dazzybee Posted February 23, 2018 Posted February 23, 2018 On 20/02/2018 at 1:24 PM, Rummy said: Please have some regard for yourself dazzy, I know you're not and I'm not looking to come down on this - but you HAVE to surely see how easily this is justification for a trolling/flamebaiting accusation when two such polar opposite statements are posted not that many hours apart. Don't get me wrong though - I agree with you it WOULD be stupid business sense to split the service into two halves, but it's ALSO imo stupid business sense to suddenly charge for a free service halfway through that I am pretty much 100% confident will get complaints from consumers who will say they did not realise this was going to happen and why did the game they could play for free yesterday suddenly become not free etcetc. I can't say I've got a sensible middle ground solution between both of these stupid ideas either I don't think any (bar you) thought it was flaimbating or trolling. And they're not even remotely contradictory. One is a genuine questions I asked Shiekah, the other is my opinion on the matter. Whatever the answer to the first, doesn't change my opinion. How is that contradictory? I think for me, because I've known paid online was coming at the moment this thing was formally announced, I don't understand why people see it as an issue. There'll be some people who'll complain - there always is about everything. But ultimately it'll be a small issue, people will get used to it, and next year we'll forget it was any different. Ultimately, don't think there is much of a middle ground, paid online is coming.
Sheikah Posted February 23, 2018 Posted February 23, 2018 I think for me, because I've known paid online was coming at the moment this thing was formally announced, I don't understand why people see it as an issue. But you knowing it's coming surely doesn't have any bearing on other people, which is why it's odd to see you then say you don't understand other people's viewpoint. I knew "it" (quotation marks as we don't really know what "it" is) was coming and I still think the idea to reverse an 18 month free online situation in certain games is poor. From a PR situation it's ridiculous, never mind what warning they may have given (poor warning advertising IMO). Mostly though, I don't think paid online is suited to a lot of Nintendo's games. I see Mario Kart as the game you might whip out just once in a while that doesn't feel suited to paying subscriptions. That's just me I know, but I also don't see enough there that would want to make me pay the subscription, unless the other stuff we will get is that good. Ultimately, don't think there is much of a middle ground, paid online is coming. Well I can only hope that their use of vague language is to give them flexibility in this matter.
dazzybee Posted February 23, 2018 Posted February 23, 2018 8 minutes ago, Sheikah said: But you knowing it's coming surely doesn't have any bearing on other people, which is why it's odd to see you then say you don't understand other people's viewpoint. I knew "it" (quotation marks as we don't really know what "it" is) was coming and I still think the idea to reverse an 18 month free online situation in certain games is poor. From a PR situation it's ridiculous, never mind what warning they may have given (poor warning advertising IMO). Mostly though, I don't think paid online is suited to a lot of Nintendo's games. I see Mario Kart as the game you might whip out just once in a while that doesn't feel suited to paying subscriptions. That's just me I know, but I also don't see enough there that would want to make me pay the subscription, unless the other stuff we will get is that good. Well I can only hope that their use of vague language is to give them flexibility in this matter. I understand peoples viewpoint, I just don't agree with it. You kept saying it's anti-consumer, no benefit to consumer paying for it. You can say that about everything can't you? It's not better for the consumer to pay for everything, it's better to get everything for free? But it's such a non-argument. I get that people may not know, but they soon will know. Then they make a decision whether they want to or not. And for Nintendos game not suited to online... I mean... I don't know even know where to start with that; so you think people don't play Mario kart other than the odd time? Smash brothers wouldn't be big online game, or splatoon isn't, or arms doesn't have a community... Why are Nintendos online games (never mind 3rd parties) not worthy of paying a subscription compared to others? 1
Sheikah Posted February 23, 2018 Posted February 23, 2018 It's not better for the consumer to pay for everything, it's better to get everything for free? But it's such a non-argument.You're right, it's a non-argument. Because it's already happened with free to play, subscription-free games like Fortnite. That shows exactly the point I'm making - you don't need to wrap everything up in your subscription plan. And in the case where people will have been playing 18 months and a furore is likely, you definitely don't. It's bad PR for one, and the other point is that it's a legacy game that came before the service and will therefore probably only benefit at the OS level. And for Nintendos game not suited to online... I mean... I don't know even know where to start with that; so you think people don't play Mario kart other than the odd time? Smash brothers wouldn't be big online game, or splatoon isn't, or arms doesn't have a community... Why are Nintendos online games (never mind 3rd parties) not worthy of paying a subscription compared to others?What is difficult to understand about that? I regularly play my Switch and have probably the majority of people on here added, yet when I check my friends online on Switch there's nothing like what I see on my PS4 friends list playing the so called "big" multiplayer games as often. Not even close. I am quite convinced that games like Mario Kart for the vast majority are more casual, occasional experiences and that's why I don't feel the subscription model would be particularly justified, at least in my case. Nintendo also only make so many games, and only a selection of them have good lasting online multiplayer. And then the third party games with multiplayer are usually almost always better suited to the more powerful consoles. And for the record I would not consider Smash among the online games worth the subscription - Smash online has never felt snappy to me and generally not enjoyable to play that way, it's not a patch on local multiplayer. Obviously this post is very anecdotal and you will get people saying "well I feel the opposite", but almost every night I boot up my PS4 I can easily find 5-10 N-Europers playing multiplayer games. Nothing like that for me on Switch. 1
