Nintendo Switch paid online coming 2018

[Hero-of-Time]

25 minutes ago, RedShell said:

I'd forgotten about the Pokémon Bank thing. Yeah, they'd have a hard time keeping that and the online subscription fee going at the same time.

We could definitely do with some more info on the upcoming online setup at this point, I suppose they really want to reveal the details alongside game announcements though. And while Smash Bros. is still the game we're all expecting as the big title to launch the paid service, I'm starting to think it could actually be Animal Crossing instead.

Some of the stuff they're currently doing with the mobile version, not to mention the multiplayer aspect of Tortimer Island in New Leaf, gives the impression that Animal Crossing on Switch will be the most online featured game in the series. When you also take into consideration how popular AC is with female players (56% of the user base on New Leaf and over 75% for Pocket Camp!) it makes sense for Nintendo to use it as a way of selling the online service on Switch.

I wouldn't be surprised if both were ready for the online launch. They really need to go all out with the launch of this service or people aren't going to bother subscribing. Having Smash, Animal Crossing and maybe even Pokemon ready for the service would be a great selling point for it.

[dazzybee]

How will it divide the base like starters and dlc? You pay to play online, or you don't play online. Having some people with dlc packs and some not is literally splitting them up...

Splatoon is one of their biggest games, they're not going to give it for free and not others, it makes no sense whatsoever, I don't care if no ones ever launched a service half way through. It makes no business sense, no logic sense, it'll make it confusing and clumsy and in pretty much every way it's a bad idea from Nintendo's perspective.

As for launching it, surely Smash has to launch it? Having Pokemon and animal crossing would be a great triple whammy and cover three different demographics too. Throw in Retros game with a big online component then that'll be great.

For me though, it's virtual console, how the app works, and more games getting micro apps like Splatoon that excites me the most.

[Sheikah]

53 minutes ago, dazzybee said:

I don't care if no ones ever launched a service half way through. It makes no business sense, no logic sense, it'll make it confusing and clumsy and in pretty much every way it's a bad idea from Nintendo's perspective.

Well the logic would be to not charge for something that you haven't been charging for for a good while. Going on this "logic", tell me the logic behind the reason for me having to pay 20 quid or whatever to carry on playing Mario Kart? What am I getting now that I wasn't getting before for this money? There is no case for logic here. Business logic sure, for them to make more money, but not for the consumer.

If they're going to make new games with fully realised and implemented online elements then that would justify charging from that point, but to shoehorn in a tax to carry on playing Mario Kart after so long seems pretty absurd by me.

Edited February 19, 2018 by Sheikah

[Julius]

25 minutes ago, dazzybee said:

How will it divide the base like starters and dlc? You pay to play online, or you don't play online. Having some people with dlc packs and some not is literally splitting them up...

Splatoon is one of their biggest games, they're not going to give it for free and not others, it makes no sense whatsoever, I don't care if no ones ever launched a service half way through. It makes no business sense, no logic sense, it'll make it confusing and clumsy and in pretty much every way it's a bad idea from Nintendo's perspective.

But, for an existing player base, the introduction of a DLC season pass and the introduction of paid online would largely have the same effects, surely? They’re both additional costs which put a paywall between the already existing player base and the ability to play the game in its most complete form. 

@dazzybee, I think you’re actually making arguments against your own points - which are perfectly valid - here. Like I said above: I agree that, ideally, it would be a cost across the board for all games and leave it at that, but I think that many contributions to this conversation have shown that that might not be as straightforward as we might want to believe. But to say that “I don't care if no ones ever launched a service half way through”, and then follow that up with “It makes no business sense” seems woefully ironic, considering that the very reason that no-one has launched such a service 18 months beyond the original hardware launch is because it makes no business sense to do so. One of the main reasons that the PS3 nearly caught up to the Xbox 360 in terms of sales last generation is probably because its online service remained free, and I don’t think that a free online service - even if just for a few games - is that perplexing a thing for consumers to get their heads around. Have you seen how well Fortnite is doing on PS4? 

