@MasterGraveheart YES. I am very much a champion for porting 3DS games to Switch... quite frankly, I'm a champion for porting just about ANYTHING to Switch, especially the classic games Nintendo refuses to let me buy on Virtual Console...
"Nintendo of America President Reggie Fils-Aimé said they hadn't even made the full library of NES games available yet"
LOL are you kidding me? I'm sorry but the way this reads is really terrible. It's one thing for Reggie to make the statement, it's another entirely for someone to buy into it like it's a legitimate point of anything.
"Um, yeah, until we get all 714 NES games out for NSO, don't expect anything SNES. I mean, there's so much NES goodness still out there; why would anyone want to play SNES games?"
Like everyone else said, I wouldn't buy these without a significant price cut. And the ability to purchase them without NSO. I'm not paying for NSO just to have "the right" to pay Nintendo more money for something which doesn't seem worth that cost to begin with.
At this point, I think Nintendo refusing to release a proper virtual console successor (or, gasp, THE ACTUAL VIRTUAL CONSOLE) for Switch is purely a point of pride. They just don't want to admit that it didn't work, that is wasn't executed well, or that they missed the mark on what customers wanted. Heck, it's not even all bad: the idea of a subscription service for old games is great, even if it's not for me. They just haven't done it well at all.
I imagine that it is possible for them to have realized their errors, and be in the "design" phase of trying to make changes. Unfortunately for a company as large and as set in its ways as Nintendo, a two week fix can take months. However, if we don't hear anything different by April, and certainly by E3, then I think it will be a long and bumpy ride for NSO.
I didn't subscribe to NSO as a means of "voting with my wallet" because I just want to play virtual console on the go OR TV on what I consider the best console of all time, no restrictions. Saw a lot of hate from lots of people back in September for that. However, I see the opinions are changing a lot now. I have consistently seen people say "I'm definitely not subscribing again next year." If Furukawa believes the current numbers aren't good enough to report to investors, I wonder what they'll look like next year? Can you imagine if the attach rate for NSO went from, say, 50% down to 20%, even with increased Switch sales? If this weren't Nintendo we were dealing with, I'd say they'd have to turn around at that point... but unfortunately this is Nintendo after all. You never can know what they're going to do, and too often I have found that is more bad than it is good.
@nado_san I'm on board with you. This game was going to be a day-one purchase for me - money forced me to wait a week - and then I found out about the lack of actual Tennis options. I'm actually grateful you've been so persistent in asking these questions, as I'm not buying the game until I have the ability to customize sets and games, and the court selection is a simple and straightforward process like in Power Tennis. I have no real interest in online play.
Remember when people said this game was going to fail hard? LOL. Very rarely do I see a fandom scream so much hatred at a product which manages to please so many people. It certainly has its flaws (the forced motion controls are literally the worst I've ever played on a Nintendo console) and I'm worried about the pricing and the future of this "series" (I would much rather Gold/Silver DLC than a new $60 game...) but regardless, this game is a success. I don't know any other way to put it besides "It's a success."
@Bobb The Lampshade of No Real Significance! LOL. When I first heard they were the guys behind Snipperclips, I was utterly baffled, but also very happy for them. Is the Tom mentioned in the article the same way who always ended up on fire? "OHMYGOSHIMONFIRE"
I have played just over 50 hours of this game. Used Pikachu very sparingly, and was constantly shifting my team out in order to complete the dex along with the game. I have to say, as a pokemon player for 20 years, I VERY much enjoyed this game. But...
Those motion controls. Oh holy crap those motion controls suck. I've been leveling up on Chanseys using the two-player stuff, and I have gotten tons of experience with the motion. While I'm slowly getting over my hatred of it, I have to say it was terrible of Gamefreak to leave out the option to just play normally while docked. It's one thing to force a gimmick onto people; it is another thing to do it with a broken gimmick. Unfortunately, it seems any hope of that being fixed is gone: the only negativity I see are the trolls, and the sales are strong. That combined with Gamefreak's, how shall I say, not-too-great track record of listening, and I just have to accept it will never go away. Sigh...
