The Treehouse that announced pokemon won't be getting into Sw/Sh is at around 90k.
At launch, over half of them are absent.
And even now a quarter are still missing after all the DLC.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
The Treehouse that announced pokemon won't be getting into Sw/Sh is at around 90k.
At launch, over half of them are absent.
And even now a quarter are still missing after all the DLC.
If I wanted to play Mario 64 and just Mario 64 on my Switch, how much money would I have to spend right now to be able to do that? Note that there are two different answers here.
Pretty sure i dont see the point if this, as both answers (Mario All Stars and the Expansion) are not anti consumer rather that business decisions that you don't like which is fair as many people didn't like them
Last edited:
I feel that messaging is also a problem here. What is the expansion pak? Is it mostly retro games for legacy Nintendo? Mostly getting non nintendo legacy games? A way to get access to bonus nintendo DLC?
People don't want everything it offers and now you're paying a premium. As I said before, people didn't necessarily ask for Genesis if this is what brings the price up. We don't want to pay for the animal crossing DLC if we don't want to play it. There is no promise of gamboy games or anything else. Nintendo should have offered N64 titles at a lower price, maybe brought in some gameboy games too. But they're being greedy and not giving a good idea at what a continued subscription holds. Rather they will stick to the drip feed, and hope that you pay for a whole year. Had they just added only nintendo games (no animal crossing DLC) and charged a smaller fee, people would have been happier with the price.
Honestly, it just feels that sometimes nintendo gets so successful that they forget to appeal to the customer. They were so desperate for our business during the Wii U times, that they gave out some good deals. Now that their pockets are lined, they think all these old games are worth a lot more than then actually are. I just want to be able to easily play these old games. I pretty much already own like 80% of them already.
People don't want everything it offers and now you're paying a premium. As I said before, people didn't necessarily ask for Genesis if this is what brings the price up. We don't want to pay for the animal crossing DLC if we don't want to play it. There is no promise of gamboy games or anything else. Nintendo should have offered N64 titles at a lower price, maybe brought in some gameboy games too. But they're being greedy and not giving a good idea at what a continued subscription holds. Rather they will stick to the drip feed, and hope that you pay for a whole year. Had they just added only nintendo games (no animal crossing DLC) and charged a smaller fee, people would have been happier with the price.
Honestly, it just feels that sometimes nintendo gets so successful that they forget to appeal to the customer. They were so desperate for our business during the Wii U times, that they gave out some good deals. Now that their pockets are lined, they think all these old games are worth a lot more than then actually are. I just want to be able to easily play these old games. I pretty much already own like 80% of them already.
Its not anti-consumer. $50 a year is fair for online play, cloud saves, and access to the NES, SNES, Genesis, and N64 offerings. Its clear a lot of people piling on about the emulation are more pissed about the price than anything. This whole thing has been such a debacle and not a good look for "gamers."
Nintendo's legacy games are probably worth more than you think they are.
The good thing about it being a sub service is that you can always unsub if they don't cater to you. 30 dollars extra isn't a lot to me since I want to play a lot of the games, but if you only want to play one or two, yeah that can seem like a bit much. There is no problem with waiting to see what they add to the service though, if it's not worth the value to you now, it might be in a year. I feel like the consumer kind of knows all this before making their purchase. Nintendo doesn't have to announce Gameboy is coming to it now, if that's what sells you, then wait for that to be released and then sign up.
Lmao no it's not fair, it's overpriced and a pretty garbage service and they haven't took any strides to improve it reasonably. The ones that are showing a bad look are the ones running to nintendo defense in this. They are coming out looking even worst.
So you'll just write off needing to pay $50 up front for a port of a 25 year old game available on the system as a non issue I simply don't like.
I'm trying to frame this in the most straightforward way.
This isn't me whining about a used copy of an old game being expensive on eBay. I'm pointing out the only option Nintendo themselves gives you to play Mario 64 on Switch. Literally no one else does this.
Thinking back to the early days Switch.