I think that thinking in such absolute terms when it comes to something we know very little about just sets us up for disappointment, and it wouldn’t be the first time that Nintendo has rewarded early adopters for something that was changed not so long after. Remember the 3DS Ambassador Program? I hardly see anyone getting up in arms about that being a thing, and yet that’s one of many instances that Nintendo has put its consumers first. 

Where you see clumsiness, I see yet another smart PR move for a company in the midst of its greatest comeback. How many parents buying Splatoon 2 to give their children for Christmas were readily aware that a paid online subscription service was coming the Switch’s way? How many people in countries who play this game online in developing countries are aware that the service is even coming?

I fail to see how it’s a bad decision in nearly every way for Nintendo, but hey, you’re entitled to your own opinion. I just hope that you factor in that not everyone is in the same financial situation that you are, or has access to the same information that you have, when you express such bold and absolute opinions. 

And I can’t wait for news on VC either. I feel like that’s certainly something which would be best positioned to be present at E3, especially if they’re thinking about changing how it’s set up.

[Ronnie]

12 minutes ago, Sheikah said:

What am I getting now that I wasn't getting before for this money? There is no case for logic here. Business logic sure, for them to make more money, but not for the consumer.

If they're going to make new games with fully realised and implemented online elements then that would justify charging from that point, but to shoehorn in a tax to carry on playing Mario Kart after so long seems pretty absurd by me.

You're getting virtual console games, Nintendo have said they're working on making the perks add value and that's one of them.

[Sheikah]

1 minute ago, Ronnie said:

You're getting virtual console games, Nintendo have said they're working on making the perks add value and that's one of them.

But if you just want to carry on playing your game online that you were playing yesterday, you can no longer do it. It's just a very strange decision if they do that for games that will be 1.5 years old by that point.

[Ronnie]

3 minutes ago, Sheikah said:

But if you just want to carry on playing your game online that you were playing yesterday, you can no longer do it. It's just a very strange decision if they do that for games that will be 1.5 years old by that point.

They've already mentioned that's what's going to happen.

Edited February 19, 2018 by Ronnie

[Sheikah]

It even says in your very image Ronnie that "most" games will require you to pay to play online, so it's not at all explicit in saying that previously "free" to play online games will now cost money. 

Also:

"Exceptions may apply". I'm hoping they had enough foresight when they came up with that wording to see that it makes little consumer sense to do this.

[dazzybee]

1 hour ago, Sheikah said:

Well the logic would be to not charge for something that you haven't been charging for for a good while. Going on this "logic", tell me the logic behind the reason for me having to pay 20 quid or whatever to carry on playing Mario Kart? What am I getting now that I wasn't getting before for this money? There is no case for logic here. Business logic sure, for them to make more money, but not for the consumer.

If they're going to make new games with fully realised and implemented online elements then that would justify charging from that point, but to shoehorn in a tax to carry on playing Mario Kart after so long seems pretty absurd by me.

No it wouldn't. The logic would be when you start charging for a service, then you start charging for it and all it entails. From a consumer perspective I'd expect this. From a business perspective why would they give any reason to not encourage people to subscribe? From a marketing perspective it means it's clean and easy - you pay to play online, not you pay to play some games online, before this date which will mean nothing to most people...

Aside from this, we've know from before launch that paid online is coming...

I'm genuinely kind of gobsmacked we're even having this discussion to be honest, pointless because come September, everyone will have to play to play splatoon and Mario kart.

[dazzybee]

1 hour ago, Julius Caesar said:

But, for an existing player base, the introduction of a DLC season pass and the introduction of paid online would largely have the same effects, surely? They’re both additional costs which put a paywall between the already existing player base and the ability to play the game in its most complete form. 

@dazzybee, I think you’re actually making arguments against your own points - which are perfectly valid - here. Like I said above: I agree that, ideally, it would be a cost across the board for all games and leave it at that, but I think that many contributions to this conversation have shown that that might not be as straightforward as we might want to believe. But to say that “I don't care if no ones ever launched a service half way through”, and then follow that up with “It makes no business sense” seems woefully ironic, considering that the very reason that no-one has launched such a service 18 months beyond the original hardware launch is because it makes no business sense to do so. One of the main reasons that the PS3 nearly caught up to the Xbox 360 in terms of sales last generation is probably because its online service remained free, and I don’t think that a free online service - even if just for a few games - is that perplexing a thing for consumers to get their heads around. Have you seen how well Fortnite is doing on PS4? 