BTW I'm one of the few people (apparently...) who enjoyed motion controls in Skyward Sword, and even those had problems. This game though...
@Bolt_Strike In a lot of ways you're not WRONG, given that the mainstream games are $40, and this has significantly less content. But I am a sucker for the Kanto nostalgia: I've been wanting a 3D remake of Kanto since X and Y, so this game definitely has that going for me. I've had a strong pokemon itch lately, and I can't even begin to tell you how many times I've replayed Sun and Moon (and those games with their ridiculously long cutscenes and story beats take FOREVER to replay, ugh...).
My 20-month old son also just got into pokemon! He and I have just started watching the original pokemon anime together, and he loves it. I know getting to watch me play pokemon on the console is going to be a fun thing for him, especially if I can teach him how to do the throw mechanic!
@Bolt_Strike I've been racking up some gold points lately, and decided to use them here. Brought the game down to $40, which I think is a much more fair price. $60 for a very much watered down pokemon game seems... silly.
I must second the opinion that it is ridiculous you can't use a normal controller set up in docked mode. Unfortunately, as this is GameFreak we are dealing with, I highly doubt we will see ANY changes to this in the future. If all of the complaints until now didn't work, no amount of complaining afterwards can work... at least I imagine. This is why I'm not a fan of a former GameFreak employee being the new president of Nintendo...
For the argument of how "$20 a year is better than $5 NES games." How many NES games do you want? No, seriously: I grew up with NES, and I can't fathom wanting more than 20 of them at the very most. $5 x 20 NES games = $100 total. That is the equivalent to 5 years of the Switch Online service, after which you will not be able to play those NES game on your Switch again without ponying up more cash. And when the service ends? Well, we have no reason to believe the games don't go with it. If you don't care about those other NES games - like me - how is this possibly a better service?
Look, I'm not against the service. I just want virtual console WITH Nintendo Switch Online. The two, hand-in-hand. They could even benefit one another! Say someone gets NSO, and tries a freebie game they never heard of. "WOW," they say, "I love this game!" They then decide to spend the $5 (though I still think it should be cheaper) to permanently own that NES game on their Switch without the online subscription. Nintendo just made more money for doing nothing but offering both options together. Not to mention that Nintendo WILL make money off of people like me who just want to own the games. So why not both? I can't believe it's because of the costs, nor can I believe it's not "technologically feasible."
I want my games collections as consolidated as possible by this point because of how many blasted machines there are now a days: the Switch is a perfect chance to do it, but I get the sense more and more that Nintendo would rather me stick to my Wii U or even do the unthinkable - emulating games on the PC!
I've completed over 90% of all the content I believe... And it is fun... for the most part. But like others say, it was too easy, and there simply wasn't enough content. I think this game was really meant to be a 4-player co-op experience to the point where playing through it as a single player was almost akin to "playing it wrong." Oh well. The only main Kirby game I ever played was 64, which I still love to this day, although I think a lot of people hate that game? So maybe I'm just not an actual Kirby fan? I don't know.
This game is very repetitive, but I've greatly enjoyed it. I've already put hours into it. Of course I don't want all of my games to be a long, grindy experience, but I can say this one satisfied that itch I sometimes get to just have a big, open experience where I can slowly but surely reach my goal. Could it have been better? Yes, in a couple of ways. I am also not particularly pleased by how they went with their pricing plans. But overall I'm a very happy customer, and am quite glad I bought the game.
While my first game was a bit of a disappointment, playing more and more quickly showed me that I was simply dealt a poor hand initially. While I do agree that the game needs more content for each of its modes (or just more boards/mini-games for the main mode), I have to say that this game really takes me back to what I have always loved about Mario Party. The majority of the games are great, two of the four boards I find to be incredibly well designed (with one board still feeling standard, and another quite "meh") and the sheer amount of variety in terms of how to play is great. Definitely shows off how the single joy-con can be used to great effect. I finished off all of the main content on my own and still had quite a fun (if not sometimes repetitive) time. Looking forward to having a party with friends!
