Nintendo Switch - Happy Switchmas Everyone!

[Hero-of-Time]

There might take it out of Mario Kart as they want everyone to sit in the same room with their NXs

 

I think they could get a great system and it still be free and offer a VC subscription service. I'm sort of worried it'll be the same set up as Wii u though...

 

One positive is that I do think they'll have more online in most of their games from now on. But if it's a crack system will people want to play them!

 

That's what we all thought when the Wii to Wii U transition was happening and look how that turned out.

[Kav]

That's what we all thought when the Wii to Wii U transition was happening and look how that turned out.

 

To be fair, Reggie didn't help the cause in the lead up to the WiiU's release...

 

[Hero-of-Time]

To be fair, Reggie didn't help the cause in the lead up to the WiiU's release...

 

 

Every time you use this it still cracks me up!

[Rummy]

Your point focused on quantity and how at most 3 games per genre wasn't enough. My argument was that that list was exclusively first or second party titles, making it more than acceptable.

 

Throw in third parties and indies as @Sheikah bizarrely suggested, and the list would be even more extensive.

 

Your snark and flimsy reasoning and arguments are the real top notch contributions here.

 

Excuse you - I don't recall bringing up any points about quantity. I don't recall initiating the discussion, and was under the impression that I was contributing to a debate about variety/diversity as I've clearly gone on to detail further - unless you'd like to find my posts that are points about quantity. I've taken H-o-T's 77 games, and divided it by YOUR 24 genres, to then suppose 3 games per genre assuming the most unlikely perfectly even distribution and then gone on to further highlight and detail my issues on the variety/diversity within said 'genres'. Yet again though - focussing on something that wasn't said rather than the actual points and discussion being made is further excellent contribution. Of course, I could 'counter' your point by saying the discussion is long done and why are you even discussing it we're clearly talking about Online models now, jeez.

 

I suggested that the list of core games that Hero-of-Time put up was very diverse, genre wise. Not rocket science.

 

There are a couple of gaps admittedly, but if you want a realistic shooter or a gritty openworld grind fest you know to go elsewhere anyway.

 

And I've clearly detailed the flaw in that when it comes to variety and diversity within those genres and thus why the argument was weak in the first place(go see post referencing Terraria, Mincraft, MK series and SMB series).

 

@Rummy you give anecdotal evidence about people wanting to pay, and me and @Clownferret have about people refusing to play.

 

Fact is, a certain type of game is willing to pay to play online, PS4 gamers, Xbox, so saying these people pay and are fine with it isn't an argument for Nintendo. If Nintendo had a better paid online set up would they Wii u have sold more? Would as many people be playing Splatoon/smash/kart? I'm not talking about people here or someone's cousin. I mean in the bigger scheme? Who knows, but I'm pretty confident the answer would be no. It's an issue, but not a huge one.

 

The discussion should be about looking at Nintendo, their fans, people who may buy the NX; would a paid system benefit them or not, irrespective of what we personally want because trust me, I'd pay for it, I want a PS4 featured system on NX; but I'm not 100% convinced it would be best for Nintendo, and less convinced Nintendo would want to charge for it.

 

It's also slightly bizarre that we want to be charged more more, why can't we just be fighting for a better system, but still free!

 

What is it with people saying I'm saying things I didn't? I didn't 'mention anecdotal evidence' - I GAVE some anecdotal evidence yet with examples of specific people and asked you for some too! I haven't done hard, pure fact and number based research into this - but when we're both talking anecdotally you're the one talking about 'a lot of people' whereas I'm talking about H-o-T, his younger family, other members here on the forum(I can define them, if needed, but I presumed you know them), myself and...even YOURSELF WHO STILL PAYS!!

 

You're not talking about 'people here or someone's cousin' then who ARE you talking about? Why can't you come up with some specific examples(ok, yourself and Clownferret, now outweight by my other numbers of people here) or people rather than this vague non-descript group?? I'm talking about people here because we both know the exist and can quantify it far better than your non-descript 'a lot of people'. WHO?! Who is this certain type of people, where is this fact? What is it based on? I'm not the one throwing around vagueness as facts, but I am giving something to back my arguments; even if anecdotal!

