Shigeru Miyamoto Urges Game Developers To Embrace Subscription-Based Services

Well a standard fee (like 10-15$) for month for full access to all titles (like Netflix and Spotify) would be a new and more affordable way to play games. Is the industry ready for this though? Don't think most developers will benefit from such model.

Musicians get paid peanuts for Spotify Still they embrace the publicity and get money to pay the bills from concerts. Game developers don't have that luxury

Subscription service to only play 35 year old video games (NES) is garbage though

Oh this is going to be good.
(Gets comfy)

I agree with the quality part but software rarely, if ever, justifies a multiplayer paywall.

Let me know when I can buy physical games complete on a cart, without requiring day-1 updates/fixes... via subscription. I’m good for that.

Subscription based means you don't owned the games anymore, it's the best counter to piracy.

Nintendo is working really hard on the next OS update to fight piracy but they also realised that it's futile. Only subscription and game streaming can save them.

please god no

"Someone who understands the value of your software"

I don't know who, but this someone has overvalued nes games. I am in no way more interested in paying a subscription fee by 20 nes games with online or not.

20 snes games on the other hand...

30 days again before we have to deal with Paid Online Service.

@dimi Yea, plus games are wildly more expensive to produce than music with modern recording technology.

Would be nice to see Nintendo dip into tasteful merch sales though, something borrowed from the music industry. I could get down on some well made shirts and such from games I like.

@FTL I could be mistaken, but I don't think software updates are going to require a subscription to Nintendo's online service.

The biggest problem with subscription services whether they be for films, tv, books, music, games or whatever is they take away the idea of the customer voting for quality with their money. If Nintendo wants a set fee for a year of titles, you don’t really know if you’re going to get a fantastic game every week or the dregs of what no one bought in the first place. Look at Microsoft’s recent game pass thing promising all the first party titles included in the deal- how many games is that and how many have been good? It allows games to be released Broken and unfinished because ‘hey, we’ve already got their money so we don’t need to make it any better to get them to buy it.’ Even on a monthly basis, there’s evidence people just continue to pay for a service like Netflix whether or not they’ve got value out of it because they’re too lazy to cancel it. You’re paying for the cereal selection pack in which you may like only one variety and hate the other 7.

I have no problem paying a set fee for something every month or year, AS LONG as it’s not an excuse for standards to slip and we get spoon fed mediocrity.

@kepsux I know - I meant I want more physical - ie less updates and more ‘game is complete and on a cartridge’

Subscription game service is just another step towards incomplete releases and non-physical.

@EightBitMan
Is it really necessary to look down on Miyamoto both for being old fashioned and behind, and for adopting offending modern game aconomy practices?

What you mention as important areas sound like things that are important to you personally. And how are subscriptions in and of themselves a horrible practice in games? I'm not a fan of paid online myself, but WoW's been subscription based for thirteen years and nobody questions it.

@EightBitMan
I don't see this as fundamentally working against the idea of subscription models. If you subscribed to a magazine, you can years later still read all the issues off your shelf.

You subscribe to Humble Monthly, PS+, or LiveGold, you'll keep all the games you get every month, even after ending your subscription.

Complete nonsense at least in the context of what Nintendo's doing with Nintendo Switch Online.

@Pod With PS+ and Xbox Live Gold (XB1), that's not true. You lose the games when you don't renew your subscription. Only Xbox Live Gold for Xbox 360 allows you to keep them.

@Pod On XBOX Live Gold and PS+ you can only play the games with an active subscription

The problem with subscription based services is that they might be amazing at first. Then they start removing perks. Then there is a basic tier and then a economy basic tier. That happens all the time. It happened with twitch and it happened with Netflix...

@EightBitMan
And you can't really respect him for Mario after what he did to Paper Mario.

@EightBitMan That's like insulting Paul Mcartney for his views on the music industry.

@N8tiveT3ch That's exactly what's happening with PS+, Sony is reducing the value of PS+ early next year by there being fewer free games.

@EightBitMan,

I agree, sadly.
And things will become worse with "mister Pokemon" at the helm!

The industry is putting itself and the hobby at risk BY embracing a subscription/streaming model. Ever since online functionality became standard on consoles, every major business model (DLC, Map Packs, Season Passes, F2P, Loot Boxes, etc.) has been designed to push the boundaries of control over the product (NOT "service", no matter how much they claim otherwise) and consumers' experience after the original point-of-sale.

Onetime staple features of so many games, from single-player campaigns, local multiplayer modes, splitscreen...anything the consumer does that isn't online and therefore gated and controlled has been increasingly added as "bonus" content via paid DLC if not cut out altogether. Entire GENRES have largely vanished from mainstream publishers quietly simply because they no longer fit the business model.

And now the major players in the industry figure they've gotten gamers "trained" enough to accept the changes they're told they're getting whether they want them or not (emphasis on value for the consumer left the building a LONG time ago) to introduce their endgame: subscription-based streaming "services" where nobody will ever have to be confused about owning a given game or piece of software ever again. Instead consumers will dump endless money into a bottomless pit where no promises are made or kept regarding how long their "investment" will even be available on the servers.

Streaming videogames will mean the END of gamers' consumer rights, the END of genuine ownership, and (combined with the closure of ROM sites, which merely set the table) the demise of countless games and the history they hold. Videogames will literally become disposable, like last year's "AAA" FPS sequel, just rubbish thrown into a virtual garbage disposal, never to be seen again. In a world where physical copies are gone and only digital exists, games will live as long as publishers keep them on the servers and once they're gone, they're gone forever. Don't think for a second that Nintendo, Sony, or Microsoft don't want to see GameStop and Best Buy go the way of Blockbuster; they've especially despised the used game market and want to see digital replace brick-and mortar completely. The publishers will have complete control over everything at AND after the point of sale (and don't think for a second that a flat fee every month is what these companies have in mind), from the price to the experience.

Videogames aren't the same as music or movies; the industry is making a dire mistake by thinking so. Music is a passive, fixed experience; so are films and TV shows. Videogames, on the other hand, are a medium where the player interacts directly with a game and manipulates things within their world, their characters, their storylines. That requires a certain freedom and autonomy that a subscription model will never offer.

Bottom line: people need to be able to own the videogames they pay real money for, and they should have rights after the original point of sale. Because of its own greed, the industry is probably going to cause many gamers to walk away from the hobby and kill its own Golden Goose.

@EightBitMan
I don't really see your reasoning in how Nintendo is being greedy and behind at the same time, or how Miyamoto is being harmful now and somehow has been for decades.

I don't know who's telling you to hold him in high regards, but it'd be nice to hear you reason for how all of these things are bad in any other regards than working against your specific preferences. If that's most of what there is to it, I can respect that as well. I'm pretty big on condemning things I personally see as stupid myself.

I still can't understand how people are so fed up with a service that costs €20 a year (and that's if you don't know anybody who owns a Switch, if you do know someone it's even cheaper). We're getting NES games, cloud saves and online play for 20 a year yet people still complain... huh?!!

@sanderev @Grumblevolcano
Well that's pretty pathetic. I was not aware of things being this bad.

Honestly with Nintendo's paid service, what has me most upset is the "fan's" reaction.

20 bucks a year is beyond reasonable and we've known since like day negative 60 like 2 months before launch or something.

@Pod At least you can buy a digital copy of the free game on XB1 if you want to own it completely, that doesn't appear to be the case with Switch.

Miyamoto says spaghetti, everyone upsetti.

A speech to please the Shareholders

@dimi Doesn't Microsoft offer a subscription service? That seems to be doing pretty well from what I gather, in part because all the exclusives (what little they have) are available day one. But I am not too sure how many big third party games it has at any given time.

@Grumblevolcano And they think their service deserved a price hike recently too. It's getting pretty ridicydic.