@Spudworthy Well, if the other services don't offer dedicated serves, then that does indeed suck. That's less my issue, and more of many other peoples that I constantly see ignored. So thank you for actually addressing it!
I don't think $20 a year is bad. I just want Nintendo to know that I'm not okay with virtual console being gone. I don't like a subscription based game service for their classics, simply because I love some of those games so much. I have said it before, and I'll say it again: bring virtual console back, and I will probably buy the online subscription service for the chance to try out new games I've never played. But I don't want them to think that I'm completely fine with only a subscription service. That's why I'm holding off. I just don't see why they can't do both... that's what I really want.
@8-Bit_Superman Oh, and I totally get you. There are plenty of people sick of buying the same games. I really LIKE that Nintendo is giving you another option, especially one you seem to like. I don't HATE the idea of a rental service, and would probably subscribe if I also had the option to buy virtual console. That's my problem: why can't they do both? Why can't they give us a virtual console, where we can permanently buy, and the rental service where we can try for the yearly fee?
I really do appreciate people who don't want to buy again: I get it. But I do want to buy again, because the Switch, to me, is the ultimate gaming device. I LOVE the idea of owning my favorite classics on it. So why can't Nintendo do both? I highly doubt it would be much trouble, and much money. I imagine they would actually still make money off of it. The system could be set up like "Hey, you can join Online for $20 a year and try lots of our classic games. And if you really like a game, go ahead and purchase it to play completely unrestricted, anytime, anywhere!"
For everyone saying it's a good service - are you even reading the posts that disagree? I mean, sure, some of them will just be angry trolls or something, cause it's the internet. But people keep pointing out that THERE ARE NO SERVERS YOU'RE PAYING FOR. You're literally paying Nintendo for nothing!
And look, it's cool if you don't mind. Really, that's great for you. But that doesn't take away from the people who do have serious issues. Just read the comments, for crying out loud! Again, it's totally cool if you like the service. But please stop telling us we have to like it too. We have made very clear why we don't, if you would just read what we say...
And I'll say it one more time... I just want the ability to own my favorite virtual console classics. I will probably even buy the service just for the ability to try out the other games I've never played, because that isn't a bad idea. But it will never make me not want to own my favorite games on my favorite home-portable hybrid device. I simply won't buy until Nintendo announces real virtual console. Surely you can understand that?
@8-Bit_Superman Ya know, I thought that for a long while too. But in the last week, I've really been looking at the writing on the wall... and it's not good. Nintendo have been very explicit in saying that this is JUST NES games. They keep saying "We have nothing to announce at this time." Of course, they would have to be daft to not give us access to such games on the Switch in some way, at some point, but... I honestly don't know if it will be in this service. The only evidence I have to back up that it might come to this service is when Reggie said a few months ago that NSO was the replacement to virtual console, and yet Nintendo has refused to repeat that sentiment since, suggesting to me that Reggie misspoke. Regardless, I just want a virtual console where I can permanently own my favorite games on my favorite device.
I'm not going to say that $20 a year is not cheap. That amounts, at most, to me working an extra 10 minutes a month. What I'm against is the service itself.
1. Nintendo is not giving dedicated servers. So, ultimately, why the price tag? Literally, what is online costing them if they don't even have the servers?
2. I don't want to rent games on my Switch. I want to buy them, because rental conflicts with the fantasy of the Switch. I'm not OPPOSED to a rental service if I also have the ability to buy the games that mean the most to me. It would be a great way to expose me to more games. But until Nintendo gives us a proper virtual console on Switch, I don't want to support the online. I simply don't want them to think that I'm content with ONLY a rental service.
3. Cloud saves aren't a huge thing to me, but I hear other consoles allow it for free, so the $20 just seems like a cash grab. Especially when the BIG game that is causing people to purchase online, Splatoon 2, is not supported.
Is it cheap? Yes. But in my opinion, it is the equivalent to saying "Well, you can buy a cake from Microsoft for $60, which is expensive, or you can buy permission to eat a cake from us for $20, which is so much cheaper. BTW, you need to supply your own cake. But we'll also give you some neat 50 cent decorations with it!"
