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

 

[Huntereb]

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 don't know why you keep bringing this "Muh money!! It don't cost noffin!!" point up. No one is disputing that it is cheaper than alternatives. Anyone can afford $20 a year, this is not the problem being presented.

 

[DeslotlCL]

I don't know why you keep bringing this "Muh money!! It don't cost noffin!!" point up. No one is disputing that it is cheaper than alternatives. Anyone can afford $20 a year, this is not the problem being presented.

The worst part is that they keep using the price point as an argument

 

[CaptainSodaPop]

Now they are trolling at this point.

 

[Xzi]

I don't know why you keep bringing this "Muh money!! It don't cost noffin!!" point up. No one is disputing that it is cheaper than alternatives. Anyone can afford $20 a year, this is not the problem being presented.

Please clarify the problem being presented, then. It's a bit late to complain about being charged for online console play. If people had been more vocal about it with XBL and PSN then perhaps we wouldn't be in this position with Nintendo. There's not much point in reflecting on what might've been, though.

 

[Huntereb]

Please clarify the problem being presented, then. It's a bit late to complain about being charged for online console play.

The problem(s) have been stated and reiterated multiple times, feel free to look at one of the other 20+ pages of this thread.

If people had been more vocal about it with XBL and PSN then perhaps we wouldn't be in this position with Nintendo.

Points have been made previously in this thread relating to these services as well. I personally have not contributed to the use of services such as XBL and PSN, and I will continue not to do so.

 

[Xzi]

The problem(s) have been stated and reiterated multiple times, feel free to look at one of the other 20+ pages of this thread.

No thank you, I was more interested in what you and DeslotICL were presenting as "problems." So far all I've got is that paying for an online service I intend to use makes me a "conformist." I'm sure the high school me would be absolutely devastated to hear that.

Points have been made previously in this thread relating to these services as well. I personally have not contributed to the use of services such as XBL and PSN, and I will continue not to do so.

That's perfectly fine with me. It's not like I wouldn't have preferred PSN and Switch online staying free too. Again, the only reason I'm willing to pony up for Switch online is the price. $40 or $60 a year would 100% be a deal-breaker without a lot more features, and probably then even still. OTOH, if paid PSN had launched at $20/year, I probably would've subscribed even despite having interest in approximately zero online Playstation games. 1/3rd the price of the competition is always tempting no matter what product we're discussing.

 

[DeslotlCL]

No thank you, I was more interested in what you and DeslotICL were presenting as "problems." So far all I've got is that paying for an online service I intend to use makes me a "conformist." I'm sure the high school me would be absolutely devastated to hear that.


That's perfectly fine with me. It's not like I wouldn't have preferred PSN and Switch online staying free too. Again, the only reason I'm willing to pony up for Switch online is the price. $40 or $60 a year would 100% be a deal-breaker without a lot more features, and probably then even still.

Forgive me for my not so good english, but i already presented some of the problems. The main issue is regarding the online infrastructure being exactly the same before being a paid service. The point isnt that it is still cheaper than the competition, but the fact that they are charing you for the SAME experience. The same, laggy, p2p experience. It doesnt justifies the price point.

Next we have the lack of features that have been available back then in 1999. Where is the ability to chat with the console? To create groups? To call them? To invite them? To add friends the normal way searching for a tag and not for friend codes...

Then we gave the nes titles... Well, really? Are nes games really justificable for a service like this?

They have presented to you mediocre features that doesnt even deserve the 20 usd price tag. This thing ahould be 10 bucks a year at best.

 

[godreborn]

the Switch Online jokes never get old.

 

[Huntereb]

No thank you, I was more interested in what you and DeslotICL were presenting as "problems." So far all I've got is that paying for an online service I intend to use makes me a "conformist." I'm sure the high school me would be absolutely devastated to hear that.

Within the last two pages I've stated my stance on the subject, I don't see any reason for you to continue interacting with this thread if you don't feel like it's worth the effort to glance back a couple pages.

$40 or $60 a year would 100% be a deal-breaker without a lot more features, and probably then even still.

$60 a year?! I make that in tips alone! That's nothing!

 

[Xzi]

Forgive me for my not so good english, but i already presented some of the problems. The main issue is regarding the online infrastructure being exactly the same before being a paid service. The point isnt that it is still cheaper than the competition, but the fact that they are charing you for the SAME experience. The same, laggy, p2p experience. It doesnt justifies the price point.

On a 5GHz band I haven't had any issues with online play prior to the online service being implemented. You're probably right about p2p still being featured heavily, but that's the case for a lot of games on XBL and PSN too, so no difference there.

Next we have the lack of features that have been available back then in 1999. Where is the ability to chat with the console? To create groups? To call them? To invite them? To add friends the normal way searching for a tag and not for friend codes...

Not sure about adding friends, but the rest you can do with the app. I've never been too big into voice chat myself, though, I'd rather play most online games without it.

Then we gave the nes titles... Well, really? Are nes games really justificable for a service like this

For $1.60 a month I definitely wouldn't expect anything more than free SNES games at most. Not the biggest fan of NES but Dr. Mario online seems like it'd be fun, among a few others.

They have presented to you mediocre features that doesnt even deserve the 20 usd price tag. This thing ahould be 10 bucks a year at best.

This is entirely subjective. If PSN/XBL were $30/year then yes, Nintendo would be forced to shift their pricing accordingly.

$60 a year?! I make that in tips alone! That's nothing!

You make $60 per year in tips? Oof.

 

[Huntereb]

You make $60 per year in tips? Oof.

Meh, you know what I was getting at.

 

[Xzi]

Meh, you know what I was getting at.

$60/year isn't terrible either, but only if there's enough content to justify the price. Just about every online PS4 game is better played on PC without an online fee, and the free games they offer are cheap indies better bought individually if you have any interest in them.

 

[the_randomizer]

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


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.

Yeah, the Switch is very powerful for emulation, but why they omitted Snes and other systems for launch is beyond me.

 

[Huntereb]

$60/year isn't terrible either, but only if there's enough content to justify the price.

Ding ding ding, we have a winner!

...$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.

 

[Xzi]

Ding ding ding, we have a winner!

Precisely, it takes a lot less content to justify $20/year than it does to justify $60/year. Which is why having exclusives I want to play online is enough to push me over the edge for Switch. There's nothing I want to play online on PS4 (that I can't also play on PC).

 

[the_randomizer]

Just because something is cheap, doesn't always necessarily indicate that it's good *shrug* .

 

[Huntereb]

Precisely, it takes a lot less content to justify $20/year than it does to justify $60/year. Which is why having exclusives I want to play online is enough to push me over the edge for Switch. There's nothing I want to play online on PS4.

Not really the point I was making, but it's subjective to your opinion. I've seen a lot more criticism of the service than I expected, hopefully people will stick to their guns and get Nintendo's eyes open to the idea of making the service better in the future.

...Or better yet, cancel it.

 

[Xzi]

Just because something is cheap, doesn't always necessarily indicate that it's good *shrug* .

I don't consider any paid online service to be a good thing, but it's just the reality of console gaming now.

 

[Huntereb]

I don't consider any paid online service to be a good thing, but it's just the reality of console gaming now.

The modern consumer, everyone. A cuckold to the corporations.

 

[Xzi]

The modern consumer, everyone. A cuckold to the corporations.

Sure, in the sense that capitalism turns everyone into cuckolds for corporations. Or do you live in a straw hut that you built yourself?