Nintendo Switch paid online coming 2018

[Rummy]

1 minute ago, Ronnie said:

20+ online-enabled NES games for £18 a year is crazy good value, never mind the cloud saves, discounts and online stuff. NES games on VC would cost, what around 5 quid each?

Why would they cost that when they've been 3.50 in essence from Wii and Wii U unless I'm mistaken?

The bigger issue is sure you think that's value, but it seems for a number of folks here it isn't. I'm worried for what that all means on a wider scale for the console and its future online ecosystem(due to lack of uptake); especially where, as evidenced by a few here, the issue isn't the affordability but that they simply don't see the same value in it that you do.

I think in terms of value and market demand, 5quid a NES game won't sell particularly well at all these days; especially given points of cannibalism of their own market with 'Mini' systems and a repeated system of consumers rebuying these games time and time over on various systems such as Wii, DS family, Wii U and now Switch etc. It's part of the issue of feeling a lack of value given you pay for a service and have to repeatedly re-buy games you might thoroughly enjoy time and time again across different systems: particularly if you feel it's due to a poor implementation of an online system wherein others have already managed this many years before.

[Ashley]

Value is of course subjective.

Yes, there is an argument to be said that the low cost does contain enough to not really quibble, but what if you don't care about the same NES games we've brought many times over?  Even with online?  Then you're paying £18 a year for cloud saves and online for...Splatoon 2 (at present)?  Yes, you can argue that you're still getting those NES games even if you don't want them, but it can be quite irksome to feel like you've got to pay for something you don't want to get something you do (like paying line rental for broadband when you don't use a home phone).

As the article I linked says, if they had been more upfront about what the NES classics will form (should we expect other consoles, an expansion of titles etc) then it might have eased things, but it is another Nintendo announcement that has resulted in a number of questions.  Hopefully E3 will clear those up.

[Ronnie]

So you could get 5 NES games using the Virtual Console model on Wii U for around £18. Now you can get 4x as many (and possibly more if they don't remove some each time they add new content) for the same price, as well things like online, cloud saves and "discounts".

I kind of wish it was more expensive and offered more things like SNES and N64 games. I'd gladly pay £30 a year for a Netflix like service with those two consoles + GBA maybe. The family bundle makes it even cheaper!

Edited May 11, 2018 by Ronnie

[Rummy]

1 minute ago, Ronnie said:

So you could get 5 NES games using the Virtual Console model on Wii U for around £18. Now you can get 4x as many (and possibly more if they don't remove some each time they add new content) for the same price, as well things like online, cloud saves and "discounts".

I kind of wish it was more expensive and offered more things like SNES and N64 games. I'd gladly pay £30 a year for a Netflix like service with those two consoles + GBA maybe.

The error in your reasoning for me appears to be exactly what Ashley states - value is subjective. As we've seen already from the thread - many people don't see a value offered in the service to spend the money or subscribe to it even despite this or its affordability. It's all well and good to talk about supposed value - but if a majority of consumers don't appear to actively want it then how much is it really worth?

I think if it was more expensive but offered a lot more especially something like a streaming service then yes, many people would pay for that. The problem is that right now it seems to many that it offers very little for its price. Given Nintendo's history should we really expect any major overhauls to the service or reactions that seem in line with majority of consumers demand, or will they bullishly just forge on with the plans they have regardless?

I actually think they should make an expensive, robust service(on par with competition), but within it offer a PSNow style streaming service for their back catalogue. They have massive draw from their old titles as mentioned - capitalise on it by offering it in abundance to encourage adoption of the system etc.

[bob]

This is like Netflix launching with a catalogue of only 80s films.
Yes they're classics, but there have been 25 years of more recent films released since then.

[Ronnie]

30 minutes ago, Rummy said:

The error in your reasoning for me appears to be exactly what Ashley states - value is subjective. As we've seen already from the thread - many people don't see a value offered in the service to spend the money or subscribe to it even despite this or its affordability. It's all well and good to talk about supposed value - but if a majority of consumers don't appear to actively want it then how much is it really worth?

I think if it was more expensive but offered a lot more especially something like a streaming service then yes, many people would pay for that. The problem is that right now it seems to many that it offers very little for its price. Given Nintendo's history should we really expect any major overhauls to the service or reactions that seem in line with majority of consumers demand, or will they bullishly just forge on with the plans they have regardless?

I actually think they should make an expensive, robust service(on par with competition), but within it offer a PSNow style streaming service for their back catalogue. They have massive draw from their old titles as mentioned - capitalise on it by offering it in abundance to encourage adoption of the system etc.

There's no "error in my reasoning" because I'm offering my subjective opinion. 

Thats why I said "I kind of wish it were more expensive and offered more."

At the moment it's better value than NES Virtual Console but I personally would rather have more than just those games. 

[Glen-i]

I know I've said it before but I prefer to actually permanently have the games.

Something about the whole renting subscription thing just doesn't sit right with me. What if they have to remove a game for legal reasons? What happens then?

