• 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.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

Ubiblu

Banned
Dec 20, 2017
399
Still seems like a better value for money proposition than Playstation Plus / Xbox Live. Dedicated server capacity and guaranteed uptime isn't free, nor should you feel entitled to receive it at a company's own cost.

Complaining about $20/year but giving every other console a pass seems pretty pathetic to me. In fact, complaining about the principle of having to pay for online services seems ridiculous also. Era kidz right.
 

Lindsay

Member
Nov 4, 2017
3,143
Its kinda shocking how many peeps are hype for "classic games". Like don't many ya'll already own said classic games several times over O.o?

I do get why some are happy ta play for Cloud Saves seeing as how Nintendo doesn't let ya backup saves any other way. Good job Nintendo of taking basic save management away which consoles/handhelds have had since forever an selling it back to the players!

$20 usd for a year vs $60+ usd for the competitors.
No worries! It'll catch up to those others in time! After all, they didn't start at $60!
 

DannyClash

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,468
I love my Switch but I hope this goes tits up

seems so weird for a company that loves to sell 30milllion copies of evergreens to possibly hinder the value proposition for their software
 

unfashionable

Member
Oct 29, 2017
2,072
Its kinda shocking how many peeps are hype for "classic games". Like don't many ya'll already own said classic games several times over O.o?

I do get why some are happy ta play for Cloud Saves seeing as how Nintendo doesn't let ya backup saves any other way. Good job Nintendo of taking basic save management away which consoles/handhelds have had since forever an selling it back to the players!

No worries! It'll catch up to those others in time! After all, they didn't start at $60!

Well as someone who never owned a NES or SNES and never bought any classic game, all 20 games will be new to me and worth the price alone.

And yeah sucks that Nintendo denies other way to backup saves, but bought the Switch to play games like Zelda and really need the backup.

Honestly at $20 its worth it to me, and I dont pay for psn or xbox gold (primarily a PC gamer but own all consoles)
 

Deleted member 5334

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
2,815
I'm still holding out I can actually own the games, rather than only being "leased via Nintendo Online". Seriously, I missed out on a lot of Nintendo's VC stuff, especially since I didn't get a Wii U. I have a handful of stuff on the Wii, but ultimately never got everything I wanted there. Plus, having everything on the go sits better with me.
 

Slam Tilt

Member
Jan 16, 2018
5,585
Its kinda shocking how many peeps are hype for "classic games". Like don't many ya'll already own said classic games several times over O.o?
Speaking for myself, most of my NES collection consisted of third party games, so I didn't really play most of the Nintendo offerings. I would not mind giving them a try if they're going to be part of the service.
 

Kubricks

Member
Oct 31, 2017
913
I have no interest in NES or even SNEs classic since there are about a thousand ways to play them these days.
I have no interest in online play on Switch.

Which means I couldn't care even if I want to......
 

Phionoxx

Member
Oct 26, 2017
409
United States
Having a difficult time reconciling paying for an online service that presumably is going to keep using lousy P2P based matchmaking. Hoping for more fidelity about cloud saves and account backup options as well.
 

Nephilim

Member
Oct 28, 2017
5,328
The only game i play online is Ultra Street Fighter 2, but i'm planning to become an online smasher with SB Ultimste, so i have to subscribe.
 
Nov 13, 2017
844
Splatoon 2 is more than enough reason.

Mario Kart, Mario Tennis, and Smash Ultimate all will also require it, so easy in for me. $20 is not much at all.
 

Madao

Avalanche's One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,730
Panama
i'm getting tired of Splatoon 2 and don't play anything else online much. i can live without that part of the service since the current offering is crap for $20.

NES games? i don't want to see that junk again. i'd only subscribe if they had N64 and GC games in their place.

i know i wanted save data backup but i think i can last enough until a free trial or something to create save backups once. otherwise i'll go the homebrew route like on Wii U and 3DS.
 