@Knuckles-Fajita First and foremost, many of us never wanted Netflix style services, but we weren't sure exactly what Nintendo was going to do. Now we are: we don't like it. As for the people who kept asking for it, they now have what they want. Why would they come on the internet to complain about it. They wouldn't.
I never wanted to "rent" games on the Switch, it just spits in the face of what the Switch is to me. Furthermore, the whole money argument is ridiculous. I have only a handful of NES games I'd ever want to purchase, mostly because they are beloved classics. They are no more than 10 games in that category. That's a theoretical $50 I'm out. In only three years, Nintendo Switch Online will come out to more than that cost, and I'm not even guaranteed to get all 10 games I want. Then, what happens when the service ends? Oh, you just invested tons of money into these rental games that you no longer have any access to. But me, I still have my 10 beloved games on my Switch. I always will.
*I also understand that with the family plan, you can get the service for just $5 a year. Great! Still doesn't change the perpetual, yearly price tag for games that won't last past the service, and may not even included the games you want.
Comments 19
Re: Soapbox: 8 Nintendo 3DS Games We'd Love To See On Switch
@MasterGraveheart YES. I am very much a champion for porting 3DS games to Switch... quite frankly, I'm a champion for porting just about ANYTHING to Switch, especially the classic games Nintendo refuses to let me buy on Virtual Console...
Re: Video: Nintendo Really Wants You To Buy The Wireless NES Controllers For Switch
"Nintendo of America President Reggie Fils-Aimé said they hadn't even made the full library of NES games available yet"
LOL are you kidding me? I'm sorry but the way this reads is really terrible. It's one thing for Reggie to make the statement, it's another entirely for someone to buy into it like it's a legitimate point of anything.
"Um, yeah, until we get all 714 NES games out for NSO, don't expect anything SNES. I mean, there's so much NES goodness still out there; why would anyone want to play SNES games?"
Like everyone else said, I wouldn't buy these without a significant price cut. And the ability to purchase them without NSO. I'm not paying for NSO just to have "the right" to pay Nintendo more money for something which doesn't seem worth that cost to begin with.
Re: Reggie: Don't Expect Nintendo Switch Online To "Mirror" The Competition
At this point, I think Nintendo refusing to release a proper virtual console successor (or, gasp, THE ACTUAL VIRTUAL CONSOLE) for Switch is purely a point of pride. They just don't want to admit that it didn't work, that is wasn't executed well, or that they missed the mark on what customers wanted. Heck, it's not even all bad: the idea of a subscription service for old games is great, even if it's not for me. They just haven't done it well at all.
I imagine that it is possible for them to have realized their errors, and be in the "design" phase of trying to make changes. Unfortunately for a company as large and as set in its ways as Nintendo, a two week fix can take months. However, if we don't hear anything different by April, and certainly by E3, then I think it will be a long and bumpy ride for NSO.
I didn't subscribe to NSO as a means of "voting with my wallet" because I just want to play virtual console on the go OR TV on what I consider the best console of all time, no restrictions. Saw a lot of hate from lots of people back in September for that. However, I see the opinions are changing a lot now. I have consistently seen people say "I'm definitely not subscribing again next year." If Furukawa believes the current numbers aren't good enough to report to investors, I wonder what they'll look like next year? Can you imagine if the attach rate for NSO went from, say, 50% down to 20%, even with increased Switch sales? If this weren't Nintendo we were dealing with, I'd say they'd have to turn around at that point... but unfortunately this is Nintendo after all. You never can know what they're going to do, and too often I have found that is more bad than it is good.
Re: Mario Tennis Aces Version 2.1.0 Update Brings New Games And Tournament Changes This Week
@nado_san I'm on board with you. This game was going to be a day-one purchase for me - money forced me to wait a week - and then I found out about the lack of actual Tennis options. I'm actually grateful you've been so persistent in asking these questions, as I'm not buying the game until I have the ability to customize sets and games, and the court selection is a simple and straightforward process like in Power Tennis. I have no real interest in online play.