Edited May 11, 2018 by Glen-i

[Ashley]

32 minutes ago, bob said:

This is like Netflix launching with a catalogue of only 80s films.
Yes they're classics, but there have been 25 years of more recent films released since then.

How many times do I have to say this...

 

[Julius]

33 minutes ago, Glen-i said:

I know I've said it before but I prefer to actually permanently have the games.

Something about the whole renting subscription thing just doesn't sit right with me. What if they have to remove a game for legal reasons? What happens then?

I completely agree.

At the very least, I think the option should be available for those who want to purchase the games as opposed to renting them. A renting service is excellent for dabbling with games that you might not have tried otherwise, but there are those who do like the security of knowing that they’ve purchased a game and will have access to it for years to come. Not only that, but Nintendo are leaving a lot of money on the table (and disgruntling a lot of fans) by making this the only available option to play legacy titles, at least for the foreseeable future. If they didn’t want such backlash, why begin closing the Wii Shopping Channel without actually revealing a replacement business model to take its place on their current system?

If we’re going to be analogising this with a Netflix service: I don’t know many people subscribed to Netflix without some form of permanently owned film collection. 

[RedShell]

3 hours ago, bob said:

This is like Netflix launching with a catalogue of only 80s films.
Yes they're classics, but there have been 25 years of more recent films released since then.

I might actually subscribe to Netflix if it was like that.

2 hours ago, Ashley said:

How many times do I have to say this...

 

As many times as you want to be wrong?

[Rummy]

3 hours ago, Ronnie said:

There's no "error in my reasoning" because I'm offering my subjective opinion. 

Thats why I said "I kind of wish it were more expensive and offered more."

At the moment it's better value than NES Virtual Console but I personally would rather have more than just those games. 

I'm trying to be civil here Ronnie - did you reach your subjective conclusions objectively? Did you reach them with no reasoning? Was there no reason to your argument about the value?

It's like if anyone(or particularly me) points out something in your posts they disagree with it or see a discrepencies they must just be wrong. No weight at all allowed to their thoughts. It's all well and good trying to again present numbers and value objectively - but it IS as you even there yourself realise subjective. However presenting a price and playing with numbers surely isn't subjective, but objective? You're implying that £18 and 4 games are a value across a board rather than your own personal interpretation of the value. How am I able to know what you're presenting objectively or subjectively if you're going to use numbers but not even acknowledge it's a subjective perception or point of view you're trying to get across? Again I wouldn@t take issue with it if this was clear. I felt you were trying to get a numbers based rationalisation across for the value of the service without acknowledging that for some, or indeed many, here that that isn't the same value despite he numerical basis. It isn't the points you make, it's the way you make them.

 

3 hours ago, Glen-i said:

I know I've said it before but I prefer to actually permanently have the games.

Something about the whole renting subscription thing just doesn't sit right with me. What if they have to remove a game for legal reasons? What happens then?

This is something I've generally always been mixed on(and why I generally tend to go physical over digital). The question I'd ask, because I know I've crossed my own threshold here with ps+ running a service of a similar nature, is whether there's a point you'd be ok with it? PS+ is kinda great in that if offers quite a lot of diverse content that I don't feel I lose out too much if I don't have it subscribed to - but also I know that if ever do stop but then re-subscribe all my content will still be there presuming no major reneges or changes on Sony's end. Are we aware of the Switch thing being similar? Or is it a case of subscribe anytime and access these X amount of games whilst you are, rather than getting a title for a library month by month? Kinda middle ground between current sorts of subscriptions and Netflix style stuff?

 

2 hours ago, Julius Caesar said:

I completely agree.

At the very least, I think the option should be available for those who want to purchase the games as opposed to renting them. A renting service is excellent for dabbling with games that you might not have tried otherwise, but there are those who do like the security of knowing that they’ve purchased a game and will have access to it for years to come. Not only that, but Nintendo are leaving a lot of money on the table (and disgruntling a lot of fans) by making this the only available option to play legacy titles, at least for the foreseeable future. If they didn’t want such backlash, why begin closing the Wii Shopping Channel without actually revealing a replacement business model to take its place on their current system?

If we’re going to be analogising this with a Netflix service: I don’t know many people subscribed to Netflix without some form of permanently owned film collection. 

This I'm in the same boat on as well - whilst it won't terribly upset me I do think it's unfair to possibly not allow people an option to permanently buy a game or two that they really want over subscribing to a service that offers access. Interestingly enough it comes back into the online service for me too and some expressions made by others previously iirc - given the small online catalogue and arguable lack of perceived value for the yearly subscription service would they consider giving any sort of one-off game passes? Ie you might not want to pay £18 a year for the service as it is but you might be happy to pay a small one off fee for lifetime online for a single game like Splatoon etc?

[Sheikah]

20+ online-enabled NES games for £18 a year is crazy good value, never mind the cloud saves, discounts and online stuff. NES games on VC would cost, what around 5 quid each?

Ehh...I find most NES games pretty boring to be honest, and I'll bet a lot of fans will have bought the good ones on previous VCs. If the NES games were a separate and optional deal I can't imagine many people here would be signing up for this.