I think that thinking in such absolute terms when it comes to something we know very little about just sets us up for disappointment, and it wouldn’t be the first time that Nintendo has rewarded early adopters for something that was changed not so long after. Remember the 3DS Ambassador Program? I hardly see anyone getting up in arms about that being a thing, and yet that’s one of many instances that Nintendo has put its consumers first. 

Where you see clumsiness, I see yet another smart PR move for a company in the midst of its greatest comeback. How many parents buying Splatoon 2 to give their children for Christmas were readily aware that a paid online subscription service was coming the Switch’s way? How many people in countries who play this game online in developing countries are aware that the service is even coming?

I fail to see how it’s a bad decision in nearly every way for Nintendo, but hey, you’re entitled to your own opinion. I just hope that you factor in that not everyone is in the same financial situation that you are, or has access to the same information that you have, when you express such bold and absolute opinions. 

And I can’t wait for news on VC either. I feel like that’s certainly something which would be best positioned to be present at E3, especially if they’re thinking about changing how it’s set up.

No it's not the same, because there won't be a split between a base version and a more complete version; EVERYONE will have to pay to play online.

As for the rest of what you say, it's kind of ridiculous, you have absolutely;ey no idea that no one has launched a service because it makes no business sense, you have no evidence or logic or reasoning to even say that, other than that no one has. But Nintendo ARE doing it, so do you think it makes no business sense for Nintendo to od it because that's exactly what you've just said.

And I love when you go from "one of the main reasons" so authoritative to "probably" in a matter of words. Maybe, maybe not. But who cares, Nintendo are launching a paid subscription service after 18 months. Why are you fighting it and coming up with arguments why it's a bad business decision? This is getting surreal now. 

And why would I be disappointed just because I'm thinking in absolute terms? I really wouldn't care if they let people play splatoon for free. Wouldn't' effect me. I'm just saying why they won't. And ambassador programme, that's nothing like this, what a weird thing to being up, straw men flying around all over the place. That was done because 3ds flopped and reduced the price drastically, it was an apology.

I'll say it again, Nintendo told us BEFORE LAUNCH we were going to have to pay for online. 

There's no point discussing it really. I think we all understand each others points. I find the whole thing utterly bizarre. And know, come whenever Nintendo announce it, what the outcome will be.

As for announcement, I think before e3 wild be best, get stout of the way so e3 can just be about the games. But who knows.

[dazzybee]

50 minutes ago, Sheikah said:

It even says in your very image Ronnie that "most" games will require you to pay to play online, so it's not at all explicit in saying that previously "free" to play online games will now cost money. 

Also:

"Exceptions may apply". I'm hoping they had enough foresight when they came up with that wording to see that it makes little consumer sense to do this.

Doesn't it just mean free-to-play games and maybe pokemon bank and such? And free-to-play games free on ps4/xbox?

 

[Sheikah]

Doesn't it just mean free-to-play games and maybe pokemon bank and such? And free-to-play games free on ps4/xbox?  

 

Who knows what it means apart from Nintendo...

 

In fact, maybe not even Nintendo right now.  

 

 

[dazzybee]

Just now, Sheikah said:

1 minute ago, dazzybee said:

Doesn't it just mean free-to-play games and maybe pokemon bank and such? And free-to-play games free on ps4/xbox?
 

Who knows apart from Nintendo...

Yeah, but I mean in general is that the practice? That free-to-play games you don't need online subscription? I don't know, but something in my head is telling me it is

[killthenet]

If the new online service has additional functionality like integrated voice chat then there would be a clear difference between the current free service and upcoming paid one. If what is currently on offer stays free but then the paid service offers better chat and matchmaking features alongside free monthly virtual console games then they would still offer a reason to subscribe to the paid infrastructure while keeping basic online services free.