 

You want a discussion 'about looking at Nintendo, their fans, people who may buy the NX; would a paid system benefit them or not, irrespective of what we personally want' - well bugger me, if a Nintendo-born forum ain't exactly that sort of place then I don't know what is!!

[Pestneb]

Why can't you come up with some specific examples(ok, yourself and Clownferret, now outweight by my other numbers of people here)

 

Hold on a second rummy! he did mention two specific examples.

If Nintendo produce a quality online experience that equals or betters the PS or X1 services AND is free, how many of your individuals would decide not to buy an NX on the basis that it is too cheap?

 

The issue is the quality of the service, and yes it is possible subscription fees could be used to fund that service, but there are other ways the money to support the online infrastructure.

 

As for this specific point, 2 examples were made. This forum is by it's nature skewed to hardcore gamers, who are spending more on gaming than the average gamer. That makes 2 examples more meaningful than the many you came up with... if 2 amongst a subset of more engaged gamers are against subs, what would that translate amongst the wider population?

 

Now sure, it works with Sony and Microsoft, but their business model can rely on a steady stream of 3rd party games to keep engagement high. Nintendo can only rely, for the time being, on their own first party titles, of which I can only think of a handful that really work well with online.

 

MK8, Splatoon and Smash do have little signs of hope in regards to online, and I am hopeful that nintendo will improve a lot next generation.

I think they already have with the Wii U. I remember friends codes. Now the current system isn't perfect, but it is a better one by a very wide margin. Wii U chat to me looks like a failed attempt at integrated voice chat, if so hopefully they will have built on that and we'll have something more acceptable to those with higher standards

 

Really I think sure, the Wii U has issues. But you can be negative in life or positive and I think positive is a healthier way to be. Not over hyping and building hopes too high but hopeful none the less.

I was chatting to Are yesterday I think and agree with him, splatoon has it's flaws but it has so much charm it really does hold you. It definitely out does MK8 imo, and I'm really looking forward to it's sequel. If that is a launch game on NX I will struggle not to buy it at launch.

[Serebii]

Yeah, it's not like subscriptions mean good online service. Just look at PSN for that.

[Rummy]

I've acknowledged the two @Pestneb, even in your quote! But why does dazzybee's anecdotal weighting of two+imaginary/undefined group of 'a lot of people' magically outweight my equally anecdotal but more defined and greater group of numbers? I'm just asking for some backing on that group. Can I just point out again that dazzybee(one of his two examples) STILL PAYS FOR AN ONLINE SERVICE IN PS+ TOO. My point IS that people will pay.

 

Are we hardcore gamers, or are we traditional gamers, or are we something else? I know gaming doesn't take anywhere near as much time in my life as it used to(though I do have a subset of tabletop gaming, so what you want to make of that is up to you). I'll take your skewing as a valid argument, but say the numbers and territory is too murky to say whether there truly is a clear bias there or not. Again here, I'd ask you to draw your clear line/boundary/definition of what the hardcore gamer is. All I've really being trying to do is ask for some specifics and definitions over vagueness, I don't think that's silly or ridiculous. I just keep getting same vagueness thrown back at me like it's valid!!

 

Yep, quality of the service is definitely an issue. However I'm saying, business-wise, I think it's better to cover yourself with a subs fee for eventualities we can't see coming yet as a way to earmark a guaranteed a somewhat proportionate amount of money to the service. I mean if they can offer me a service as good as the competition AND it's free, that's bloody marvellous. However consider another thing - if we end up with a free service could it give them more license to do more as they please rather than what consumers may want? Would people more like it or lump it, because it's free? I mean that's getting into a murkier territory of seperating numbers.

 

I disagree on the positive/negative btw. I think you need to be both, not just one or the other. A healthy life is about balance, and realism. Put anything out of balance and it won't last. To quote a wise omnic monk who recently enlightened me - True self is without form.

 

 

 

(Aaaand with that I'm sorry to break your hearts on the debate - but I gotta go meet me some N-E folk! I'll be back on Sunday/Monday if there's still some interesting points of relevance)

[Hero-of-Time]

Yeah, it's not like subscriptions mean good online service. Just look at PSN for that.

 

[Pestneb]

I'll take your skewing as a valid argument, but say the numbers and territory is too murky to say whether there truly is a clear bias there or not. Again here, I'd ask you to draw your clear line/boundary/definition of what the hardcore gamer is.