Just like with my media, i prefer a phsyical copy. if the Cloud goes down or my internet is turd I can't play or watch my stuff.

@Nincompoop Except it's not, there are ways around these subscription services, I do hear of many people, who are able to bypass, say Netflix, and get straight to the content. This would cripple the video game industry as while the likes of Netflix can count on it's core audience chipping in, video games still have a narrower audience (Not narrow, just narrower compared to Film and TV industry)

It'll only be good if it's everything, all games, all platforms, ever made for one subscription.
If I have to pay a different one for Nintendo, another for Sony, a third for one publisher on PC and so on then it'll never work.

The movie/tv show ones are splitting up now, Netflix is loosing Disney as they are starting their own service and then there' hbo and so on. The amount of money each month for all of them is insane and it won't work.
People may go for one or two, and then they'll pirate the movies/shows from the other services. And then we're back to square one again because of their stupidity and greed.

Also: https://fckdrm.com

@Archius9 we had no WiFi over the weekend. My eldest didn’t know what to do. He had nothing to watch as all ha watches is YouTube and Netflix. All the games he plays are online focused with minimal offline options. I produced dozens of dvds and I have hundreds of games on cart/disc that don’t require online anything. He actually got on board with the dvds but the games were a no go. I honestly believe we are facing a future where a whole generation have been brainwashed into believing the way certain game companies go about their business is absolutely fine. As a teacher, I am also baffled at how the majority of children now spend their pocket money on V bucks or FIFA points. It’s all they talk about. It sickens me. They honestly don’t see that they are spending money on nothing. That’s the mentality the games companies are aiming their wares at now. It’s sad.

Give me physical cartidge with the full game anyday. When the internet finally destroys itself under all the advertising, I will still be able to play my games.

Also, the previous "news" item was he wanted full games at fixed prices....erm isn't this contradicting that statement.

@darthstuey this sickens me also as I have witnessed what you described

@FragRed Microsoft's subscription service offers way more than Nintendo intends to, thats for sure!

Looking at it more holistically as part of a cord cutting bill makes sense, so instead of getting a cable package its buying an entertainment package including video games. For that to work there needs to be cross industry collaboration, if I could get Nintendo game streaming/netflix/Spotify all for a fixed price and an easy package, then that could be a good move for me as a consumer.

That's where the streaming is heading like Amazon prime which gives you music, video games, TV ect all at one price.

Maybe all this ROM takedown notices are the precursor to something bigger: NESflix.

Nintendo can't be the only one looking at the popularity of Gamepass on Xbox. It is unlikely Nintendo would offer anything for new releases, so how about Retro?

For a flat fee, Nintendo could offer carte blanche access to a library of every NES, SNES, Gameboy, GBA and N64 ROM they could dump onto the system. They could stick it in Beta for a year and rely on the community to feedback ROMs that don't work or need tweaking rather than drip-feeding them like the VC. Over time they could add SEGA and SNK ROMs to it as well. If they charged $10/m for that we'd bite their hands off.

Yeah, I'm not a fan of the all digital future we're heading for, but as long as people continue to buy into it (and they will), it's hard to stop this progress. The companies wants it, the consumers (believe they) want it. To single out Nintendo as being greedy here, as a certain troll (who takes every chance for a jab at Miyamoto ("more harm than good over the years" - come on man, that's just lazy trolling) or Nintendo) does, is to miss the point: they are in no way unique regarding this. And with the kids of today (and adults as well) more and more buying into the all digital free to play systems (with added advertisement and micro transactions), you can bet we're soon there. But I could be wrong of course.

Vote with your wallet. No one's forcing you to buy into it, but it's the way of the world and a natural progression of the capitalist market, embracing new technology that makes the production cheaper and strengthens the companies ownerships of their products. It's not strange when you think about it. Morally correct? Perhaps not. But natural.

And it's not only applicable on the gaming industry. With the Internet we've made ourselves dependent on a lot of stuff. If Internet is down at my work, I can't do my job properly. Sure some stuff are still done manually and there are some worst case scenario-options when the servers are down. But a big part of what I do is hindered when the Internet is down and I'm sure my workplace isn't that unique in this regard.

We pay with card everywhere, we pay our bills online, we buy stuff online (now people even order groceries online!). I can see a future were we never leave our homes, because we don't need to. And then everything goes down and we're f***ed!

And I won't point any fingers. I'm a big part of this evolution as anybody else. It's hard to go back now, and there's no denying the digital world has given us a lot of benefits as well. It's just that everything has gone so fast!

EDIT: I think some people overreact on Miyamoto's comment. What he's saying isn't at all stupid, he's just being realistic and the evolution is something he can't control either, just adjust to and prepare for. We're stepping into an era of digital gaming and of course any company would like to still earn money on their products. Call it greed if you like. I call it a survival instinct, to regain control of the products.

Look at the music and movie industry, with all the piracy that increased with illegal file sharing sites. To hamper this somewhat, subscription services entered the market. As a record collector I'm not a big fan of this when it comes to music, but I realize it's the future. But instead of subscribing to Spotify, I keep on buying physical albums as long as I can. And hypocritically, as I don't care for the physical products when it comes to movies and TV-series, I subscribe to Netflix and HBO. It depends on where your interests lies and what you deem important to support. With video games, I will support physical as long as possible. Will I stop playing video games in an all digital future? If they still produce quality games, the answer is probably no.

Nintendo is part of the industry, but they're not the biggest guys around. They've made stupid decisions, of course, but to go back to what Miyamoto says here, they need to adjust to the modern market to survive. They can't be stubborn. Sure it would be nice with a company embracing physical media, not latching on to the digital trends, but for how long would they survive?

Miyamoto - the Arsene Wenger of the games industry....

@EightBitMan oh yeah the man who brought us mario bro n zelda is "just a tool. Nothing more, nothing less." your just some nobody on the web nothing more nothing less

Sounds like another videogame crash incoming, just what we need.

I like to own my content outright

the best game developer of all time should stick to developing games and get Nintendo to have more first party stuff coming out given the amount of studios/staff they have on board now 3ds development is pretty much dead. love miyamoto but his success with mario and zelda does not make him a shrewd businessman, just an incredible video games visionary.

Streaming, no. But I'm sure a monthly £25-30 subscription that allows access to every video games on the Switch would be a huge success, but I don't see how it could happen. I'd also be interested in a cheaper subscription for nindies.
A subscription would be the only acceptable way for me to go full digital.

I've gamed since 1991. If Nintendo makes it to where I can't play even so much a single player game by cartridge, without being part of their online service. I will totally admit that gaming is dead. I remember seeing a gaming forum predicting that would happen in 2001. I do not want to pay online, I can game just fine offline. It's my oldest hobby. I will be happy with single player. But as the saying goes nothing lasts forever

what a hypercritical *ss he's a fine one to talk when their online service is totally garbage and completely unnecessary.

no i don't want your subscription stupid service and you can shove it where the sun don't shine.

my respect for this guy went down a bit after this.

@Lumine not only that, these companies expect you to keep paying for the reminder of the consoles lifespan, do you know how much that is? compared to buying the games and console outright?

why do you think they are pushing this crap forward? because they know people are willing to pay for this crap.

@Quarth Best comment in this thread!

@OorWullie Thanks!

@Nincompoop save them from what ? they are a multi billion dollar company that makes and has made huge profits for the past 40 years while piracy was present all the time

Provide a service of worth and we'll see the value of paying for it.
For now, all I see is a service worse than anything else on the market, a market in which the best services are often free.

I understand and agree with Nintendo's view on keeping the value of video game high.
I have no problem paying 60$ for nintendo games (or others), because I see how their game are worth the asking price.