 

You also don't 'get' them as I recall, you lose access to each after the month is up. Not very good value in my opinion.

 

[Ronnie]

1 minute ago, Sheikah said:

You also don't 'get' them as I recall, you lose access to each after the month is up. Not very good value in my opinion.
 

That was a misconception when they first talked about this before the Switch launch, it's since been clarified that isn't the case.

[S.C.G]

Arlo, on point as always.

[Hero-of-Time]

Great video by Arlo. He also put one out about the state of the eShop the other week which is also worth a watch.

[nekunando]

I just watched the Arlo video and he has pretty much nailed my thoughts on the Virtual Console and just how disappointing it is that the possibility of having basically all of Nintendo's classics available on Switch, docked and portably, doesn't seem like it is likely to be realised in the way that many of us desire

[Kaepora_Gaebora]

I think it's a good thing Nintendo aren't bringing VC to Switch as we know it; it needs to be revamped for definite.

Trotting out the same old "this week it's...Super Mario Bros 2" style wears off quickly and already has for me. If they integrate it into the online service more I'm all for that, mix it up a bit. Coupled with the mini devices, they are still bringing the nostalgia, just in a different way.

[Kav]

If Nintendo had their back catalogue available as a Netflix-type service alongside their Online, then I’d pay up in a heartbeat!

As it is, I’ll pass.

[Hero-of-Time]

Just now, Kav said:

If Nintendo had their back catalogue available as a Netflix-type service alongside their Online, then I’d pay up in a heartbeat!

As it is, I’ll pass.

I think with it being NES games only ( at least for the moment ) a lot of people, myself included, are put off by it. If they unleashed their whole back catalogue it would be a no brainer. You look at something like what Microsoft has done with the Game Pass and Nintendo really should have done something similar. They have more than enough games across all of their consoles to pull off such a thing.

Jim has his say on the whole online announcement.

 

[Sheikah]

Jim makes a good point that all the good online experiences are pretty much the same as what we've already had for free on Wii U and former consoles (MK, Splatoon, Smash). I see no value in the service, it's purely a cash grab.

[Ronnie]

4 hours ago, Kav said:

If Nintendo had their back catalogue available as a Netflix-type service alongside their Online, then I’d pay up in a heartbeat!

As it is, I’ll pass.

Isn't that exactly what they're doing? Just with only NES games for now?

 

18 minutes ago, Sheikah said:

Jim makes a good point that all the good online experiences are pretty much the same as what we've already had for free on Wii U and former consoles (MK, Splatoon, Smash). I see no value in the service, it's purely a cash grab.

Nintendo going against standard industry practise of charging for online for a console or two doesn't mean it should be free forever.

It's not a cash grab, online servers, and cloud storage cost money.

[Sheikah]

Nintendo going against standard industry practise of charging for online for a console or two doesn't mean it should be free forever. It's not a cash grab, online servers, and cloud storage cost money. 

 

MK8, near enough the same game, is free to play online on Wii U. Smash doesn't tend to evolve very much and you can play the last one free online on Wii U. Splatoon 2...well there's near enough that same thing with Splatoon, free to play online on Wii U.

 

That's pretty much all the big stuff available now/soon. Not a compelling package, is it? There is also no value in the app voice chat as you can just use a free app for that (e.g. Skype) if you're going to go down the app route.

 

So...you're paying for NES games that nobody wants, and cloud saves, which is a solution to a problem they created. What a crock of shit!

[Ronnie]

4 minutes ago, Sheikah said:

MK8, near enough the same game, is free to play online on Wii U. Smash doesn't tend to evolve very much and you can play the last one free online on Wii U. Splatoon 2...well there's near enough that same thing with Splatoon, free to play online on Wii U.

Great, nothing's stopping you from playing all of those online for free. If you want to play them, go for it. Nintendo certainly aren't stopping you.

Quote

That's pretty much all the big stuff available now/soon. Not a compelling package, is it?

That's your opinion. We're also a month away from E3 and who knows what will be announced. If you don't think there are enough games that warrant spending a quid 50 pence a month, then don't sign up.

Would I rather online be free? Of course I would from a selfish pov, but I realise these things cost money.

Quote

So...you're paying for NES games that nobody wants, and cloud saves, which is a solution to a problem they created. What a crock of shit!

No, you're paying for online, future discounts, cloud saves and 20+ NES games ... IF YOU WANT TO.

"NES games that nobody wants" - nice of you to speak for everyone.

Cloud saves aren't a solution to a problem they created, they're an industry standard that Playstation also charge for. And yes, I know Playstation lets you backup to USB, a feature which could be coming to the next Switch OS for all we know.

 

[Hero-of-Time]

Crazy to think that it's been 12 years since the Wii was released and here we are still talking/arguing about how shoddy Nintendo's online setup is.  

[killthenet]

6 minutes ago, Hero-of-Time said:

Crazy to think that it's been 12 years since the Wii was released and here we are still talking/arguing about how shoddy Nintendo's online setup is.  

Give them some credit, it's only been 11 years and 6 months - perfectly reasonable for them to still be finding their feet.