We got a glimpse of some new information about Nintendo's Switch Online Service yesterday during the Direct, but most of what was shown there was already known. To help shed a little more light on just what a subscription entails, Nintendo put a FAQ up on their site. The details are as follows:

• As already stated before the Direct, all Switch users (used to be only launch users) can get a 7 day free trial. This gives you access to online, voice chat, cloud saves, and the NES games.
• Those two wireless NES controllers are only purchasable if you have a current paid Nintendo Switch Online sub.
• The full list of 20 playable NES games for subscribers was revealed: Soccer, Tennis, Donkey Kong, Mario Bros., Super Mario Bros. 1 and 3, Balloon Fight, Ice Climber, Dr. Mario, The Legend of Zelda, Double Dragon, River City Ransom, Ghost's N Goblins, Tecmo Bowl, Gradius, Pro Wrestling, Excitebike, Yoshi, Ice Hockey, and Baseball.
• Each month, a new set of games will be added to the group.
• October will add NES Open Golf, Solomon's Key, and Super Dodge Ball
• November additions are Mighty Bomb Jack, Twinbee, and Metroid.
• December brings Wario's Woods, Adventures of Lolo, and Ninja Gaiden.
• Additionally, if you ever lapse in your subscription, you will lose all cloud data. "Save data stored with Save Data Cloud cannot be kept outside of the duration of your Nintendo Switch Online membership." If you cancel or let it expire, you'll lose all data saved on the cloud.
• If you play the NES games, you need to check in every 7 days by going online to verify your account.

Source: Nintendo UK
Source: Nintendo of America

 

[JanoriaCorven]

Which is also against the rules to post outside of "the edge of the forum." Besides, if you meant it as a joke, you wouldn't have continued. Stop trying to justify your childish behavior. "She" as you put it already realized her mistake and moved on. Your turn....

i truly wish you experience the day you let go of your anger and hypocrisies. its obviously not doing you any favors.

be safe and well. even though you will never interpret that as genuine.

if you want to continue being hateful. and taking things the wrong way, then i have nothing more to say.

 

[MadMageKefka]

Why? If I look out into the world and see someone offering something better for free I am going to question it when someone tries to sell the same product (or indeed an inferior one) for some money.

Finally, someone who actually wants to discuss and not argue. You have no idea how refreshing this is.... That being said, what platforms other than PC have free online?

 

[FAST6191]

Daww, you're adorable. Yes, my words are aggressive, but I'm far from "angry." I'm just very blunt with people I don't respect. See it how you will, though. You got mad at the post I made that wasn't even directed at you, and "shitposted," as you put it, in response. You literally asked for this kind of reply. Don't want people to talk to you like this? Stop being a socially defective asshole. =)


Finally, someone who actually wants to discuss and not argue. You have no idea how refreshing this is.... That being said, what platforms other than PC have free online?

Loads of historical ones, the other mobile devices (some of Nintendo's biggest competition at present) but why look further than the PC and general server costings?

 

[MadMageKefka]

Loads of historical ones, the other mobile devices (some of Nintendo's biggest competition at present) but why look further than the PC and general server costings?

Historically speaking, I don't think that should count. Technology changes fast. As for other modern mobile platforms.... what others are there? I don't even know of any worth a damn. Then the server costs. I don't know how much each game costs to run, but Nintendo hosts a lot of 3rd party games. Wouldn't they have to cover the cost of those too? Seems to me like a small service fee isn't all that unreasonable.

 

[Huntereb]

That being said, what platforms other than PC have free online?

Every other Nintendo console that's included online functionality to date.

His argument was not the cost of online multiplayer specifically, more so features included with said membership. $20 certainly isn't a lot, but for a service supplying multiplayer that has already been free for more than a decade and will continue to be peer-to-peer, purposefully discludes the ability to back up save data specifically to lock it behind a paywall, makes specific NES games (which can be played online in your browser or on your phone any time) playable for only a week offline, and brings only discounts on games rather than giving some out with the subscription like every other service available does, it just doesn't sound like a good deal.

I don't know how much each game costs to run, but Nintendo hosts a lot of 3rd party games. Wouldn't they have to cover the cost of those too? Seems to me like a small service fee isn't all that unreasonable.

They do not. Third party games service their own content, Nintendo simply requires an account to access these services.

Historically speaking, I don't think that should count. Technology changes fast.

>They've been supplying these services free for more than a decade and still made fucking boatloads of cash, but times are changing and I want to pay money for it instead!
Did you consider maybe that the purchase of a game contributes to a server backend for the multiplayer included with it? It is an advertised feature of the game, after all.

 

[DeslotlCL]

Ok, well it's still a service. Nintendo is still a company who's bottom line is making money. If you don't like the service, don't pay for it. I'm just saying in my opinion, what they are asking and doing is fair. It's not like they are scamming us.


Last I checked you can't even use homebrew on your system without flagging yourself for a ban next time you go online. This is a solution, yes (although you're being very mocking and childish about it) but not a good one if you plan to still use any of the online features.