Isn't that how PSN worked prior to the PS4? Online gaming was a free service but you could pay more for free games and more features? I think that would be the wisest choice for Nintendo at this point considering how awkward it would be to cut off access 18 months in.

Edited February 19, 2018 by killthenet

[Sheikah]

Yeah, but I mean in general is that the practice? That free-to-play games you don't need online subscription? I don't know, but something in my head is telling me it is

What I mean is that the whole situation is so ridiculous (charging for online partway through the console life) that there are no examples or indicators that we can reliably consult to figure out what Nintendo mean by this.

Personally I think they were being vague at the time with their language to adapt a needed. I really think it would be odd (and anti-consumer) for them to charge so long after they released those games, but Nintendo being Nintendo it wouldn't surprise me if they do paywall everything.

[Ronnie]

1 minute ago, Sheikah said:

Personally I think they were being vague at the time with their language to adapt a needed. I really think it would be odd (and anti-consumer) for them to charge so long after they released those games, but Nintendo being Nintendo it wouldn't surprise me if they do paywall everything.

Most on here think that charging for previously released games is a good idea.

Quote

But if you just want to carry on playing your game online that you were playing yesterday, you can no longer do it.

I know their statement on the Mario Kart 8 page (similar is on the Splatoon one) was vague enough for them to change their mind at a later date. My point was in reply to the above quote, they've suggested that no longer being able to play a game once paid online starts, might be the case, in which case it isn't going to come out of the blue.

[Sheikah]

2 minutes ago, Ronnie said:

Most on here think that charging for previously released games is a good idea.

So you would prefer to load up Mario Kart and be asked to pay 20 dollars to continue playing online, versus paying nothing?

[Cube]

11 minutes ago, Ronnie said:

Most on here think that charging for previously released games is a good idea.

I can't believe that anyone would think that.

[Glen-i]

11 minutes ago, Cube said:

I can't believe that anyone would think that.

You'd be incredibly surprised at how many people think that paying to play online games is good for everyone. It's why it's now standard fare, because XBox owners were cool with it. Which prompted Sony and Nintendo to follow suit.

[Ronnie]

34 minutes ago, Sheikah said:

So you would prefer to load up Mario Kart and be asked to pay 20 dollars to continue playing online, versus paying nothing?

I thought it was obvious I meant people think Nintendo charging for every game is a better idea, rather than picking and choosing and muddying the message.

Obviously I would prefer for online to be free forever, but I'm happy to pay £12 a year for it, in Nintendo's case at least. Online costs them (and Sony and Microsoft) money and given that video games themselves have never been cheaper, yet cost a ton to make, I don't see a problem with them trying to make a few extra quid to pay for the increased dev and infrastructure costs.

Entitlement is one of my biggest gripes with the gaming community. The notion that gamers seem to think they deserve everything for nothing.

I'm sure Nintendo will come up with enough added incentives to sign up, playing Super Mario Kart online with friends for instance.

[Pestneb]

I think free online is pretty essential for me, if for nothing else than for the reason that my connection isn't so reliable right now. So if I buy a subscription, even if I want to play, the online infrastructure is perfect, my console working great, compelling online experiences await... I may not be able to access that. With the Wii U that was already really frustrating (I had a few months were the connection wouldn't be good enough to play a single round in splatoon... getting further than 1 minute in would get my hopes up!
In Japan, and even to a great extent the UK, that's not such an issue, generally, but I imagine for some it still is.

Hopefully my next place will be more reliable or we'll finally get cable/fibre laid down out here soon, but unless that happens I'm not buying a console that makes me pay for online and half the games I'm interested in pretty much require online to get the most out of them!

I am probably in the camp that if they charge for one game online they should charge for them all. I would have liked a system where maybe buying a bigger full price title within a month of release gives you a month online access for example...

[Hero-of-Time]

25 minutes ago, Cube said:

I can't believe that anyone would think that.

Is rather it be an even playing field. Either have all of it free or none at all. 

When it comes to charging for online, there's too much money being left on the table for Nintendo to ignore it. Both Sony and Microsoft making a killing on subscriptions and Nintendo are right to want a piece of that pie.