However I have yet to see how their online service is deserving of my money. It lags, it's unstable, it lacks feature, it's overall a bad experience and it doesn't offer anything new you cannot find anywhere else. The only thing it does is putting an additionnal paywall on great games I already pay full price to play. Even worse, in my opinion it ruins a lot of otherwise great game because it doesn't work properly or offer the flexibility requiered.

And, personnally, I don't care in the slightest about centuries old games I already played a billion times. To me, this is not what I'm paying for. It's like giving me a free towel with my shitty phone data plan, it's nice to have a free towel, but it doesn't make my data plan less shitty.

@huyi agree so I can still play my digital xbox 360 games on my fffffffffffff xbox one x. but nintendo I have to buy same fffffffffffff games every new nintendo machine. and dont ffffffffffffff get me started on tying the digital purchesses to the ffffffffff console.
No wonder everyone on switch wants physical carts they dont trust Nintendo

I’ll happily pay a subscription to receive multiple physical games of my choosing through the post every month 😀

@Anguspuss and neither do i trust nintendo either when it comes to digital, you are right on all counts.

I will shed a tear the day that games are only available through internet based streaming services that cost a subscription. I love my physical game collection and I'll let it grow as long as I can. I know eventually it will come to an end. Sad face.

I can see that "Special Editions" becoming High art - you pay for and buy and keep the Edition - it becomes a beautiful thing to own.
Despite this - they are expensive and time-consuming to produce, create huge Logistical distribution headaches. But in 30 years time - when a game is talked about on the Ultrahyperbraininet, the holy grail will be these "Special Editions that is shown - not an Icon from a menu....

Long live making games collectible and beautiful to own!

It’s a free for all in the online world. Subscription based services are an insurance to both players and the company. Exclusivity is how Nintendo survived over the years, and he’s urging OTHER developers to try this. You’re not supposed to be able to download Mario and Zelda off a Steam sale and then wonder whether or not to get it on Switch. If you pay a subscription, you have in a sense made a commitment to that system. He also urged them to make games complete. So he’s not downplaying what needs to be done as far the other side keeping their end of the bargain. As an adult who grew up in the cartridge days, I kinda get it. Games are way, WAY more accessible and frequent in release than they used to be. As a kid, you had a few cartridges, rented, maybe you had a nice collection. Maybe you got lucky and saw a rare RPG at a flea market. But now we have the internet, and we can stream and download games spanning over 40 years. Then theres GameStop that practically gives away used games sometimes because they have so many. So how can they increase the value of a Switch, let alone a console altogether? It’s kind of a necessary evil and we did it to ourselves. If Sony and Microsoft do it in some way and Nintendo doesn’t, then who is losing out? How many of us are guilty of saying “I got Rayman Legends on PS4 for free this month, so I really don’t need the Switch version.”

On the typical Miyamoto greed that always comes up. Does he value his own stuff too much? He has a right to. He created Mario and he’s still alive, It’s no worse than Disney slapping giant price tags on old animated movies. He might as well enjoy it, right? That’s just part of the joy and aspiration of wanting to be a creator and enjoy the value of your ideas. Its why we strive to be artists and not work at Wal-Mart. So, to subscribe and get Zelda and Mario 3 on a new system, which is just incentive to play stuff like Splatoon 2 online, is quite generous on Nintendo’s part. They could have just redone Virtual Console, which WE ALL bought three times over on Wii, Wii U and 3DS and gave us little gold discounts. Then we’d own them all on yet another system, and what happens when Switch phases out? So, I’d have rather spent $20 a year for several years and enjoyed the ride, and not have to think about my system becoming a graveyard for digital purchases. Like my Wii U they may not fix someday, being filled with digital purchases. That was a mistake. If Nintendo’s subscription service was back then, I would have saved A LOT of money. Just four Virtual Console games would have paid for a year of tons of games. I have folders full, do the math. Not to mention a lot of us still have and hunt cartridges, which are sometimes worth way more. The time they were on cartridge is when they made the most money anyway.

Long story short. Times are changing and they have to adapt without losing their integrity. Happy Mask Salesman has to speak up to protect his Happy Masks. Thank you for reading. I’m going back to bed now.

No and no.

This is just straight up money grubbing but it's nice to see that people will defend this too with the everyone is greedy excuse like that justifies it. Taking away options isn't just greed; it's corporate censorship.

@darthstuey dear god that's just awful, I'm sorry but it is... I am hoping the internet will crash one day and we go back to proper games, films, no spoilers for anything and so on... Granted millions would kill themselves coz they can't post what they ate on Facebook or take a sex pic on this Snapchat but meh lol ... My kids will be brought up on what I was brought up with, my old consoles and have no phone until they at least 13.

Down with digital!!! Lol

I much prefer physical copies and will do my best to always purchase that way.

I can understand streaming making sense for online AAA experiences, with or without new versions every year. Also for old games that otherwise are widely pirated.

Apart from those things, I think the value for the consumer would be massively impacted. Games as a service with constant upgrades and new content doesn't fit all genres of game. Pocket Camp's mechanics have reduced Animal Crossing to a mostly tedious collectathon within a forced time-frame for me. Really not interested in gaming like that. I'll stick with the games I already have if games as a service really means gaming is a chore.

Of course they won't do a virtual console unlimited with $5/month for a nintendo system. Buncha hypocrites. I'm fine with the free trial games and payment removes stamina/gives gem doublers.

I honestly think its down to the type of game and this really determines if it would be good as a paid for service or a free to play one.

For example: GTA 3 actually did quite well on mobile as a "pay up front and you own the game", type of service

Secret of Mana also done better on a up front paid service.

But games like Angry birds, Clash of clans, Temple Run, Mobile Legends and others like that work a lot better as a free to play with in game buying options.

Trying to make one adopt the other will have negative impacts.

There's multiple cases of failed games that should be free to play, instead are paid up front and vice versa too.

Balance of both is needed.

@Heavyarms55
It's a reasonable price compared to the competitors but the quality of the Nintendo online experience is not very good. I don't think that will change with the paid service.

@electrolite77 I just think he should stick to what he knows. The guy deserves respect but he's not going to be an all knowing gaming guru like some seem to believe and he isn't going to know everything about the industry, some things he will be mistaken on.

This is one of them.

@MrGawain Yup, that's the issue with season passes as well. Publishers get the money first, then decide how much content they're going to develop. So what you get doesn't depend anymore on what the publishers deems ''good quality'', it will depend on how much other people are paying for it. Imagine if every game that wasn't a highly profitable blockbuster never got made, because they already knew it wouldn't be profitable beforehand.

I'm not going to sit here and tag every single person, so I'm going to make more of a broad statement as I've done several times in the past... As a collector who owns thousands of games, I want to dismiss this myth that "physical is forever" because it absolutely is not. I've had numerous copies of games simply cease to work and needed replacing. Physical is not forever. I've actually lost more physical games than digital due to time simply taking it's toll.

Also the idea that all digital games will simply "vanish" when servers shut down is a bit ridiculous. You all need to realize that roms of digital games dating as far back as the Sega Channel and Nintendo's BS Satellite exist. Digital will be preserved forever, probably long after many physical media has become rare and valuable collector's items. As long as the so called "pirates" exist, we should be able to digitally preserve everything. I'm more concerned about the staggering amount of times devs have apparently lost the source code to their own games.

with that said, I do agree the closing of the rom sites needs to stop. It doesn't really accomplish anything. If Nintendo wants to make bank on their impressive library of quality titles, they need to start releasing them digitally or maybe even physically. GC titles are hotly requested for a reason, and as someone who has been collecting and playing GC games a lot lately, I can only echo this sentiment. Instead, Nintendo gives us the same NES games we've played thousands of times. While I'm generally fine with NES games, it's clear this is not what the average consumer wants. To make this new business model they've adopted work, they need to start releasing more of their games and stop hoarding them. It makes no sense to release these games in dribs and drabs and take years to accumulate a decent library of games. A netflix-style model would be fantastic in my opinion. Every major first party NES, SNES, Gameboy, N64, maybe even GC all on a nice digital platform, with third parties hopefully joining the bandwagon. Perhaps more physical re-releases in the form of "Minis" as well, or compilation discs. I'm especially a fan of compilation discs. Some of my most played games in my library are compilations like Taito Legends, Midway Arcade Treasures, and Intellivison Lives.