Re: Pokémon Let's Go Was The Fourth Best-Selling Product This Black Friday According To US Report
Remember when people said this game was going to fail hard? LOL. Very rarely do I see a fandom scream so much hatred at a product which manages to please so many people. It certainly has its flaws (the forced motion controls are literally the worst I've ever played on a Nintendo console) and I'm worried about the pricing and the future of this "series" (I would much rather Gold/Silver DLC than a new $60 game...) but regardless, this game is a success. I don't know any other way to put it besides "It's a success."
Re: Video: A History Lesson On Switch Launch Title Snipperclips And Its Developer SFB Games
@Bobb The Lampshade of No Real Significance! LOL. When I first heard they were the guys behind Snipperclips, I was utterly baffled, but also very happy for them. Is the Tom mentioned in the article the same way who always ended up on fire? "OHMYGOSHIMONFIRE"
Re: Soapbox: Don't Listen To The Pokémon: Let’s Go Haters - The Game Has Definitely Found Its Audience
I have played just over 50 hours of this game. Used Pikachu very sparingly, and was constantly shifting my team out in order to complete the dex along with the game. I have to say, as a pokemon player for 20 years, I VERY much enjoyed this game. But...
Those motion controls. Oh holy crap those motion controls suck. I've been leveling up on Chanseys using the two-player stuff, and I have gotten tons of experience with the motion. While I'm slowly getting over my hatred of it, I have to say it was terrible of Gamefreak to leave out the option to just play normally while docked. It's one thing to force a gimmick onto people; it is another thing to do it with a broken gimmick. Unfortunately, it seems any hope of that being fixed is gone: the only negativity I see are the trolls, and the sales are strong. That combined with Gamefreak's, how shall I say, not-too-great track record of listening, and I just have to accept it will never go away. Sigh...
BTW I'm one of the few people (apparently...) who enjoyed motion controls in Skyward Sword, and even those had problems. This game though...
Re: Review: Pokémon: Let's Go, Pikachu! and Let's Go, Eevee! - The Perfect Entry Point For Newcomers, A Nostalgia Trip For Veterans
@Bolt_Strike In a lot of ways you're not WRONG, given that the mainstream games are $40, and this has significantly less content. But I am a sucker for the Kanto nostalgia: I've been wanting a 3D remake of Kanto since X and Y, so this game definitely has that going for me. I've had a strong pokemon itch lately, and I can't even begin to tell you how many times I've replayed Sun and Moon (and those games with their ridiculously long cutscenes and story beats take FOREVER to replay, ugh...).
My 20-month old son also just got into pokemon! He and I have just started watching the original pokemon anime together, and he loves it. I know getting to watch me play pokemon on the console is going to be a fun thing for him, especially if I can teach him how to do the throw mechanic!
Re: Review: Pokémon: Let's Go, Pikachu! and Let's Go, Eevee! - The Perfect Entry Point For Newcomers, A Nostalgia Trip For Veterans
@Bolt_Strike I've been racking up some gold points lately, and decided to use them here. Brought the game down to $40, which I think is a much more fair price. $60 for a very much watered down pokemon game seems... silly.
I must second the opinion that it is ridiculous you can't use a normal controller set up in docked mode. Unfortunately, as this is GameFreak we are dealing with, I highly doubt we will see ANY changes to this in the future. If all of the complaints until now didn't work, no amount of complaining afterwards can work... at least I imagine. This is why I'm not a fan of a former GameFreak employee being the new president of Nintendo...
Re: Nintendo Switch Online Service Had A "Good" Launch, Focus Will Now Shift To Boosting Its Appeal
For the argument of how "$20 a year is better than $5 NES games." How many NES games do you want? No, seriously: I grew up with NES, and I can't fathom wanting more than 20 of them at the very most. $5 x 20 NES games = $100 total. That is the equivalent to 5 years of the Switch Online service, after which you will not be able to play those NES game on your Switch again without ponying up more cash. And when the service ends? Well, we have no reason to believe the games don't go with it. If you don't care about those other NES games - like me - how is this possibly a better service?
