic. If their competitors weren't charging, they wouldn't be either. But once the industry (and the third parties) are reliant on that model...well, everyone's fond of Nintendo to get with the times. They did. But, then, if free online were such a selling feature, the WiiU might have sold more than 14M...

Free's great, but nothing is ever actually free. The cost is hidden somewhere, and all 3 companies have decided to make it a direct cost rather than hiding it. And people are still shrieking that the Switch costs too much!

DLC not playing with non-DLC. That's simple: It's kind of like DLC for monsters to appear in a game like Skyrim. The Epona bike is unique, and unless you pay, you won't get it in your game...not to play with, and not to play against, it doesn't exist in your copy. So they can't let you play with people that have it. If Sheldon's picks had been paid DLC, they couldn't very well let you team up with people with a Cherry H3 if you haven't paid for a Cherry H3....you're experieincing the effect of that weapon in your game world, and looking at the model, without paying for it. Some games DO allow DLC items in the game world, some don't. But it's not a technical thing, it's a pay wall (though I wish it would be technical, I'm sick of having to download 20GB PS4 patches for online DLC features I don't intend to ever buy...I've turned automatic downloads off and only patch things if it crashes without the patch these days.)

Yeah there's a lot of things I hate about Valve (they may have cleaned up their act, but it's hard to forget the company that's only being nice because they were caught and taken to task for not playing nice...you KNOW they'll turn the moment nobody's watching...) If you were there at the beginning of Steam, you learned not to think highly of them BUT his stance on remaining privately held is one thing I highly commend Gabe for and can support him on. He's right on that one.

Nintendo, I think as long as the old school overlords remain, it will remain Nintendo, but I lost a lot of faith in their future. Iwata was hand-picked by Yamauchi in part to be the staunch defender of tradition, knowing public investment meant outside influence he was there to be the immovable stone wall in their way. Him dying right after Yamauchi is a disaster. As long as Miyamoto, Takeda, Koizumi, and Takahashi are running the show, I think Nintendo will continue stonewalling to the best of their ability (not as well as Iwata) the outside influence. But once they're all retired, I imagine Nintendo will be just another EA once the outsiders pour through the gates and overwrite the traditions in teh company unless they can recruit strong leadership from within.

To the people who have the Switch version of Zelda: Is it also 1 save-file for every user (like with Wii u). Does this mean that the save-file goes straight to the internal memory? Is this the case with every Switch game? It would be extremely lame if those game-cards don't have any battery-backup!

@Anti-Matter Ah. Thanks for the explanation.

This is mind blowing cuz I gave the PS Vita so much crap about this kind of stuff and yet this whole time 3DS was doing that too. Well at least 3DS provides an SD Card and uses all kinds of SD Cards unlike PS Vita.

Thanks again.

The real problem is a finite number of rewrite cycles in the internal flash memory. It means that one day you'll find your Switch not saving games anymore.
I'd like to avoid any writing into internal flash. Only firmware updates.

Why is no one worried about this REAL PROBLEM?

Sadly they refuse to move into this century. We finally get games tied to the account fully, but they are still linked to the console just like the Wii-U. You can now recover that account, but you have to contact Nintendo Support before you can recover the purchases. Then they tie game saves to hardware for some reason with no option to save to the cloud. Hopefully this will change as they make the Nintendo network not poop in the months to come, but with this news I doubt it. It boggles the mind even more then region locking.

Nintendo, Got lost in 1996 and still thinks it has a monopoly and can play by it's own rules. They don't even try to bring parity.

@Moon Totally agree, it's the one single thing I hate about the Switch.

@Beetoe I wasn't expecting a reply to a comment over a year old.

It still stands though, a year on. Ninty really need to solve this. I've put hundreds of hours into multiple games. If my Switch breaks now I might just give up on it.

@Moon I'm totally on the same page with you. I wish Nintendo would at least ad a cloud back up function or more simply allow us to transfer the save files. Quite a no brainer if you ask me...

What they could really do is make a PC software that offloads your saved data onto the PC and then restores it back to the new NS so that nothing is lost or changed. I think that isn't hard for them to do and that will save alot of headaches and NS user backlash of not having such option. Cloud is good but NS users should have to pay to migrate their data to replacement NS units.

this can be solved in september.
nintendo should add cloud storage.

They say your storage is stuck but you think they'll offer cloud saving.....denial.

@ThatNyteDaez and anyone else who was saying nintendo didn't want to make things easy on hackers. While that might be true guess what they did the ultimate flop. Hackers can now hack using a HARDWARE oversight. Meaning this can not be fixed short of recalling every single nintendo switch unit sold. Which at this point is highly unlikely.