As for the topic at hand, I'll reserve judgment until after I've tried out the subscription service. If I don't feel it's worth the money, I simply won't pay for it again.

Usually all a subscription means is that you’re paying for more than what you want. A package deal favors the seller overall.

this is happening and there's nothing anyone can do about it. about 10 years ago (maybe more) a colleague said to me that the future is subscription based. "no one will own anything digitally any more", he said, "everyone will pay a monthly fee for access to vast libraries of content.". i pretty much laughed in his face. not only was that a massive change in the way society works, but would require a technical infrastructure i could not perceive back that. then the cloud computing boom happened. now look - who buys music any more? who buys books? these people are few and far between. games are the next medium to follow in this trend. games are a more complex media due to having to them being interactive and bigger file sizes etc, but trust me; this is happening. 10 years from now, every game will be available via subscription services, and we will look back at owning games as something so alien, much like we look at owning music today.

@NinChocolate though paying for the price of two-three traditional rentals and then watching several seasons of TV shows a month really amounts to the consumer taking them to the cleaners.
All depends on the use the consumer gets out of it.

@Alikan there will be the power-users but I’d reckon that a good number of people just want/engage with a minority of the content in any package subscription service.

Saint Miyamoto, once again trying to justify always online DRM. I suppose if he really wanted to, he would ask everybody to smash up their Nintendo Switch in order to appreciate its hardware value, even worse everybody would comply, only because it is Miyamoto.

@NiaBladerunner him asking the industry to stop using a free to play model with in game loot sales and adopt an up front paid for model instead is trying to push "Always online DRM" in what way?

None of what you said is actually correct.

@Razer
You're replying to the wrong article, this is the one about Miyamoto saying that devs should embrace subscription based models. As it would require the user to be online the vast majority of the time to access content, it would be the epitome of always online DRM.

Just a quick comment as unlike some of you i'm busy playing games not writing a thesis on the future of gaming, stop worrying and get back on your consoles!!!

I don't like subscription models for games. I prefer physical, so that when I pick up my copy of Mario Kart 8 Deluxe in 10 years, I can at least enjoy the base game. Same way I still enjoy my Pokemon Stadium, Donkey Kong Country, or Boogerman games.

I want to decide if and when I can play the games I paid for. This is why I only buy games that are playable from the cart.

(Yes, Boogerman is a real game)

@electrolite77 Thanks. I imagine Nintendo wouldn’t be doing it, but the world has changed around them and other companies have already been enjoying the profit of these adjustments. I know a lot of people would disagree with what I say, but Nintendo also has shareholders and they need keep people employed and also create jobs. Folks also tend to forget that Nintendo games, even old NES roms, are still fun to play. So the value of these for $20 a year on a little Switch with no HD space compared to a big multi TB PS4 with a $60 subscription is naturally gonna be different. NESflix is actually cheaper than Netflix. Lol. Whats in a name? Whats your brand? Your target audience? Parents like my friend who bought it for their kid who likes Minecraft, but she can’t wait for the online service to play Mario 3 with him. Her Wii with the downloaded game nolonger works. I think Nintendo is doing the right thing, under the circumstances. I think if its successful, and it will be, we’ll get so many games, then SNES and Gameboy, and so on... we’ll forget to complain. I mean. I’d build a time machine if I could and prevent the digital age from happening, so we’d all still have cartridges and vinyl records... but its here. Its happened. Game companies have to survive and make the best of it.

@andyg1412 I know. I’m sorry. But people said Miyamoto was wrong and I had to sound like a professor and scold all the naughty children! Everytime somebody says something mean about Miyamoto or Nintendo, my Mountain Dew tastes flat and my Doritos become stale. I start forgetting where heart containers are hidden. I have to do my part in the NintendoLife Wars. I like your White Gamepad by the way. Lol

@shaneoh oh i see.

How are you going to advice a fixed up front price for games but then also say you need to have a subscription based gaming service? Isn't that totally contradictory?

On the flip side, look at xbox game pass. 9.99 a month, and absolutely worth it. Great selection of games. I'm hoping if nintendo does something like this, that they do it like microsoft. Just my opinion

@shaneoh I'll be politely ignoring him on this one.

@huyi "he's a fine one to talk when their online service is totally garbage and completely unnecessary."

Ah okay, did you get early access to it? What does it have that we don't know about yet?

Are people really this shallow minded? I'm not a fan of paying for a subscription to go online (especially as I already pay monthly to use the Internet), but the money you are giving them is going towards server costs.

Any game that goes online has to connect to a server, which believe it or not requires a location to store and they have to pay to keep the server up and running. The money you pay is going towards keeping this server up and running.

As for Nintendo's service, $20 for 1 year is fair. There are a few Switch online games I use, and if I want to continue, well I'm going to have to pay. At least they are giving us NES games to play, which is just the icing on top. They don't actually have to do it.

Also, look into getting the family pack, as you can pay less. With two people on it, that's $15 instead of $20.

@Razer
Haha, excellent point, it is entirely contradictory. Unless they're talking about going the World of Warcraft route, buy then game then pay a fee to play it...

He's right. The market is being saturated, meaning that there's an opportunity for disruption.

I value quality game experiences yet can't find them without paying upfront for them. There's more content now than hours in a day - the opposite of the brilliant n64 for instance.

As I said before, increasingly, games aren't just questioned if they're worth my money - there's a lot of good quality stuff out there - it's more a question of whether they're worth my time. This is relative to all the options out there. Multiple different, great experiences, and I have to choose as a consumer before knowing.

Music was flooded, and therefore disrupted. Any market works like that. I won't make assumptions on how it's executed, like online and yada yada. The disruption will happen, the way in which? Right now it seems to be a subscription model. Stream could be something, if it's feasible. A hybrid one, to offset volume and responsiveness calculations perhaps.

Who knows. But it will be disrupted. Nintendo is right to do it themselves and could pioneer it. We'll see if they do and in what form, though.

I'm relatively naive to this subscription issue and how it could affect the gaming industry on the whole, but I'll make my best effort to consolidate an opinion based on what I do understand. So apparently this subscription based service means that companies will have more control over how video games are distributed? They will control what we will be able to play and when we will be able to play it? From what I am reading in the other comments (Thanks you guys for illuminating on the issue, btw), these game companies will have greater dictation on the purchases I make and how I utilize the products? This is rather infuriating... Once I have purchased a video game, I want to consider it my property and well... Mine. I want to take as much time as I desire getting invested into the video game and play at my own pace and leisure. I want to utilize my product to my desire. I thought the whole purpose for video games is to provide an interactive media for players to immerse themselves into and allow the player to invest themselves in these memorable, fictional worlds in any way they see fit. This business approach is seriously going to derive these games of the grandeur and impact they can have. Reducing games to merely streamed, disposable products is going to obliterate the sense of adventure and wonder these virtual worlds can provide players. All of this for marketing. Business. Money. I want freedom over the products that I by thus when they are in my ownership, I want to utilize those products however I want. I'm ok with a digital market, but that doesn't have to come to the sacrifice of player's autonomy (I think that's the word) with their video games.

