Hero-of-Time Posted August 10, 2018 Posted August 10, 2018 Bit weird that it's this close but still can't announce a specific date yet. 2
Happenstance Posted August 10, 2018 Posted August 10, 2018 Seems odd that only certain games will have cloud saves.
Hero-of-Time Posted August 10, 2018 Posted August 10, 2018 1 minute ago, Happenstance said: Seems odd that only certain games will have cloud saves. Indeed. Most are speculating this is due to Pokemon. I won't be happy if it's just a case by case basis. The thing should be system wide with no exceptions. 2 1
Happenstance Posted August 10, 2018 Posted August 10, 2018 2 minutes ago, Hero-of-Time said: Indeed. Most are speculating this is due to Pokemon. I won't be happy if it's just a case by case basis. The thing should be system wide with no exceptions. Yeah hopefully it is just an odd one or two that won’t for specific reasons yer just covering themselves it’s that line and not something like the streaming which should just work across the board but doesn’t.
Kav Posted August 10, 2018 Posted August 10, 2018 With this service still being half-baked, Nintendo really shouldn’t be charging for it. At least with the competition it all operates at OS level and is completely system-wide.
Ronnie Posted August 10, 2018 Posted August 10, 2018 46 minutes ago, Kav said: At least with the competition it all operates at OS level and is completely system-wide. The competition charge two to three times more, £40 and £50 a year. Nintendo are charging £18. Fail to see why Nintendo shouldn't charge for it.
Gourmetsalt Posted August 10, 2018 Posted August 10, 2018 15 minutes ago, Ronnie said: The competition charge two to three times more, £40 and £50 a year. Nintendo are charging £18. Fail to see why Nintendo shouldn't charge for it. They both provide games with their service on a monthly basis. Nintendo is giving us ROMS of games that were released before I was born. Furthermore, if the online gameplay is utterly horrible as it was for Smash on WiiU, this will be infuriating. If you are charging me as your competition does, at least I should expect the same quality of service. 2
Ronnie Posted August 10, 2018 Posted August 10, 2018 (edited) 26 minutes ago, Gourmet / Esperpento said: They both provide games with their service on a monthly basis. Nintendo is giving us ROMS of games that were released before I was born. Comes down to different tastes. I haven't played any PS+ games in over a year but am way more likely to play NES/SNES games (with online multiplayer added I might add). Maybe if Nintendo charged £50 like Playstation does instead of £18 they might give us more modern games, but they obviously prefer a cheaper, more basic approach. 26 minutes ago, Gourmet / Esperpento said: Furthermore, if the online gameplay is utterly horrible as it was for Smash on WiiU, this will be infuriating. If you are charging me as your competition does, at least I should expect the same quality of service. I guess we'll have to see what the service will be like before judging. I hope the delay in launching means that it'll be more robust than in the past. Edited August 10, 2018 by Ronnie
Agent Gibbs Posted August 10, 2018 Posted August 10, 2018 Are we going to get some more info before it comes in? because right now it seems thin on the ground for any info - app update, what all the games are, what more will be added and how regularly etc. right now the info seems like playing for a beta online service and i thought we already had that
Ronnie Posted August 10, 2018 Posted August 10, 2018 15 minutes ago, Agent Gibbs said: Are we going to get some more info before it comes in? because right now it seems thin on the ground for any info - app update, what all the games are, what more will be added and how regularly etc. right now the info seems like playing for a beta online service and i thought we already had that Don't think there's much info left tbh, realistically just the remaining 10 NES games at launch. Probably a Direct in September but can't imagine they'll spend much time on the online service.
Sméagol Posted August 10, 2018 Posted August 10, 2018 Yup. A short Nintendo Online Direct next month, where they fill us in on the remaining (and no doubt lacklustre) details, but then close off with a Test Smash announcement, which will sell the service on its own. I still expect a Test Smash to launch the service.