"Yes, those Wii U ports are 4 years old, but they might as well be new games to newer audiences, might as well sell that at full price."
Or whenever anyone asked for UI improvements. "Well no one buys a console for UI, and it's successful without it, so why bother".
These things add up and the frustration builds each time they do a new thing. This isn't an isolated incident here people.
But yes, WE look bad for calling out these practices.
Growing up, I had two brothers really close in age. The three of us determined in our young minds that biting or copying was the worst offense we could commit. As a result we would often embrace products or ideas that we didn't really want just to not be accused of biting. I feel like Nintendo is obsessed on a corporate and cultural level with always being different. Their behavior and decisions are indicative of, if for example someone suggested that maybe they use or take a close look at what Microsoft or Sony is doing that person would be laughed out the room accused of copying and not innovating. This service is like someone said "we can do X because neither Sony or Microsoft are doing it And we'll charge Y" and everyone in the board room jumped up and cheered.
If 64 games are like the other NSO systems it's gonna be probably 3 months until anymore games are added and it's still up in the air if Nintendo is gonna work on the emulation, could go either way on that one. It's gonna be sometime before there's anything else added to the service so people's opinion on it are not likely to get any better anytime soon.
It's mostly that it's a subscription I would say. I want to play these games, but I don't want to pay it forever. It's not so easy to drop in and drop out like other services. I can pay for HBO or Netflix and just give them some money for a month and then move on. If they had monthly offers or even a preview week, that would make a better step in getting on people's better side.
My point is how they're not making the steps to appeal to customers, but rather being pretty bold faced about "pay the full year price or no dice." Of course, I'm not saying anything against people who feel that the deal is worth it, because we all have different values. Personally, I was super excited for N64 titles, and this just disappoints me.
Part of my personal problem is that I have so many games already that it is hard to incentivize me to spend so much on what I already have. I bought the Rare game pack on XBOX, so I'm not excited for Banjo coming to the service. I have so many of these games. I enjoy the SNES and NES service, but I play them mostly for a half-hour before getting bored. I would love to play the N64 on my switch easily, but it's hard to justify the cost.
This one will probably be a lot easier to pull off, but only if the large group they're truly banking on doesn't bite, that group being people who bought Animal Crossing.
Tbh, as much as classic games are appealing, it mainly appeals to an aging population of the market. There are newer gamers younger than a lot of us who may not have interest in these titles for whatever reason, usually the graphics since that's the first thing that's noticeable at a glance.
Who the hell said anything about those other things? All I said was I think its a fair price for what you are getting - even when compared to competitors' offerings (Xbox Live Gold & PS Plus).
Well I think the idea is they will make steps to appeal to consumers. Right now they're offering N64, Genesis and Animal Crossing, overtime they will increase the value by adding new things and people can jump on board when it suits their liking. I do think they should just allow people to purchase games individually though, but I wonder if people who think this is too expensive would be OK paying 10 dollars for N64 games?
I'm contextualizing this frustration here by adding additional things people have been frustrated about regarding Nintendo and how this is yet another thing.
I feel like I made that perfectly clear.
They would pay $10 for the N64 games they want and go on with their day. Just like everyone else does with old games on other systems. If it turns out they want all of them, then yeah, sub is a pretty good option.
It would also be $10 to KEEP, not rent.
I think people talk past each other way too much. Wii U games at full price are often followed by plenty of posts insulting Nintendo fans, indicating that we're blind idiots that will buy anything Nintendo puts out (don't even need to point out the irony of those comments with anything relating to the Wii U, but I will), when is then followed by explanations that no one owned the Wii U, so these blind fans aren't rebuying games, it's a new game for them. It's simply an explanation as to why Nintendo can keep "getting away with it".
I don't think I've ever seen anyone happy about paying more for things, but so many posters seem confused as to why anyone would pay 60 dollars again for a game they just purchased.
When I think of debacles that give "gamers" a bad image, complaining about the price of a service is not one of them.
console gamers really been eaten by this since the 360 huh?