Edit: Change the obligatory Sonic joke. It's more like Robotnik hijacking Sonic's sneakers to make them become remote controlled and Robotnik forcing Sonic to obtain every Chaos Emerald, bring them back to him, and then cause them to scatter, forcing Sonic to search the long distances again for the Special Zone entrances. Rinse and repeat this process

The biggest thing I worry about in the future is so many subscriptions for many things. Internet bill/subscription (your first, most important bill that's the gateway to everything else), Hulu, Netflix, game system online fee, etc. I'm glad the people who run these will get paid, but you have to be smarter than ever as a consumer or you'll be drowning in hundreds of dollars of subscriptions before you know it-- And that's just your entertainment bills

I have too many subscriptions as is. I don’t want more.

@Grumblevolcano
If the format of the game is tied to the service, that makes sense. If online functionality is "its thing" and using them requires online, then I get it. But imagine Nintendo provided actual VC standalone games that are also sold separately every month to subscribers, and then wiped them if you quit your subscription. That'd be complete bogus too.

Sony and MS have been doing this thing for years. The truth is you need to pay for those multiplayer servers somehow

it would turn into the video landscape;

there's eventually going to be 10-15 services, all with different logins, different apps, each with a subscription fee.

i'm fine with it but i want 'it all' under 1 pane, 1 login, 1 payment.

@NiaBladerunner "...he would ask everybody to smash up their Nintendo Switch in order to appreciate its hardware value, even worse everybody would comply, only because it is Miyamoto."

Yeah, of course we would!

@shaneoh but he also just said he find MMO's boring 😂😂....

I am all in for subscription based gaming. You pay a fixed price (a month / six months / a year) and then you’ll get all games released, free for you to play. And if you don’t renew the subscription you’ll lose the access.
But at least two things need to be takin in account. First, the games need to be GOOD. Someone needs to take the time and double check the consumers are getting quality, finished products. It’s too easy to flood the service with half-assed and/or unfinished broken titles. We’re going to need the Nintendo seal of quality back.
And second, the games need to be downloadable. I’m not going to pay to stream games. It’s not gonna work (at least not yet).

If you want to take a look at the evolution of the music industry you are not allowed just to peek what you find relevant considering what path you are taking. True, subscription-based services in music took the industry by surprise, many had to adapt quickly, many disappeared and many came late to the party. What he is not saying is that in addition to that, some revenue streams (new and old) starting to play a vital role in these creative souls. Many started to tour again, many added a new income coming from a different artistic path and so on. How to translate this into the Gaming industry? Maybe eSports competitions, sponsorship, selling IP to other art branches? Cartridges and Blue Rays will become in the future an amazing such as vinyl is for music? Maybe he addressed all this, probably not.

Then customers will feel the need to rail against you and develop a habit of feeling pleased and satisfied instead of guilty when playing pirated games.

FIXED

If NES and SNES Classic sales are anything to go by, I think the Nintendo Switch Online is going to be huge.

Miyamoto is right. I'd rather see subscription-based software and services than $60 "games as services" with ungodly amounts of microtransactions and lootboxes.

If a subscription service is the only way to go moving forward, then fine. Nintendo Switch Online is at least reasonably priced. But I am hoping that the "Virtual Console" (yeah I know it's not called that but it pretty much is that anyway) gets added to and extends beyond just a select few NES and SNES titles. Also, if a subscription service subsidizes a standardized price of physical retail games, also fine with that as long as the standardized price isn't $80+ for everything.

NES we can play Dr. Mario is so addicted drug. Pay 1 month subscription like $4.99 plus discount this other game pass. Especially TAX. PER wasted money. Anyway we can still play Arena of Valor.

@Spectra Even if it was JUST NES titles, they need a hella lot more than 20-30 titles.
Not when the number of first-party titles that exist are so much more than that, and the same partners that had titles on the NES classic like Capcom, Square, or Konami could provide over a dozen on top of that... each.

Can be run Virtual Console like Wii or Wii U game. It should be Low-End Wii or Wii U ports than Switch is High-End.

Umm no Miyamoto. This is incorrect.

But what did Todd Howard have to say about this?!

More on-topic: Handled correctly, I have no issues with online subscription services (which I believe Miyamoto is referring to here). Running servers for cloud backups (though that in itself is an issue that I find contentious since there's no backup alternative) and online play isn't free and takes the efforts of dedicated people who deserve to be paid. I also don't mind the "subscription" NES games as a perk as long as there's an option somewhere down the line to buy the ones we really want.

Less on-topic: IMO comparing game streaming to the music and TV/movie streaming industries is like comparing apples and oranges. Gaming is an interactive experience that can be fraught with multiple delays; the rest are passive experiences. Many genres would not handle input/loading delays well, whereas the other services can safely buffer without any penalty.

@darthstuey

When you think about it, that was a key point made in the film Ready Player One: people paying (in many cases, LOTS of) real money for digital, virtual experiences and content, all of which could be lost on a dime. I mean, think about the ethical implications of building an entire industry around consumers paying real world money for stuff that actually isn't tangible and which they actually have zero control over after the original point of sale; it's precisely why loot boxes have come under such scrutiny. Companies don't care if consumers don't stop to consider what they're exchanging real world money for or if some of them might become irresponsible or worse, addicted. In fact, they're counting on it.

The "AAA" videogame publishers frankly don't care if your local internet speed stinks or is nonexistent; their priority is on complete control during and after the point of sale, hence the emphasis on digital and now streaming content. A EULA is basically you agreeing with the publisher that you as a consumer have NO rights. Is that a world you want to live in? Because it's NOT how capitalism is supposed to work.

Yes, absolutely consumers are being trained to just placidly accept whatever crap sandwich they're handed by the mega-corporations anymore (not just videogames), based on the simple notion that as only one consumer they make no difference if they complain or walk away. I wish I had a solution other than simply voting with your wallet (as I do). Trying to change the situation via the legislative process would mean convincing politicians whose bread gets buttered by a lot of these same corporations, so yeah, things aren't likely to get any better anytime soon, sadly.

If you can't actually buy and own games in your console's permanent library through Switch Online, that would be a problem where I'm concerned. Servers go down, internet connections go down, and sooner or later people need the ability to play offline. That will never change. If you think a future based around subscription (particularly streaming) models is a good idea, just consider how much time PS4 and Xbox owners have had with PSN or LIVE being down over the past few years. That's time on the clock YOU paid for where you can't access your "purchase". Do you like that idea?

Ah well, maybe I'll just stay in the current gaming era and every era before it and I'll become an old school gamer forever. Sounds good.

@Bunkerneath It's cause the title of this article doesn't match up with his actual comment:

"It’s necessary for developers to learn to get along with [subscription services]...When seeking a partner for this, it’s important to find someone who understands the value of your software. Then customers will feel the value in your apps and software and develop a habit of paying money for them."

He said that they should get along with streaming services (ie keep an open mind) and if you ever decide to choose a partner for something like that, to find someone that understands your product.

What was that term again? The one where you write a title for additional views, usually due to some form of shock value? That's what it feels like here.

The day gaming is a subscription based service is the day I lose interest in gaming.

@Navitroid Honestly, I am about to leave buying new games behind with the way things have been developing.

Nintendo deserve nothing else than HATE.

@Pod Also, regarding subscription stuff, I feel there's also a big issues lots of players need to overcome; the structure of multiplayer isn't even handled in the ways that it used to be either.

Back in the days, it used to make sense that multiplayer was a free thing online because you literally directly connected to the IP address of other players... and also had to deal with a lot of the latency/ping/etc that you had to deal with just one player having a weaker connection/etc than others.

So it made sense nonetheless that multiplayer was free because... at the end of the day,

Nowdays(for better or for worst) even a lot of your average first person shooter now handle multiplayer via means of centralized servers, online-hosted data and account informations to keep tabs on your online multiplayer progress and unlocks, automated matchmaking... etc
Heck, even when the match hosting is done on a peer-to-peer basis, chances are you'll still find some kind of centralized feature such an automatching system attempting to make sure you get matched with people of the same ranks and so on.