KoopaSwitch

Banned
Jan 17, 2018
1,260
I see people regularly claiming they triple and quadruple dip on some games (you know, literally buying the same game over and over), or buying "special editions" that are 3-4x the price for the same game - and I've never seen anyone shamed or questioned for that.

And yet, people in this thread willing to pay $20/yr for online service and other tangible benefits are being called "enablers", "corporate apologists", "spending money for no reason", "willingly being scammed", etc. Makes sense. Because, God forbid that someone claim that $2/m is not much. The gall, and the horror.

Welcome!

The same group who will pay a $10-$20-$30 premium to buy a game physically because it comes with some stickers and a temporary tattoo.

But $20 for a more robust online experience and free games? RIDICULOUS.
 

DannyClash

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,468
Welcome!

The same group who will pay a $10-$20-$30 premium to buy a game physically because it comes with some stickers and a temporary tattoo.

But $20 for a more robust online experience and free games? RIDICULOUS.

people buying a video game physical are buying a completely different product than digital

it's a commodity when physical for one.

and arguably a more savvy move financially when Nintendo appreciation is factored in
 

faced

Member
Dec 17, 2017
178
Its kinda shocking how many peeps are hype for "classic games". Like don't many ya'll already own said classic games several times over O.o?

I do get why some are happy ta play for Cloud Saves seeing as how Nintendo doesn't let ya backup saves any other way. Good job Nintendo of taking basic save management away which consoles/handhelds have had since forever an selling it back to the players!

I have a SNES and NES classic and while I really love the experience of hooking it up to the TV and feeling 5 again it's not very convenient. It would be nice to play them with wireless controllers on the TV on something I already have hooked up, or on a plane, and all on the same system with the same saves etc.

I'm not getting the online because of it but I'd rather have it than not
 

Aprikurt

▲ Legend ▲
Member
Oct 29, 2017
18,806
It's the principle of the thing guys. Yes, $20 isn't much, but it's what that $20 represents. And yeah, there's no way they don't tweak the price eventually, especially if they start adding SNES/N64 games to that classic service.
 

zoukka

Game Developer
Verified
Oct 28, 2017
2,361
It's probably cheap enough to justify the fact that it's a nintendo online system.
 

Ereineon

Member
Nov 8, 2017
1,214
the biggest problem with online is that other than people that are heavy invested in multiplayer games, for other people paying for something they MIGHT use once in a while is something questionable. As they said, the paid part should include enough things to entice those people. Not just playing like now

For example, im finding myself playing little online this few months as i have been playing single player games... or local multiplayer with MK or ARMS. I have only been online for the splatfest for the last months.

How would they try to entice this kind of player to pay for the online feature?
Its true that is cheap, but the point is that we are not going to pay for something that we thought as basic for some games (pokemon games with no trading/battling?)

Anyway, its early to say anything as they have yet to detail almost everything about the online service
 

Protome

Member
Oct 27, 2017
15,782
But $20 for a more robust online experience and free games? RIDICULOUS.
Well here's the issue with your argument.

There's no evidence to support this "more robust online experience" part of it. As far as Nintendo has said they're going to charge for what is there now. Maybe more games will support their terrible mobile app if you're into that? I don't personally consider that "robust."
 

oni-link

tag reference no one gets
Member
Oct 25, 2017
16,093
UK
Welcome!

The same group who will pay a $10-$20-$30 premium to buy a game physically because it comes with some stickers and a temporary tattoo.

But $20 for a more robust online experience and free games? RIDICULOUS.

"More robust" [citation needed]

Free games that cost 20 dollars a year, 100% free, at a cost, of only 20 dollars a year. If you pay 20 dollars a year, you get games, for free, at no cost (subject to paying a cost of 20 dollars a year)

Every time someone calls games that come with a paid subscription "free", marketing guys all around the world high five each other

It's also a silly generalisation to say everyone who buys shitty collectors editions has an issue with this, a lot of people spend their money carefully and don't like being ripped off. There is nothing wrong with that
 

jts

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
3,018
People will survive if they don't play online on switch. No need to give in and pay for such a horrible service.
There is definitely a need to pay for it, if they buy, by the millions, Nintendo Switch games where online gameplay is a huge component, including Splatoon, Mario Kart, Mario Tennis, ARMS, Smash. $20 is a small drop compared to value of those games and it unlocks the major part of their worth.
 