 

I disagree on the positive/negative btw. I think you need to be both, not just one or the other. A healthy life is about balance, and realism. Put anything out of balance and it won't last. To quote a wise omnic monk who recently enlightened me - True self is without form.

 

Well any definition of a hardcore gamer is going to be hazy, but the average (mean) tends to be around 10 games per console. That accounts for those who buy 3 games for their console and those who buy 300. But perhaps gamers with more than 20 games on their console could be defined as "invested" gamers? I think most of us hit that target? And generally when people are regular on a forum such as this they tend to be invested in the focus of that forum, right? Ok so this forum has branched out, but the members who are both active and uninterested in gaming is negligible.

Anyway... we'll see what form online takes with the NX in due course.

 

On the positive negative thing, yes we need to acknowledge the negative things, I agree with balance, but personally I believe it is healthier to lean towards positive things, with negative things simply preparing us to better weather future hardships or to seek out improvements on a current situation. Probably we have a different paradigm on life, but I think we broadly agree on that point, just I'm not communicating well enough - so sorry about that!

 

Hope you have fun at the meetup.

[Ronnie]

Excuse you - I don't recall bringing up any points about quantity.

 

Here's what started it all. I suggested...

 

Of the list Hero-of-Time put up, these are the genres included

 

and then included 24 genres. You then replied with a snarky demand for extra information just so you can scrutinise...

 

Any chance you'd want to actually put the games into their categories to open such a weak argument up to some actual scrutiny?

 

You then said...

 

77 games there to 24 genres btw. Even assuming an even distribution, which there most likely isn't, that's a minimum of about 3 games per 'genre'. Take that it's likely some are less than the others, you're possibly looking at some 'genres' being more heavily populated than others

 

Just to correct you, it isn't a MINIMUM of three games per genre, it's an average. Some will have 1, some will have 5.

 

I then argue that the games HOT listed were first/second party exclusively and that asking Nintendo to release more than the above is asking too much.

 

We're talking first/second party games in 4-5 years here. You're not going to get Nintendo putting out a dozen games per genre in that time.

 

You then come up with another arsey response, whilst simultaneously adding nothing to the discussion

 

Excellent debating skills as ever - taking my own criticism and throwing it back at me whilst completely ignoring and not addressing my actual points and requests. Good contribution to the discussion.

 

And now we're back here...

 

Excuse you - I don't recall bringing up any points about quantity.

 

You did, see above.

 

I don't recall initiating the discussion

 

I never said you did. You initiated the hostility though, out of nowhere.

 

Thank you for dividing 77 by 24. For the hundredth time, I think that on average 3 games per genre, in 24 genres, is a more than decent return in 5 years given we're talking about 90% first party games that Nintendo develop themselves. I really don't think it's a very controversial thing to suggest.

 

All of this, because I DARED suggest that the collection of first/second party titles on Wii U and 3DS are a diverse range of games (with a couple of gaps).

Edited August 12, 2016 by Ronnie

[Hero-of-Time]

Kinda wish I hadn't bothered posting the list now.

[dazzybee]

What is it with people saying I'm saying things I didn't? I didn't 'mention anecdotal evidence' - I GAVE some anecdotal evidence yet with examples of specific people and asked you for some too! I haven't done hard, pure fact and number based research into this - but when we're both talking anecdotally you're the one talking about 'a lot of people' whereas I'm talking about H-o-T, his younger family, other members here on the forum(I can define them, if needed, but I presumed you know them), myself and...even YOURSELF WHO STILL PAYS!!

 

You're not talking about 'people here or someone's cousin' then who ARE you talking about? Why can't you come up with some specific examples(ok, yourself and Clownferret, now outweight by my other numbers of people here) or people rather than this vague non-descript group?? I'm talking about people here because we both know the exist and can quantify it far better than your non-descript 'a lot of people'. WHO?! Who is this certain type of people, where is this fact? What is it based on? I'm not the one throwing around vagueness as facts, but I am giving something to back my arguments; even if anecdotal!

 

You want a discussion 'about looking at Nintendo, their fans, people who may buy the NX; would a paid system benefit them or not, irrespective of what we personally want' - well bugger me, if a Nintendo-born forum ain't exactly that sort of place then I don't know what is!!