The bottom line for anyone bitching is: the service is $20 per YEAR.... quit your bitching, leave your house for the first time ever, and get a damn job. $20 is nothing. I spend more on lunch sometimes, and you idiots are complaining about spending it once a year. As for the cloud service, its a SERVICE. It shouldn't be free. What *should* be free is the ability to dump encrypted saves like on the 3ds, but lets be honest.... everyone here knows why they didn't do that on Switch.

Honestly you all sounds like a bunch of spoiled fucking brats. "Gimmy free stuff."

When the only redeeming quality about a "service" is that it's cheaper, maybe it's time to think twice about why you are defending it.

 

[Huntereb]

1) Just because past systems were free doesn't mean they need to stay that way forever. I know you don't like that idea, but that's how the world works. You don't have to like it, but you do have to accept it. You may choose to not purchase a sub, however. Simple.

Again:

>They've been supplying these services free for more than a decade and still made fucking boatloads of cash, but times are changing and I want to pay money for it instead!
Did you consider maybe that the purchase of a game contributes to a server backend for the multiplayer included with it? It is an advertised feature of the game, after all.

3) Wow, another person who can't type without being a cunt. Your profile pic is a MS paint drawn anime girl, your self-given role is "GBAtemp psycho," and your sig is "lewd.pics".... Just go away. Your opinions are invalid by default. I never said I WANTED to pay smartass, I said I thought it was fair. Any chance you could possibly give facts and discuss this with me without getting your cotton panties in a bunch and giving me the sarcastic attitude? You did fine up until that 3rd section.

>I AM ANGERY and got my point refuted in a way I don't know how to reply to! I'll just attack your character instead!!

This isn't a paid service for "free" stuff, this is a paid service to use the console's online features.

...That, beyond mere kilobytes of bandwidth for matchmaking, are hosted by yours and other people's consoles, not by the company you're paying the money to. This gripe applies to the majority of games with multiplayer capabilities on other consoles as well.

 

[FAST6191]

1) Just because past systems were free doesn't mean they need to stay that way forever. I know you don't like that idea, but that's how the world works. You don't have to like it, but you do have to accept it. You may choose to not purchase a sub, however. Simple.

If it was some rare and diminishing resource, or one which suddenly becomes harder to produce then sure. You know what is not that though? Bandwidth, server computing power, server storage and any other metric you care to list that you measure servers by. At the same time Nintendo is doing the same sorts of games sending the same sorts of data we have done since dial up (it is not like they suddenly shifted to 4k video from 360p -- it is still 8 players positional data, weapon info, weapon firing info, possibly pickup info and general score counts). If they were running some crazy mmo which needed loads of servers, stored terabytes of data, calculates loads of data, handles massive databases and generally does all that then we can talk further (though I figure there is a reason they have subscriptions or are pay to do much more than demo).
I ran the numbers earlier for monthly rental of an enterprise server setup for every region of some potency that would probably handle it (never mind that things are still doing p2p and thus they don't even need that swish a setup) would be 40 to 50K GBP for the full 5 years which is a rounding error in game budgets, if they wanted to rent a year upfront that drops to 10K which if it is a good game will be made back in no time and fund the rest of the time. Furthermore end users have wanted to run their own servers for years now, and demonstrably do for many things (EA, activision, Microsoft and all those which run any popular FPS probably make a small chunk of change from those that want to "rent servers" rather than play on public ones).
If you are EA or ubisoft then you can probably rent some time on EA's/Ubisoft's server farms they likely have or pay for as part of being them (if they don't they are bigger fools than I thought) which is all nicely load balanced, scaleable, has someone to keep it running (probably for all the games as well which means you are not paying a team for one game as much as a bunch of them) for far less than that.

To that end they are gating off online to make people pay for something that confers them no real benefit for it. if they are thinking about charging it is because they are greedy bastards offering a poor deal and I will call that out when I see it.

 

[Xzi]

So much drama over $20/year. Won't take long for all the faux outrage to die down just like it did after PSN switched to paid. If you were already pirating Switch games then don't pretend that paid online was some sort of "breaking point."

 

[Huntereb]

It's crazy just how many people are so inept that they can't think for a second that, perhaps, they don't have to be loyal to a company for everything they produce, and that not buying a product or service and giving criticism for it may potentially benefit them in the outcome.

 

[the_randomizer]

Ok, well it's still a service. Nintendo is still a company who's bottom line is making money. If you don't like the service, don't pay for it. I'm just saying in my opinion, what they are asking and doing is fair. It's not like they are scamming us.


Last I checked you can't even use homebrew on your system without flagging yourself for a ban next time you go online. This is a solution, yes (although you're being very mocking and childish about it) but not a good one if you plan to still use any of the online features.

The bottom line for anyone bitching is: the service is $20 per YEAR.... quit your bitching, leave your house for the first time ever, and get a damn job. $20 is nothing. I spend more on lunch sometimes, and you idiots are complaining about spending it once a year. As for the cloud service, its a SERVICE. It shouldn't be free. What *should* be free is the ability to dump encrypted saves like on the 3ds, but lets be honest.... everyone here knows why they didn't do that on Switch.