Nov 13, 2017
844
I don't want this to affect Splatoon 2 damn it.

Same. By far my favorite game on any console this gen.

Really hope the sales don't slow down (I want it to hit 10 million at least), and the online remains extremely active.

I think older forums such as GAF/ERA/GameFaqs have a tendency to be more into single player games, so it could be opinions on here are not representative of the larger player base, but that is of course entirely all hypothetical, so we'll see I guess.
 

Irrotational

Prophet of Truth
Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,237
Every time someone calls games that come with a paid subscription "free", marketing guys all around the world high five each other

But... Xbox gold used to cost me £40 to play online, which I gladly paid... And would still gladly pay and it still costs £40. Then they started giving me free games!

From my point of view those games ARE completely free.

Of course someone else may have bought gold more recently because they want the games (not multiplayer) , and so the games are NOT free for them.
 

CthulhuSars

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,906
I would be more open minded if Nintendo was more open about what exactly the service is and all the workings of it. There will be a tree house or some release of course but I wish they talked about it earlier.
 

oni-link

tag reference no one gets
Member
Oct 25, 2017
16,093
UK
But... Xbox gold used to cost me £40 to play online, which I gladly paid... And would still gladly pay and it still costs £40. Then they started giving me free games!

From my point of view those games ARE completely free.

Of course someone else may have bought gold more recently because they want the games (not multiplayer) , and so the games are NOT free for them.

They're not free no matter how you look at it, stop paying and you don't get them

When you see a chocolate bar that says buy 1 get 1 free, the 2nd bar isn't free, even if you only wanted 1. It's still behind a paywall

I appreciate that it may feel like they're a bonus if you mainly pay to play online, but they're generally only offered at all to make paying for online less of a bitter pill to swallow

There is nothing wrong with not caring about paying for online or being happy to do or or seeing it as an insignificant cost, but it's still on the whole, shitty, and unnecessary, and only done because it's basically free profit without requiring any effort from the company, because a decade ago MS tried their luck and got away with it, and now it's the norm

If only 25% of Switch owners pay for this, that's £90 million a year from this service, and you won't be seeing £90 million pounds of "free games" or improvements to the services. They'll do the bare minimum and add a few more NES roms next year and a few SNES roms the year after, probably along with a price hike, and call it a day
 

Flabber

Member
Oct 31, 2017
1,050
I've not done any online play on the system yet so I'll not be picking this up out of the gate. They're gonna need to have some more compelling online titles, more than just NES roms everyone's played on every system going, and especially more than features like cloud saves which should be part of the basic system service.

I might eventually go in depending on when/if I pick up Pokémon, and if it's required for online trades.
 

Deleted member 20852

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 28, 2017
864
It's fairly cheap so I don't mind. I hope they announce something more about it soon though, since it doesn't really feel like anything special at the moment. Hoping for a Direct this month.
 

Herb Alpert

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,035
Paris, France
I just hope it will work

20 a year isn't really expensive, but the "avantages" it's supposed to bring are really crappy.
I wish they'd get rid of this shitty online app and build some online fonctionnalities into the OS.
 

Ximonz

Member
Oct 30, 2017
1,468
Taiwan
20 for a year is nothing.

I don't use any other functions or PS+ games other than online gaming from PSN and I am still paying 60 a year.
 

Magicgamer

Member
Oct 28, 2017
455
I still don't know anyone personally with a Switch so I'm not paying for the online service. If my Switch dies and I lose my backups, as the only solution is behind a paywall, then I won't be back.