 

I'm confused, I said you gave anecdotal evidence, then you reply saying I'm putting words in your mouth then immediately say you did give anecdotal evidence... Maybe I'm reading it wrong but you seem to be contradicting yourself...

 

Same with the me saying your evidence is only a couple and mine is a lot, again, sorry if I suggested that, though I can't see where. I'm pretty sure I explicitly said both our anecdotal evidence is pointless; and also said people would be willing to pay online - 60 million PS4/Xbox owners shows that; I was just saying I don't think this is that revealing as such with regards to nintendo; just because t works for them, doesn't mean it works for nintendo, in the same way just because COD sells insanely on those systems, it is proven it doesn't sell as well on nintendo's systems.

 

Don;t quite know why you're getting so het up, but my anecdotes are not my or Clownferret, we both pay to play online. They are family and friends who refuse to pay for it. Annoyingly my brother and nephews for example as we all love playing fifa (the only reason they bloody get a ps4).

 

And again, who said I didn't want to discuss it here? I DO!! It actually seems you're putting a crazy amount of words into my posts now. I was trying to say the conversation didn't seem to be about that, and more well this works on ps4 so it's great, when i think we need to look at nintendo as the very different company it is and would that model work on it.

 

You keep putting '' marks around my 'a lot of people' and that I said it was worth more than your words. I must have done this, but I can't find where, it wasn't in your post you quoted... I"m confused your getting your response from what i said when i didn't actually say much of what you think.

[drahkon]

Kinda wish I hadn't bothered posting the list now.

 

There's always the other thread :p

[nekunando]

I'm definitely coming around to the idea of a Nintendo online service that lets you play any of their VC titles for a reasonable subscription fee, especially if the option is there to 'own' a game permanently for a certain, preferably discounted, price

[Clownferret]

Nintendo don't allow party chat etc because they don't want families/children being exposed to expletives whilst playing online. It has nothing to do with money and a subscription no matter how expensive will change that.

Yes they could do more with party chat to allow friends only to chat but again this isn't a subscription issue. From my experience with online chat I don't even know why people are so bothered by it. 99% of the time it's either annoying kids or grown men who do nothing but swear down the mic. I generally always mute team mates in last of us as there is no tactical chat going on just stuff like "revive me you cnut"

 

as @dazzybee said the "free" games don't justify £40 per year, I certainly resent paying a broadband provider to supply online and then being charged again by Sony. Of course it's horses for courses, but I can't help feeling that people use party chat as a way to justify to themselves that £40 a year is worth paying as it's the one major difference between PSN/Gold and Nintendo's free online service. £40 per year may not sound like a huge amount but over the lifespan of a console it's £250-£300 which is almost the cost of the console itself. Imagine the extra controllers and games you could buy with that. What I detest the most is that this is a hidden charge. Neither Sony or Microsoft publicise this and it's bordering on criminal to sell a console and games and when you take it home and plug it in suddenly find out that you can't use it unless you pay an additional £40 a year.

 

Nintendo have to realise that they will be most peoples 2nd console and if they try and charge for online also that may well be enough to put people off buying it.

[Hero-of-Time]

Yes they could do more with party chat to allow friends only to chat but again this isn't a subscription issue. From my experience with online chat I don't even know why people are so bothered by it. 99% of the time it's either annoying kids or grown men who do nothing but swear down the mic. I generally always mute team mates in last of us as there is no tactical chat going on just stuff like "revive me you cnut"

 

These are two different things and this gets brought every time this conversation crops up. Online chat is with randoms and is usually an absolute mess. Party chat is a private lobby that allows banter with friends only, either by invite or by open chat.

 

Most of us, if not all of us, asking for party chat want just that. I imagine we would quite happily have a system that allows for a friends only and leave it at that. I'm certainly not bothered by online chat but party chat is a different matter.

 

Of course it's horses for courses, but I can't help feeling that people use party chat as a way to justify to themselves that £40 a year is worth paying as it's the one major difference between PSN/Gold and Nintendo's free online service.

 

One major difference? How about a selection of games each month, the ability to live stream your games, to take recordings of your games and edit them into videos, various streaming services, instant messaging etc. The £40 helps to fund such services.