So even in some of the more "old style" multiplayer found today, there's still a lot of stuff we didn't even have back in the days of "everything online is free" that, as a result... well, cost money to manage.

That's why you so often hear about multiplayer focused games who can't even be played online anymores simply because of that; the central servers are dead because they were becoming too high a cost to manage than to keep up even for the folks who were still playing.

And in a way, that's the sneaky thing with consoles subscriptions and people think it's "removing" free multiplayer but in many cases it's perhaps what made it viable to continue in the first place due to the developers basically offloading a lot of these infrastructures costs to the console maker and the console makes then in turn charging the players to make up for said costs.

I wouldn't be surprised if offloading such costs for the console versions is what technically make it possible for the PC versions of such games to remain "free" multiplayer wise by limiting the amount of hosting costs on the PC version by what is saved by letting consoles versions be handled by subscriptions whereas DLCs from all versions thus basically "subsidize" the "free" online multiplayer of PC versions.

Because we saw online that was "Free" on the PS3/Wii/WiiU and it turns out the result was... you get what you pay for; which in these case(except perhaps PS3 thanks to introducing the earliest version of Playstation Plus that only gave that free monthly game deal) meant an often inferior latency/stability or dependency on third parties like Gamespy which, again, led to exactly what you "paid" for when such third party "free" online matchmaking closed down, killing multiplayer for almost anything that was Wii-era online multiplayer on Nintendo's side of things.

So I half wonder if all the subscription stuff is less indeed "gouging consumer for profits"(especially considering the much lower costs asked by Nintendo) but the fact we're starting to see just how much goes in managing the kind of modern centralized/semi-centralized multiplayer infrastructure games have increasingly begun to depend upon.

Like, sure there might be overcharge(like said, I can't help but frown at Sony/Xbox asking 70$CAD a year when Nintendo is about to asks 30-35$CAD a year top for a subscription that can services up to eight consoles instead of the only one or two). But I wonder truly by "how much" it truly might be an overcharge considering how easy it's been proved for a game's multiplayer servers to "die" as many titles have proved over the years. Like subscriptions haven't been a panacea preventing it to happen to any games using them, but a lot of console-based game have had surprising online durability in the past I feel compared to PC exclusive "peers".

And that's the thing ultimately, back in the day free multiplayer was also a simple(if perhaps sometimes obtuse) deal of manually entering IP addresses yourself to matchmake with others. But increasingly even a lot of "classic" multiplayer experiences increasingly draw upon more and more structures, layout or even some metagame unlocks mechanics that increasingly make the whole deals feel more like MMO games than the classic deals of very invidual-managed sessions and scale of the past.

Edit: Just to add.. this is in no ways a "I love subscription based multiplayer!" deal as if it were up to me, I'd very much not have to pay close to the worth of another full game just to play Monster Hunter World online on my PS4, which a thing that greatly miffed me with how quick I "beat" that game and was glad I had only gone for the "monthly price" first on a personal trial basis kind of decision because I didn't know how long it would take me to play because instead of paying 30-something$ like I have, I'd have paid 70$ of online multiplayer for a game that in the end I only played for something like 3 months.

But nonetheless it's thinking about how the very infrastucture of online multiplayer has changed even for "traditional" games like shooters that makes me wonder just how much we might be missing out "under the hood" with our assumptions still based of what online multiplayer was like when we started playing games "for free" online. Like, let's just look at how many games now need the likes of literal online moderators to make sure player interactions go smoothly that we didn't even have in the day because both connections and setup was done on a variant of purely peer-to-peer without anything like just automated matchmaking.

@Yorumi: Oh, I don't deny that Nintendo will profit from going to an online subscription model. I'm still rather dubious about the whole thing and wish we knew a bit more about the service. At this point, I suspect we won't get much more info until it launches.

In terms of cloud backups, I mentioned in my last post that it is an issue that I find contentious. I'd like alternative backup options if possible that aren't locked behind a subscription service, but for reasons both understandable and unjustified (IMO), I doubt this will happen any time soon...if at all.

To be fair, when I mentioned server space, I was thinking more in the context of MMOs as they constitute most of my experiences of playing with others; the only online experience on Nintendo devices that I've had in recent memory has to do with the GTS in Pokemon. Pretty much everything else has been local.

I'm used to thinking of servers more in terms of storage and the business world, less so with gaming. The business I contract to (I'm a desktop developer but have little to do with managing the servers other than handling backups occasionally) handles a lot of customer data by using both temporary and long-term instances through AWS (and rarely Azure) as well as a few in-house Windows servers. I don't know how much exactly goes into these AWS servers, but I know enough about the subscription model to know that it doesn't cost peanuts.

I will thank you for convincing me to look more into P2P networking (for the gaming sphere) as I have no experience with it other than in an introductory Networking course in college and why it typically doesn't work for environments that I'm used to. While it does appear to indeed be a cheaper solution over client/server in many games, I would think that Nintendo would at least need some type of matchmaking server. Unfortunately, this point is hard to contest one way or the other as we don't know how Nintendo has everything set up on the back end; from what I've found, there are multiple ways to set up P2P networks. What may work for one game may not work so well with another.

Tl;Dr - I agree with many of your points and don't contest them per se. Nintendo will clearly make a profit through the online subscription service, but it's likely that we'll never really know how much of that is pure profit vs. the networking maintenance that goes into handling each online Switch game.

(Apologies if some thoughts here are a bit fragmented; this was composed on and off for over two hours. )

Really that tag line! Is he saying embrace or be a dinosaur?
Because that's really one finger pointing forward and the rest back at him!
I mean he's the reason why franchises just don't get the live they need, because he's not sure what to do with them, he's the reason why we have no voice chat in current games, he's the reason why Starfox zero was so trash!
Shiggy your the dinosaur!
Wake up!

Sorry, but I don't agree with him on this one. For the most part, subscriptions services suck!

Sure, sometimes they're necessary such as for Internet service, TV service (whether it's cable/satellite or your choice of streaming service(s)), or for products with continuous issue releases like magazines; but otherwise I much prefer to just pay a full flat fee for the exact products I want when I want them, and then I don't have to worry about future payments, whether or not I'm making the best use of my time in getting my money's worth each month, or whether I'll lose access to stuff I want (or even my whole collection if the company goes under) in the future.

@Bunkerneath @Regpuppy It doesn't even need to be a physical copy. Even your digital purchases will still always be available for you (sans online play) even without Internet access and long after the servers are shut down as long as you take the right precautions in backing up your data. I could turn on my Wii U and play one of my old WiiWare games right now, no Internet required. However, none of this is true for subscription services.

@Ludovsky
You bring up a lot of very relevant points of observation here.
I have been observing online multiplayer from the sidelines for two decades now, but have only ever really enjoyed a handful of games that rely on it.

Now, this will be a little long. Apologies.

As you say, playing online in the early days involved manually typing in IP addresses, or even (gasp) dialing up a phone line modem (2-player GTA1 in a very NOT FREE scenario).

But I should like to mention a very huge player in making PC gamers think online ought to be free. Blizzard.
Pioneering centralized matchmaking and lobbies through Battle.net, and eating all the costs themselves, meant their games had something few others had. People loved it. The games as single player experiences were very meaty, and the extended play came for free.

When Valve rolled out online functionality for Half-Life and eventually the Steam service, they would look like dinosaurs if they charged money for any of this.

WoW could charge people out the wazoo every month because traditionally MMORPGs had visible persistent worlds that people understood would cost money to maintain. The game's entire "thing" was that it was online. All this money gushing in every month helped to further bulk up Battlenet's impeccable level of service. To this day, from Warcraft II to Overwatch, people play for free after one up-front payment. Ad-free and (for many of the games) micro-payment free.