Ashley Posted August 10, 2018 Posted August 10, 2018 2 hours ago, Ronnie said: The competition charge two to three times more, £40 and £50 a year. Nintendo are charging £18. Fail to see why Nintendo shouldn't charge for it. Costs (and particularly perceived value) depends on content. Saying they charge little means it's fine they give little isn't much of an argument when they could give more and charge more. 2
Ronnie Posted August 10, 2018 Posted August 10, 2018 23 minutes ago, Ashley said: Costs (and particularly perceived value) depends on content. Saying they charge little means it's fine they give little isn't much of an argument when they could give more and charge more. It's not an argument either way. My point is you can't compare the content of both when they aren't priced equally. Personally I wouldn't pay more for more. I don't use online much, so the current plan suits me fine. I'd pay £18 a year just to have 20+ NES/SNES games tbh.
Ashley Posted August 10, 2018 Posted August 10, 2018 12 minutes ago, Ronnie said: It's not an argument either way. My point is you can't compare the content of both when they aren't priced equally. Yet you did... Anyway, it's great it's ideal for you. I'm still undecided as there's nothing in the package that I feel I need right now, but maybe down the line. 2
Sheikah Posted August 10, 2018 Posted August 10, 2018 It's not an argument either way. My point is you can't compare the content of both when they aren't priced equally. Personally I wouldn't pay more for more. I don't use online much, so the current plan suits me fine. I'd pay £18 a year just to have 20+ NES/SNES games tbh. Sure you can compare them, just scale it. Nintendo charge half, they should give half as much. Right now their paltry offering is not even an eighth. It's an embarrassment. 1
Julius Posted August 10, 2018 Posted August 10, 2018 (edited) 17 hours ago, Ronnie said: It's not an argument either way. My point is you can't compare the content of both when they aren't priced equally. Personally I wouldn't pay more for more. I don't use online much, so the current plan suits me fine. I'd pay £18 a year just to have 20+ NES/SNES games tbh. This doesn’t make much sense, but just to prove that we can make such a comparison. £50 for NES Classic, which comes with a controller (RRP of £7.99), so £42 for the console and the 30 games that come with it. Let’s argue that the cost of the console itself is negligible to price the games up a bit: £42/30 games = £1.40/game. So, at £1.40/game, 20 games would cost £28 — at face value, that’s a £10 saving being made by having Online, which seems like a good deal. Sure, different games would cost different prices in a virtual marketplace, but I chose to use the NES Classic here as a source for Nintendo’s valuation of these games because they chose the games to be included themselves. But let’s compare it now to PS+. PlayStation Plus costs £50/year, and you get up to 24 games per year. Let’s say we choose PS4 titles as are two games per month, because they cost the most. £50/24 games is just over £2/game. NES games are nearing on thirty decades old, and you’re getting games from a couple of years ago and some change for just 60p more per game with PS+ when compared to Online. Just taking PS+’s 2017 offering into account, off the top of my head, both Metal Gear Solid V and Just Cause 3 were available last year as part of their catalogue of free games for PS+ members — they currently have an RRP of £25 on the PlayStation Store...each. Meaning that if we’re going to average everything out, you’re saving ~£23 on the current RRP of those two games alone (I would assume that they cost even more at the time that they were available to PS+ members). The other 22 games that you chose last year would have needed to save you a further £4 for you to have effectively broken even with your annual subscription outlay. Meaning that, in all likelihood, you were practically in the position that PlayStation were effectively paying you in video games to just sign-up for their service. Its not a perfect world, so yes, you are still paying £50/year to our corporate overlords for an imperfect service in the form of some inconsistent servers, and there are plenty of other issues which could be argued about, but I think you catch my drift: PS+, just as an example, is currently of much greater (edit:) objective value to a customer than Nintendo Switch Online is being described as having. Nintendo could have just had a Virtual Console subscription, perhaps even with different tiers, and offer everyone the typical online interactivity (just copy PlayStation and Xbox on this one, because it’s clear that they know what they’re doing) for free, and have still made a huuuuuuuge profit. Not only that, but they would have completely avoid the unarguable divide that their handling of, and plans for, Switch Online have brought about, which I think is much more important than whatever content they decide to include in an online subscription service. Edited August 11, 2018 by Julius Caesar 2
Ronnie Posted August 10, 2018 Posted August 10, 2018 4 hours ago, Sheikah said: Sure you can compare them, just scale it. Nintendo charge half, they should give half as much. Right now their paltry offering is not even an eighth. It's an embarrassment. To you. I conversely haven't touched any of the PS+ games in over a year. I'll be cancelling my overpriced subscription there (£50 RRP, really??) but I'm more than happy paying £18 for a Netflix style Nintendo catalogue.