Honestly you all sounds like a bunch of spoiled fucking brats. "Gimmy free stuff."

There's no denying on how barebones it feels compared to the Wii U Online.

 

[DeslotlCL]

So much drama over $20/year. Won't take long for all the faux outrage to die down just like it did after PSN switched to paid. If you were already pirating Switch games then don't pretend that paid online was some sort of "breaking point."

Once again:

When the only redeeming quality about a "service" is that it's cheaper, maybe it's time to think twice about why you are defending it.

 

[Xzi]

When the only redeeming quality about a "service" is that it's cheaper, maybe it's time to think twice about why you are defending it.

Nintendo competes with Sony and Microsoft, not some other imaginary console. Being considerably cheaper (1/3rd) than the competition is a big plus no matter how you slice it. Having exclusives that I actually want to play online is another big plus (Smash, Pokemon).

The "extras" for all three services (PSN/XBL/NXO) I could take or leave, so price really is the biggest determining factor for me and a lot of other people.

 

[the_randomizer]

Nintendo competes with Sony and Microsoft, not some other imaginary console. Being considerably cheaper (1/3rd) than the competition is a big plus no matter how you slice it. Having exclusives that I actually want to play online is another big plus (Smash, Pokemon).

The "extras" for all three services (PSN/XBL/NXO) I could take or leave, so price really is the biggest determining factor for me and a lot of other people.

Well, you get what you pay for. Low price, low content. There's no defending that it has a lot less content and is not very appealing compared to the competition, so...

 

[Xzi]

Well, you get what you pay for. Low price, low content. There's no defending that it has a lot less content and is not very appealing compared to the competition, so...

PSN would give me a bunch of indies I bought super cheap for PC a long time ago. I might not play them a ton, but online-enabled NES games are still more of an appealing novelty than that.

 

[kuwanger]

You forgot Android, which is clearly a pretty large competitor to Nintendo in the handheld/mobile space. Not enough to displace Nintendo because of the inconsistent/shitty controls and latency issues, so it's mostly an easy win on Nintendo's end. Yet those are things Google could fix and bury Nintendo. :/

Edit: To put it in perspective, Google Play store market for 2017 was $38.5 billion vs total Nintendo profits in 2017 of $1.6 billion. Google obvious only takes [a substantial] cut of that and that doesn't include operating costs, but I imagine if they were to push for better controls, better latency on input/displays, and changed the ratio of developer:google revenue sharing to lure the likes of Fortnite back... Honestly, given how Sony and MS have basically abandoned the handheld space it'd seem they too would like to get in on the Google Play store action (with better pay ratios).

 

[DeslotlCL]

Nintendo competes with Sony and Microsoft, not some other imaginary console. Being considerably cheaper (1/3rd) than the competition is a big plus no matter how you slice it. Having exclusives that I actually want to play online is another big plus (Smash, Pokemon).

The "extras" for all three services (PSN/XBL/NXO) I could take or leave, so price really is the biggest determining factor for me and a lot of other people.

It'a pretty sad when people are comformists with a terrible and mediocre service. I agree that nintendo games are fun and all, but paying for the same laggy p2p online experience? Lack of features that even a dreamcast had back then in 1999? For nes games with online? Sheesh, it isnt like there are free alternatives on pc with kaillera or even on androids.

It is nice to be loyal to a company, but there are limits.

 

[RattletraPM]

It's crazy just how many people are so inept that they can't think for a second that, perhaps, they don't have to be loyal to a company for everything they produce, and that not buying a product or service and giving criticism for it may potentially benefit them in the outcome.

Corporate loyalty is cancer. Not just in gaming but in general. All it does is help already big companies grow even bigger and gain monopolies, then bite you in the ass by putting anti-consumer restrictions in place because they want to spill every single cent they can from your wallet.

You aren't supporting a small indie dev, charitable organization, local mom 'n pop shop or friend, you're giving money to a multimillion dollar corporation whose only objective is make more money. If you think they've made a great product and they deserve it, go on and buy it, otherwise jump ship. It's that simple.

 

[the_randomizer]

PSN would give me a bunch of indies I bought super cheap for PC a long time ago. I might not play them a ton, but online-enabled NES games are still more of an appealing novelty than that.

I mean, sure, I'm glad that contrary to what I heard, they can actually be kept on your person (on the Switch), I just, well, wish there were more consoles, at least, Snes games, you know?

 

[Xzi]

It is nice to be loyal to a company, but there are limits.

There are limits, but $20/year isn't even remotely pushing those limits. I make about six times that every week in tips alone.

I mean, sure, I'm glad that contrary to what I heard, they can actually be kept on your person (on the Switch), I just, well, wish there were more consoles, at least, Snes games, you know?

Can't disagree there, certain SNES games I'd love to play online. We can't rule it out as a possibility in the future either, though. It's not like the hardware is a limiter.