When PS2, GameCube, and Xbox came out with modem functionality, nobody were really in a hurry to utilize it. How would they cover the server costs? If you were sure to sell as many copies as Blizzard did, sure, you could develop the necessary functionality and set up servers. But nobody did. Phantasy Star Online on GameCube and EverQuest on PS2 both required expensive console expansions and a monthly account fees with the developers.

Microsoft championing Live on the first Xbox made people think it could be done. The modem was in every console already. MS provided much of the technical framework required, and showed how it ought to be with games of their own. Namely Halo 2.

With the 360, they started demanding that devs incorporated online functionality. The bare minimum was making sure to award online registered gamerscore through achievements. Even if it was just "here's 1000GS for beating the game". It was so big a hit that many system owners would actively shy away from games that didn't have full-featured online modes.

This was all dandy for Microsoft, but it's a different story for the developers. As @Yorumi says, the server costs for anything other than basic matchmaking and community interaction were not being covered by Microsoft. By the time the online API from Steam caught up to the spiffiness of Microsoft's, players and developers were basically paying for the privilege to use their own internet when visiting Uncle Xbox. Which is why you didn't see any persistent world MMORPGs on the system. When already paying your ISP and paying Microsoft for Live Gold, having to pay a monthly account fee to an individual dev would feel like the world's biggest ripoff.

Which brings us to the situation today.
Valve, Sony, and Microsoft charge a 30% cut of the sales price as always from the developer, allowing them access to the basic online frameworks. They have to cover any additional server costs themselves. When you say that console online covers the PC online costs, then that is only true because console versions sell much better and at higher prices. When there's no more money to be made on season passes, loot boxes, DLC, anniversary editions, or vanity items, them servers (if any exist) will need to close. That's why so many went peer-to-peer, so the games would at least stay playable as long as the service existed.

Now, Nintendo. When the Wii went "always online", they charged the users nothing, and provided the developers NOTHING. For almost an entire year, the insanely popular system only had online functionality in Nintendo's own games. Not until years later was any proper semblance of out-of-the-box online integration added to the Wii's software development kit.

With Switch, we don't know what Nintendo intend to provide developers who make online game. But whether or not they make use of what's provided, Nintendo will lock non-subscribing users out from accessing their online modes unless their game is on a free-to-play model, is how it seems now.

As @Yorumi says, it could quickly look like securing a steady monthly income just because they have the necessary monopoly to do so. Microsoft and Sony have historically been gouging both the devs and the players in this deal. Whether Nintendo is going to do the same remains to be seen.

The one bright spot for me personally is a very self centered notion. I don't play online. Now, those that do will pay for the pleasure separately. Of course, I wouldn't be angry with Nintendo for surprising and delighting me with their idea for the future of online games.

I’m sorry, but I hate digital games on console. It’s just another way to screw consumers by selling them a “license” to play the games that they can revoke at anytime. This could end up the same way if it replaces physical copies.

@Pod Thanks a lot for the in-depth analysis and response! It helped a lot to fill knowledge I was missing out about Xbox Live and such as well. Still reading and digesting the whole response but I mean this as a compliment.
There's a lot of very detailed and interesting stuff to dissect there.

When I buy digital games what I get is something too similar to pirate games: a rom without box or instruction booklet.

So I don't like it, but when there's no other way I buy digital.

But having to pay a subscription fee to access hundreds of games that will rotate or just disappear at any time but will never be really mine... no, thanks.

I understand it's the formula that saved music industry, but I like to pay for my video games and I like the fact that they are mine. And anyway, piracy aside, gaming industry is the one with bigger profit, if thing haven't changed lately.

No Bad Myomoto! 👎

@Yorumi: I did catch your explanation of matchmaking servers after posting previously. Unfortunately I was unable to take that post into account earlier as I typically just respond to single response posts when I get notifications during the day. Today has been pretty hectic work-wise. XD

Basically up until this point, I was under the impression that the client/server model was more of the norm these days based off of my own experiences both personally and with my job. I've done more research since last posting, and I have a better picture of the stance that you and others are taking in regards to the online components here.

Like I mentioned before, I still am not sold on Nintendo Switch's online service. If anything, this interesting discussion between us and some other commenters (@Pod had a couple of good pieces above as well) has put me more firmly in the "Nope" category. Before, my main point of contention was the "free games" that you never own and the death of the VC; I still hope they'll offer a way to buy the games individually, but at this point I find that unlikely. They definitely weren't offering enough for me to pay up at this point even before this conversation.

Granted, this is kind of a moot point for me as I don't yet own a Switch anyway (various reasons why I'm waiting), but in lieu of any "free for _____ months" deals that may be thrown in (if memory serves, there was a report or rumor of a Japanese bundle or something that will come with three free months or something), I'll likely vote with my wallet when I get one in a few months by not paying for the online. It's a shame as I was considering playing online more and getting out of my single player/local multiplayer bubble a bit.

They'd have to offer a lot more worthy perks before I'd dig in at any rate, but I suspect that'll come with a price hike.

Edit: I'd still like to see the profit input/output at play here as I like to verify stuff like this, but I know that's wishful thinking.

So more and more fees tacked onto everything but no ownership for the consumer. Internet $60 a month (if not more), Netflix subscription, Hulu Subscription, Cable/Satellite subscription, psn/xblive/Nintendo online sub! Damn well over $200 right there and you own nothing!

@Anguspuss I downloaded 3 games on my switch and sold it 9 months ago. I bought another switch last week and was able to redownload them again so I don't know where this games tied to one console myth came from

@kepsux You're absolutely right. Nintendo doesn't want you to be behind on system updates when they're constantly fighting the hackers that are trying to add features the system needs since Nintendo's focus is on preventing hackers instead of the system features...

@BinaryFragger
Problem is, people payed for Online on PS4 and Xbox while almpst noone bought the WiiU. At the same time people hated Nintendo's Online saying it's laggy and faulty. It's then logical for Nintendo to assume people have no problem with paying for online (which is true because PS qnd Xbox are allowed to charge for it) and actually prefer it.

@dimi I agree if they had sned n64 game cube and dream cast games.. They could just take my money. Alas

@Alber-san online saves should be free. And if their coders were better you would have the option to use your own cloud storage to facilitate this cost. All of the multiplatform games are more expensive. Big publishers are expressing their greedy intentions and its filing me with sadness. Releasing half of a game physically is a piss poor plan... I do no believe that the carts are as expensive as the are leading us to believe. Good old fashioned greed on a mission to derail a fantastic solution to a modern gamer / parents time dilemmas.. At least I Have hollow knight for now..

Saying "games as a service" is "necessary" for the game's industry moving forward is like the nonsense EA spouts about how nobody is interested in single player games anymore, when the real reasoning EA isn't interested in making single player games is not because of a lack of demand, but because it's difficult to convince people to spend money on extremely profitable loot boxes and micro transactions outside of multiplayer environments.

"Games as a service" is the biggest scam the gaming industry wants to work after loot boxes and micro transactions.

Screw that, I like to actually own the things I buy, thanks.

@USWITCH64 one would assume that you unlinked your account from that switch correct? Games are tied to the Nintendo account, as far as I know you can only actively have one account and use it on a single device at a time.

@ICISAZEL yes you are correct but I was wrongly told that I would lose the games, so was pleasantly surprised

@ICISAZEL
Why should online saves be free? Doesn't Nintendo need to have servers to store those saves? However the problem once again lies on what people allow companies to do. Pokemon bank was a paid service that allowed to save your pokemon online and people paid for it. Why shouldn't Nintendo do that too then?

@Tyranexx
I wasn't really intending to turn anyone against Nintendo on this whole topic with my dissemination.