Look, I'm not against the service. I just want virtual console WITH Nintendo Switch Online. The two, hand-in-hand. They could even benefit one another! Say someone gets NSO, and tries a freebie game they never heard of. "WOW," they say, "I love this game!" They then decide to spend the $5 (though I still think it should be cheaper) to permanently own that NES game on their Switch without the online subscription. Nintendo just made more money for doing nothing but offering both options together. Not to mention that Nintendo WILL make money off of people like me who just want to own the games. So why not both? I can't believe it's because of the costs, nor can I believe it's not "technologically feasible."
I want my games collections as consolidated as possible by this point because of how many blasted machines there are now a days: the Switch is a perfect chance to do it, but I get the sense more and more that Nintendo would rather me stick to my Wii U or even do the unthinkable - emulating games on the PC!
Re: Nintendo Shares Gorgeous Concept Art For Kirby Star Allies On Switch
I've completed over 90% of all the content I believe... And it is fun... for the most part. But like others say, it was too easy, and there simply wasn't enough content. I think this game was really meant to be a 4-player co-op experience to the point where playing through it as a single player was almost akin to "playing it wrong." Oh well. The only main Kirby game I ever played was 64, which I still love to this day, although I think a lot of people hate that game? So maybe I'm just not an actual Kirby fan? I don't know.
Re: Starlink Producer Reveals How Ubisoft Started Work On Star Fox Concepts Before Meeting With Nintendo
This game is very repetitive, but I've greatly enjoyed it. I've already put hours into it. Of course I don't want all of my games to be a long, grindy experience, but I can say this one satisfied that itch I sometimes get to just have a big, open experience where I can slowly but surely reach my goal. Could it have been better? Yes, in a couple of ways. I am also not particularly pleased by how they went with their pricing plans. But overall I'm a very happy customer, and am quite glad I bought the game.
Re: Feature: What's New In Super Mario Party?
While my first game was a bit of a disappointment, playing more and more quickly showed me that I was simply dealt a poor hand initially. While I do agree that the game needs more content for each of its modes (or just more boards/mini-games for the main mode), I have to say that this game really takes me back to what I have always loved about Mario Party. The majority of the games are great, two of the four boards I find to be incredibly well designed (with one board still feeling standard, and another quite "meh") and the sheer amount of variety in terms of how to play is great. Definitely shows off how the single joy-con can be used to great effect. I finished off all of the main content on my own and still had quite a fun (if not sometimes repetitive) time. Looking forward to having a party with friends!
Re: Soapbox: We Like To Grumble, But Nintendo Switch Online Is Actually A Very Generous Offer
@Spudworthy Well, if the other services don't offer dedicated serves, then that does indeed suck. That's less my issue, and more of many other peoples that I constantly see ignored. So thank you for actually addressing it!
I don't think $20 a year is bad. I just want Nintendo to know that I'm not okay with virtual console being gone. I don't like a subscription based game service for their classics, simply because I love some of those games so much. I have said it before, and I'll say it again: bring virtual console back, and I will probably buy the online subscription service for the chance to try out new games I've never played. But I don't want them to think that I'm completely fine with only a subscription service. That's why I'm holding off. I just don't see why they can't do both... that's what I really want.
Re: Soapbox: We Like To Grumble, But Nintendo Switch Online Is Actually A Very Generous Offer
@8-Bit_Superman Oh, and I totally get you. There are plenty of people sick of buying the same games. I really LIKE that Nintendo is giving you another option, especially one you seem to like. I don't HATE the idea of a rental service, and would probably subscribe if I also had the option to buy virtual console. That's my problem: why can't they do both? Why can't they give us a virtual console, where we can permanently buy, and the rental service where we can try for the yearly fee?
I really do appreciate people who don't want to buy again: I get it. But I do want to buy again, because the Switch, to me, is the ultimate gaming device. I LOVE the idea of owning my favorite classics on it. So why can't Nintendo do both? I highly doubt it would be much trouble, and much money. I imagine they would actually still make money off of it. The system could be set up like "Hey, you can join Online for $20 a year and try lots of our classic games. And if you really like a game, go ahead and purchase it to play completely unrestricted, anytime, anywhere!"