 

I have no issue with spending this money, hell I did it on the Xbox before party chat was either a thing because I wanted to play and socialise with my friends online.

 

In the grand scheme of things its neither here nor there. While I don't drink alcohol, how many people do and do it just to socialise? How much is that costing on a night out? A hell of a lot more than £40 a year. Most would easily spend this on a single night.

 

What I detest the most is that this is a hidden charge. Neither Sony or Microsoft publicise this and it's bordering on criminal to sell a console and games and when you take it home and plug it in suddenly find out that you can't use it unless you pay an additional £40 a year.

 

You want to talk about hidden charges, then how about a poor sod who doesn't have strong wifi or wifi at all and then buys a Wii U. They take it home, open it and find that there isn't an ethernet port on the thing. They then have to buy this added extra, which isn't advertised, just to get online.

[dazzybee]

 

One major difference? How about a selection of games each month, the ability to live stream your games, to take recordings of your games and edit them into videos, various streaming services, instant messaging etc. The £40 helps to fund such services.

 

The games are awful (well average, but either way I don't want them) - and I really don't think streaming games, editing videos or being able to use netflix should be behind a subscription. I don't think £40 is lots of money, though I don't think I should be forced to pay it either.

 

Really can't wait to see what nintendo actually do though either way. Free service, party chat, live streaming, instant messages, nothing else. Perfect!

[Hero-of-Time]

The games are awful (well average, but either way I don't want them) - and I really don't think streaming games, editing videos or being able to use netflix should be behind a subscription. I don't think £40 is lots of money, though I don't think I should be forced to pay it either.

 

Really can't wait to see what nintendo actually do though either way. Free service, party chat, live streaming, instant messages, nothing else. Perfect!

 

Well, what people think of the games is purely subjective. I've personally ( as have others on here ) enjoyed a great amount of them, all spread across the Vita, PS3, PS4. Don't get me wrong, there are stinkers on the service at times but I find many hidden gems get dished out.

 

If you're limited to how much time you can spend on playing games, then no doubt the games won't be worth your while. As someone who plays a lot of games, the service is certainly worth my money

[dazzybee]

Well, what people think of the games is purely subjective. I've personally ( as have others on here ) enjoyed a great amount of them, all spread across the Vita, PS3, PS4. Don't get me wrong, there are stinkers on the service at times but I find many hidden gems get dished out.

 

If you're limited to how much time you can spend on playing games, then no doubt the games won't be worth your while. As someone who plays a lot of games, the service is certainly worth my money

 

Yeah tat's true, that's why I changed it to average, a few games I've played and been like - this is alright, but there are so many games I could be playing - stuff like mousetrap and dudebros and such. But this is part of my operation backlog and only playing amazing games!!!

[Ashley]

For what it's worth (and I know it wasn't the main point) but I'm pretty sure Netflix isn't behind a pay wall on the PS4 and I think Microsoft removed it too.

[Nolan]

For what it's worth (and I know it wasn't the main point) but I'm pretty sure Netflix isn't behind a pay wall on the PS4 and I think Microsoft removed it too.

 

Correct, two years ago MS finally removed the paywall to use Netflix and a variety of other apps. Sony having had free online for the PS3 for life (until plus offered benefits) never had such apps behind the paywall. Even now I'm fairly certain it is just multiplayer being paid for.

[liger05]

If Nintendo charged for an online service it wouldn't out people off. What puts people off is if they feel they are not getting value.

 

If one charges and provides a bad service then yes of course people won't be happy but if you propose a charge and the benifits of a said charge and why it is worth it the consumer will won't have a problem.

 

The competition charges for online so it wouldn't be such a shock of Nintendo did the same.

[Ramar]

The fact we're discussing how Nintendo should do online with their fourth internet enabled home console speaks volumes.

[Glen-i]

The fact we're discussing how Nintendo should do online with their fourth internet enabled home console speaks volumes.

 

Fourth? That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

I mean, yeah sure, technically it counts. But who here actually used it for that purpose?

[Hero-of-Time]

Fourth? That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

I mean, yeah sure, technically it counts. But who here actually used it for that purpose?

 

*raises hand*

 

I played crazy amounts of PSO on the GameCube....as well as the Dreamcast...and the Xbox.