I don't really play online, but I'm pretty sure the subscription model will improve their service in certain regards, and I don't see the fee as being unreasonably high, what with being a once-a-year 30 dollars. And I always hope for Nintendo to surprise me.

Who knows. They might be able to back up their asking price. The value they get from knowing exactly who and how many intend to play online is nothing to scoff at, and will greatly help them focus their efforts. If it's a proper something for something investment, they'll be giving back something that to the subscribers hold equal or greater value.

@Yorumi
Blizzard developed a lot of the service stardards through their free hosting of more players than anyone else, for as you say, over ten years. Anyone now who sees it as "not much effort to host lobbies for p2p battles" owes a lot to Blizzard.

Lauching WoW was their trip to the bank for cashing out on their infrastructure investment, and boy did it pay off big time.

I think Miyamoto just ate the wrong mushroom. GOG Galaxy will have to save us.

@Alber-san
Better to have them local since they're so small. Sometimes companies wipe their servers if something hasn't been played for a while. I wouldn't want to loose a Zelda file with 100% completion.

Notice how Miyamoto doesn't seem to care about what the consumer actually wants. And consumers don't like paying for subscription services when it comes to games because for many people gaming is done sporadically. Few people play games every single day. But developers are going to pay a huge price if they keep trying to force a business model on the consumer that the consumer doesn't want.

@Yorumi
You're right on that. My point is mostly that they were investing in building huge multiplayer communities with player interaction before many others were. And that their efforts laid the ground work for how many others would handle it.

At the time, the code required for smooth online functionality on the client side was nothing to be scoffed at either. It needed to be super clean and efficient. Even back then, a game like Starcraft ran on quite low-range PCs and Macs.

They set many standards for what to expect from an online service, and who should be allowed to get in on the action.

Tell you what.

I grew up going to rental shops to rent cartridges every Friday. Buying games was not possible - they were two expensive. Now, two games for 5/week ( that was in Brazil, 20 something years ago), you spent the weekend playing, no interference with school life, and poor performance in school, no games. My parents loved that.

From my perspective, I played loads of titles more, and my knowledge of the SNES and N64 grew a lot during those times.

Today, I struggle to pay 60 pounds for a game, because life doesn't allow that, and I have not much time to play either. I would gladly pay 10 pounds a month in order for me to play some Netflix-ish platform.

At first I wanted to bemoan them going to the dark side, especially after ignoring all the good sides of internet resources (a very Nintendo thing to do). But then I started thinking, his words may have a different read.

I'm not sure he's entirely encouraging them to embrace it so much as telling them to be mindful of it and learn to adapt to the presence of subscription services in their world.

@Pod: I realized after re-reading my previous post that it came off a bit more negative than I intended (hence the edit). Some of that was due to reading how others have reacted to what Microsoft and Sony have done with their own subscription services, so that may be comparing apples to the proverbial Nintendo orange. We'll see.

To be honest, I've been on the fence pretty much since this was announced. To go on with the metaphor, I'm still holding on to said fence, but for the time being I'm staying in my own yard. Some of my hesitation to jump on board is due to the fact that I'd still like more information on the service. I highly expect the online service to change and evolve as this is, in a way, new territory for the Big N. Logically, some of the profits would go towards improving the infrastructure...though there may be less of it than what I originally imagined. Who knows? Maybe there's something coming down the pipe we don't know about yet that would benefit from better online.

I may dive into the service eventually, but the only thing that I'd remotely consider the service for at this time is for the cloud backup option. The online? Maybe if I find a game that I want to play badly enough with others. The NES games? Not really; I own a lot of the ones I care about in one form or another already, but I may change my mind if they offer other retro titles from different systems. coughGameCubecough

@dimi,, don't be fooled. You do not know what to expect.just and see.

@dimi I don't think that music streaming is an apt comparison. Games are vastly more expensive to make and they demand (in many cases) constant upkeep. While TV shows don't demand constant upkeep, they also tend to be (in many cases) on the costly said in terms of production, so a look at Netflix seems like the more meaningful approximation, even though in my view it still falls short.

Anyways, looking at Netflix I find it important to note, that Netflix was a significant market disruption, yes no doubt, but it is yet unclear whether it is actually a sustainable business modell.

Netflix has been doing streaming for more than a decade and even now in 2018, they are still burning cash and we are talking nine digits here. They also raked up over like $30 billion dollars in liabilities an debt.
At the same time it seems pretty obvious, that they have already more or less reached a saturation point with their core audiences in North America and Europe, with 'fresh blood' outside of those core audiences being a lot more harder to persuade and ultimately acquire.
On top of that they are now facing growing competition from the likes of Amazon and Disney/Hulu and plenty other (as of yet) small players, meaning the situation is not going to get any easier with the market becoming more fragmented, competitive and also saturated.

I'm not saying Netflix will fail, although that is of course always a possibility, but I do have to wonder if their current approach will ever actually turn a sustained profit, if it will ever end up being economicially viable with a longterm perspective. Their schtick sofar has been aimed completely at overwhelming quarter over quarter growth, but that seems to be slowing down and neither profitability is in hand nor irrevocable market domination.

Well, I guess on the other hand, it is also undeniable that Netflix is in possession of an awesome treasure chest of personal data ... so much in fact, that is probably close to impossible to really put a price on it. That's really only good news for Netflix though.

Point being, Netflix will have to hike its prices up sooner rather than later while maintaing it's users and still showing at least some growth ... that is not going to easy and really, if TV shows which offer far less challenges with streaming than games cannot necessarily make it this way, we should all be careful to assume that games can make it.

@Alber-san, as their is no other way to backup saves, charging for that feels shady, for what they are currently offering 20 quid is in my opinion expensive. They know that a lot of people will opt in for cloud saves alone. Additionally, from their wording it does not even look like cloud saves will be global across all games. We will have to wait and see I guess.

@EightBitMan it still is.

Et tu, Miyamoto?

@Ralek85 Good points. Instagram wasn't making money for many years but what was more important was the growth of users. I don't think Netflix reached a saturation point in most of Europe. Its still on early stages in many countries. Also piracy (of tv series, movies, etc) is much higher in Europe than in US.

Anyway i agree that the business model is different. I just hope we will go to a subscription model in video games too. I think it will happen eventually (not completely) but not soon.

@Tyranexx
Oh I'm with you on NES games with online not selling the service to me on their own. Certainly not when I don't intend to play any of their other games online either.

But let's imagine they think up a lot of crazy experiments like they did with the 3DS. All those streetpass games and social experiments. With a reasonable amount of those being offered through the service, provided they wer fun and novel of course, I might be game.

@Pod: Good point. I hadn't really thought about social aspects outside of online play. I admittedly never took much advantage with that on my 3DS; it doesn't leave my house much, and the area that I live in is fairly rural (not at lot of Streetpass hits).

The upcoming service is certainly something to keep an eye on.

@Quarth @AtlanteanMan Excellent posts. I'd like to add something related that I hear few people talking about but which will have even graver implications for humanity than just the way we purchase and consume entertainment, and that is the banks' push towards a cashless society. I fear it will just be accepted on the grounds of "convenience", yet few people are considering the ramifications of the banks having total control over every single person's money, when all we would have is numbers in an account on their system.

Some people argue that subscription services are great value for money because you get access to a massive amount of content for a small (but recurring) fee.

But I generally find that I'm only interested in a tiny percentage of what is offered, so I'm actually paying mostly for content I don't want. I have never had a cable TV subscription, for that reason, because it's 99% garbage content.

I fear this is what would happen with games when/if the industry moves to only offering a subscription service.

Until then I will continue to buy and own the games that I want to play, and if that day comes, I guess I will no longer play new games. Chances are that they won't be worth playing anyway.

I'm glad to see pretty much everyone here feels the same way.