Maybe this has been brought up, but one thing that makes this funny to me is to relate the Expansion Pass pricing with that of the N64 Expansion Pack that it was obviously named after.
The additional cost of the Expansion Pass is 1.5 times more than the price of the base Online. If the Expansion Pack had been 1.5 times more than the the price of an N64 it would have been like $200.
The additional cost of the Expansion Pass is 1.5 times more than the price of the base Online. If the Expansion Pack had been 1.5 times more than the the price of an N64 it would have been like $200.
All of the console companies charge for those features in their online subscription plans. I'm not going to carry on and slam Nintendo for it, but give Microsoft and Sony a pass. Its simply a reality of the market.
I never said you did, I was referring to your comment about Nintendo fans defending Wii U games being 60 dollars, which obviously isn't happening in this thread. It's usually followed by plenty of posts about how we're shills and boot lickers and will defend and buy anything Nintendo which is why they can get away with it.
People take an explanation (it's obvious why they can get away with this for Wii U games, they're brand new to most people) as a Nintendo defense force thing. No one really DEFENDS 60 dollar Wii U ports, but we do respond to a lot of the nonsense said in regards to it.
Yeah I hope (and expect you to be) right about the future of the expansion pack, because I do want the service, and I definitely may subscribe to it in the future.
My point is, this is a cycle and I finally became self aware.
Thought it was worth pointing out how many times Era has these exact same conversations about a different Nintendo plan.
Because It's part of a service/collection that also included other games? This complain can be used on literally any service that has exclusives so really not seeing what this has to be specific to Nintendo
Also how "no one does this", pretty sure you can't buy one PS1 or Xbox game either unless they are ports
I don't know about that. My 1 Switch friend out of 30 has it. Usually there's at least 5+ people playing the hot new thing (Metroid Dread, AC etc). This is just dead.
If that's the example then the precedent isn't really good seeing how that "boycott" went.
Counterpoint: I know multiple people who claimed they wouldn't get this who I have seen playing it since.
You can buy original Xbox games on Xbox, but PS are equally bad with their legacy as Nintendo.
The one upside of this is that I suspect Sony might look at this product and start thinking there's an opportunity for PS1 classics as part of some similar sub service. Not what I'd want but at least it'd mean the games are available for people on PS5.
Yup that's a bit of my point. Clearly a lot of people see this as a bad deal overall but that's all those dislikes show. They won't really tell Nintendo anything because a lot of people are going to pay for it and the company is going to like seeing the positive numbers.
They could use their existing, although aging PS3 servers to play PS1 classics that are already released via PS Now and they wouldn't have to do any additional dev work. Ideally I'd like them to make a better emulator that runs on the PS5 natively with disc compatibility like PS3 though.
The issue is that, while it's only been out a week, Nintendo hasn't issued a roadmap or guidance as for what's coming in the future. More critically, they haven't laid out a vision for the product.
Game Pass is a useful comparison -- Microsoft communicated that they want to set up an "all you can eat" subscription service, a la Netflix, when they first announced the product. They've communicated each month which games are coming and going on the service. They've made splashy, public acquisitions. They've put their big, first-party titles on the service, even if they could earn more money selling them as one-off products.
Nintendo hasn't done any of that. They only said "you'll get an Animal Crossing expansion, some Genesis games, and some N64 games" (without giving a roadmap as to what games will be releasing or when). An Animal Crossing DLC, while appreciated, isn't in the same tier as Microsoft putting their two big holiday titles (Forza Horizon & Halo) on Game Pass, and there's no clue for me as a consumer what else that $50/year will buy me, so I can only judge it based on what they've already released.
yup your sample size of 30 is definitely an accurate portrayal of how the expansion is selling.
I absolutely 100% disagree. Nintendo have clearly laid out their roadmap and their vision for the product, and that's exactly the problem. People are imagining it'll get better with feedback, but we actually have a really good idea what the service will look like for the next year. Anyone expecting more is kidding themselves.
You don't think they're going to add more games than what has been announced? Or more systems? I think they definitely will.