Ronnie Posted August 10, 2018 Posted August 10, 2018 4 hours ago, Ashley said: Yet you did.. I didn't. I was stating the prices of both services as an example of how their feature set is incomparable.
Helmsly Posted August 11, 2018 Author Posted August 11, 2018 (edited) I don't think it's s a good deal at all. The online service itself has no form of communication whatsoever between you and the people on your friends list, there's no way to invite them to a game and online games are run via P2P rather then on servers (as far as I know). All of that seems to be remaining exactly the same and now they're charging for it. I am expected to think this is a great deal because they are throwing in 20 NES games with it, but personally I don't care about that as an extra and I'd bet a fair amount of other people won't either, even if you can play some of those games online. If there was a cheaper option where you don't get the NES games, I'd go for that instead. Even then, I don't think the current way the Switch handles online is worth paying for at all. It should remain free if they're just going to keep it the way it is. Edited August 11, 2018 by Helmsly
Sheikah Posted August 11, 2018 Posted August 11, 2018 To you. I conversely haven't touched any of the PS+ games in over a year. I'll be cancelling my overpriced subscription there (£50 RRP, really??) but I'm more than happy paying £18 for a Netflix style Nintendo catalogue. Even if you like the NES games more you're still not getting half the important online features or value of games for half the price of the PSN sub. The price of Nintendo's sub is simply a poor deal - and I think you'll have a hard time convincing anyone else here otherwise. Should also be worth noting that people don't usually pay anywhere close to the £50 RRP for their PSN subs unless they literally don't know how to shop around. I recently got 15 months for £20. I find it difficult to believe there will be similar reductions for Nintendo's sub though, it's just not Nintendo's style. 1
MindFreak Posted August 11, 2018 Posted August 11, 2018 At first I was sure that I'd buy it, mainly for the cloud saves and the possibility to play online once in a while. But now I'm not sure, I don't care one bit for thirty years old games as I've played the ones I want to play. And then someone asked me, why I want to backup my saves and I couldn't answer that with a reasonable argument except for multiplayer games with unlockables, e.g. Smash Ultimate, or games that I am currently playing (Yooka-Laylee and Enter the Gungeon). Other than that, I don't really care about my progress in games that I'm done with and thus, cloud saves are not really that important. Hence I don't really think that the value is high and Nintendo should.just offer online for everybody and then a subscription to a service that enhances the online, for instance those extra NES-games and voice chat or something like that. Also, a Japanese tweet from Nintendo indicated that there won't be a Direct for this but rather just an announcement like with Labo, a video and a press release with a FAQ.
Mandalore Posted August 13, 2018 Posted August 13, 2018 What exactly does it mean by online? Literally streaming the game, or does it have new online features?
Sméagol Posted August 13, 2018 Posted August 13, 2018 2 minutes ago, Mandalore said: What exactly does it mean by online? Literally streaming the game, or does it have new online features? I'm going to assume it's exactly like classic local multiplayer, except instead of local, it's online. So in SMB3's case you can join a friend and then play in turns after dying, and play together in the mario bros minigame.
Recommended Posts