Re: Soapbox: We Like To Grumble, But Nintendo Switch Online Is Actually A Very Generous Offer
For everyone saying it's a good service - are you even reading the posts that disagree? I mean, sure, some of them will just be angry trolls or something, cause it's the internet. But people keep pointing out that THERE ARE NO SERVERS YOU'RE PAYING FOR. You're literally paying Nintendo for nothing!
And look, it's cool if you don't mind. Really, that's great for you. But that doesn't take away from the people who do have serious issues. Just read the comments, for crying out loud! Again, it's totally cool if you like the service. But please stop telling us we have to like it too. We have made very clear why we don't, if you would just read what we say...
And I'll say it one more time... I just want the ability to own my favorite virtual console classics. I will probably even buy the service just for the ability to try out the other games I've never played, because that isn't a bad idea. But it will never make me not want to own my favorite games on my favorite home-portable hybrid device. I simply won't buy until Nintendo announces real virtual console. Surely you can understand that?
Re: Soapbox: We Like To Grumble, But Nintendo Switch Online Is Actually A Very Generous Offer
@8-Bit_Superman Ya know, I thought that for a long while too. But in the last week, I've really been looking at the writing on the wall... and it's not good. Nintendo have been very explicit in saying that this is JUST NES games. They keep saying "We have nothing to announce at this time." Of course, they would have to be daft to not give us access to such games on the Switch in some way, at some point, but... I honestly don't know if it will be in this service. The only evidence I have to back up that it might come to this service is when Reggie said a few months ago that NSO was the replacement to virtual console, and yet Nintendo has refused to repeat that sentiment since, suggesting to me that Reggie misspoke. Regardless, I just want a virtual console where I can permanently own my favorite games on my favorite device.
Re: Soapbox: We Like To Grumble, But Nintendo Switch Online Is Actually A Very Generous Offer
I'm not going to say that $20 a year is not cheap. That amounts, at most, to me working an extra 10 minutes a month. What I'm against is the service itself.
1. Nintendo is not giving dedicated servers. So, ultimately, why the price tag? Literally, what is online costing them if they don't even have the servers?
2. I don't want to rent games on my Switch. I want to buy them, because rental conflicts with the fantasy of the Switch. I'm not OPPOSED to a rental service if I also have the ability to buy the games that mean the most to me. It would be a great way to expose me to more games. But until Nintendo gives us a proper virtual console on Switch, I don't want to support the online. I simply don't want them to think that I'm content with ONLY a rental service.
3. Cloud saves aren't a huge thing to me, but I hear other consoles allow it for free, so the $20 just seems like a cash grab. Especially when the BIG game that is causing people to purchase online, Splatoon 2, is not supported.
Is it cheap? Yes. But in my opinion, it is the equivalent to saying "Well, you can buy a cake from Microsoft for $60, which is expensive, or you can buy permission to eat a cake from us for $20, which is so much cheaper. BTW, you need to supply your own cake. But we'll also give you some neat 50 cent decorations with it!"
Re: Soapbox: We Like To Grumble, But Nintendo Switch Online Is Actually A Very Generous Offer
@Knuckles-Fajita First and foremost, many of us never wanted Netflix style services, but we weren't sure exactly what Nintendo was going to do. Now we are: we don't like it. As for the people who kept asking for it, they now have what they want. Why would they come on the internet to complain about it. They wouldn't.
I never wanted to "rent" games on the Switch, it just spits in the face of what the Switch is to me. Furthermore, the whole money argument is ridiculous. I have only a handful of NES games I'd ever want to purchase, mostly because they are beloved classics. They are no more than 10 games in that category. That's a theoretical $50 I'm out. In only three years, Nintendo Switch Online will come out to more than that cost, and I'm not even guaranteed to get all 10 games I want. Then, what happens when the service ends? Oh, you just invested tons of money into these rental games that you no longer have any access to. But me, I still have my 10 beloved games on my Switch. I always will.
*I also understand that with the family plan, you can get the service for just $5 a year. Great! Still doesn't change the perpetual, yearly price tag for games that won't last past the service, and may not even included the games you want.