 

[Cube]

I just think that letting people have access to something for over a year before saying "no, now you have to pay" is confusing and will end up making a lot of casual people absolutely hate the system. 

They could even do it so only the people who were playing those games online before the charge comes in get to carry on playing for free as a "thank you" for their support.

[Sheikah]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I thought it was obvious I meant people think Nintendo charging for every game is a better idea, rather than picking and choosing and muddying the message. Obviously I would prefer for online to be free forever, but I'm happy to pay £12 a year for it, in Nintendo's case at least. Online costs them (and Sony and Microsoft) money and given that video games themselves have never been cheaper, yet cost a ton to make, I don't see a problem with them trying to make a few extra quid to pay for the increased dev and infrastructure costs. Entitlement is one of my biggest gripes with the gaming community. The notion that gamers seem to think they deserve everything for nothing. I'm sure Nintendo will come up with enough added incentives to sign up, playing Super Mario Kart online with friends for instance. 

 

 

 

 But when asked if you'd rather be greeted by a message telling you to pay if you want to continue playing MK online, you'd agree it's better for that message not to appear in the first place right? Because if you disagree with me on this one, you're basically saying you'd rather see that message appear than not appear. To me, that's like, crazy.  Nobody so far has been able to justify this in any other terms than "it's good for Nintendo". The same company-sided justification can be used in defence of any publisher and microtransactions - always great for them, but bad for us. I'm not financially invested in those companies so...I'm not going to say something like "paywalling old content that doesn't need to paywalled is a good idea".

 

I do find the "sense of entitlement" comment a little strange. A sense of entitlement of...the thing you've already been having for 18 months anyway? Never mind that those affected are people who invested in your console early on, who might deserve to carry on playing those games they bought, rather than asking them to pony up more cash.

 

I personally don't see a muddied message at all - these were games released in the dark days as far as their online services went. Even if they add party chat at an OS-level with their new service, it would take considerable upgrades to MK for me to see the added value you're suddenly getting for the money if you're just casually playing MK now and then.

 

 

 

 

 

[Ronnie]

9 minutes ago, Sheikah said:

But when asked if you'd rather be greeted by a message telling you to pay if you want to continue playing MK online, you'd agree it's better for that message not to appear in the first place right? Because if you disagree with me on this one, you're basically saying you'd rather see that message appear than not appear. To me, that's like, crazy

Look I've already said I'd obviously prefer for Nintendo's online to be free forever. My point was, if they have to charge us, then it makes more sense to apply it to every game, rather than pick and choose.

Quote

Nobody so far has been able to justify this in any other terms than "it's good for Nintendo". The same company-sided justification can be used in defence of any publisher and microtransactions - always great for them, but bad for us. I'm not financially invested in those companies so...I'm not going to say something crazy like paywalling old content that doesn't need to paywalled is a good idea.

People have mentioned the added perks Nintendo will be giving us, you just keep ignoring them. We also don't know exactly what their virtual console like system will be, so it's pointless assessing the value before we know all the details. To me, paying a quid or so a month for online and virtual console is a good deal.

They're a business. The are 10x more anti-consumer gaming companies out there. Don't look at it like paywalling old content. They've been very clear that MK8 online will be free for a limited time. Not the other way around.

Games are 10x more expensive to make, and are being sold for less than they ever have. If you'd rather companies started selling every game for £70 and ditched DLC, microtransactions, season passes and paid-for online, then that's your call, but I suspect not many would agree with you. 

Quote

I do find the "sense of entitlement" comment a little strange. A sense of entitlement of...the thing you've already been having for 18 months. Never mind that the people who invested in your console early might deserve to carry on playing those games they bought you help you out in the beginning, rather than asking them to pony up more cash.

As I said, Nintendo have spent the past twelve months messaging that MK8 and other online games will be free for a limited time only. If they'd suddenly out of the blue decided to tell people they have to start paying for it, of course get upset, but they haven't. It was messaged from the very beginning.

Edited February 19, 2018 by Ronnie