dazzybee Posted February 23, 2018 Posted February 23, 2018 30 minutes ago, Sheikah said: You're right, it's a non-argument. Because it's already happened with free to play, subscription-free games like Fortnite. That shows exactly the point I'm making - you don't need to wrap everything up in your subscription plan. And in the case where people will have been playing 18 months and a furore is likely, you definitely don't. It's bad PR for one, and the other point is that it's a legacy game that came before the service and will therefore probably only benefit at the OS level. What is difficult to understand about that? I regularly play my Switch and have probably the majority of people on here added, yet when I check my friends online on Switch there's nothing like what I see on my PS4 friends list playing the so called "big" multiplayer games as often. Not even close. I am quite convinced that games like Mario Kart for the vast majority are more casual, occasional experiences and that's why I don't feel the subscription model would be particularly justified, at least in my case. Nintendo also only make so many games, and only a selection of them have good lasting online multiplayer. And then the third party games with multiplayer are usually almost always better suited to the more powerful consoles. And for the record I would not consider Smash among the online games worth the subscription - Smash online has never felt snappy to me and generally not enjoyable to play that way, it's not a patch on local multiplayer. Obviously this post is very anecdotal and you will get people saying "well I feel the opposite", but almost every night I boot up my PS4 I can easily find 5-10 N-Europers playing multiplayer games. Nothing like that for me on Switch. Haha, a case study of one, what a clinical trial. I've had plus for 4 years, played it online a handful of times, I wouldn't profess that that situation is the norm. And people will play smash brothers an incredible amount for years and years, splatoon too, and many many others. When I boot up the switch I have loads of friends playing, 12 people were playing Mario kart last night for example, like most of them do every single week. A few of us have played rocket league over 100 hours each since launch, some over 200 (looking at you JBS), Smash brothers, animal crossing etc will be insane online games. Personal preferences aside, it's a very strange thing to say. Any even so, doesn't the fact it's a third of the price as the others justify even further?!
Kaepora_Gaebora Posted February 23, 2018 Posted February 23, 2018 5 minutes ago, dazzybee said: Haha, a case study of one, what a clinical trial. I've had plus for 4 years, played it online a handful of times, I wouldn't profess that that situation is the norm. And people will play smash brothers an incredible amount for years and years, splatoon too, and many many others. When I boot up the switch I have loads of friends playing, 12 people were playing Mario kart last night for example, like most of them do every single week. A few of us have played rocket league over 100 hours each since launch, some over 200 (looking at you JBS), Smash brothers, animal crossing etc will be insane online games. Personal preferences aside, it's a very strange thing to say. Any even so, doesn't the fact it's a third of the price as the others justify even further?! 175 hours, thank you very much.
Nicktendo Posted February 23, 2018 Posted February 23, 2018 9 minutes ago, Kaepora_Gaebora said: 175 hours, thank you very much. So I guess I'm the sad act who has the highest play time. 185 hours and counting, it's even overtaken Zelda as my most played Switch game. 1
dazzybee Posted February 23, 2018 Posted February 23, 2018 Didn’t see the post either. So back on track. Will they listen to the backlash on forcing the use of the app for voice chat and lobbies and such and build it into the switch?
Glen-i Posted February 23, 2018 Posted February 23, 2018 2 minutes ago, dazzybee said: Didn’t see the post either. So back on track. Will they listen to the backlash on forcing the use of the app for voice chat and lobbies and such and build it into the switch? That's a possibility, given the severe backlash to the app. I hope they do, but it's possible that they flat out drop anything to do with voice chat altogether. Impossible to tell with Ninty. 1
Nicktendo Posted February 23, 2018 Posted February 23, 2018 3 minutes ago, dazzybee said: Didn’t see the post either. So back on track. Will they listen to the backlash on forcing the use of the app for voice chat and lobbies and such and build it into the switch? It's Nintendo, so no Reggie will come out at E3 talking about a "unique" and "innovative" online, which will for all intents and purposes be sub-par and cumbersome. Yay! 1 2
Londragon Posted February 23, 2018 Posted February 23, 2018 It's Nintendo, so no [emoji3] Reggie will come out at E3 talking about a "unique" and "innovative" online, which will for all intents and purposes be sub-par and cumbersome. Yay!That’s my worry. After reading reviews of PayDay 2 and its complete lack of voice chat, a game which can’t do without it, it’s a long wait until September. Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk
Hero-of-Time Posted April 27, 2018 Posted April 27, 2018 I guess this isn't going to be getting it's own Direct but rather a quick update on the website. 1
Julius Posted April 27, 2018 Posted April 27, 2018 (edited) More news on Online coming early May. Smart move by Nintendo. This should get them way ahead of the curb for E3 and Online’s launch, so I hope they go into as much detail as possible. Here’s hoping for some more information on what they plan to do with Virtual Console! EDIT: Greninja’d Edited April 27, 2018 by Julius Caesar 3
Helmsly Posted May 8, 2018 Author Posted May 8, 2018 (edited) Nintendo have updated their online page with details of what a subscription gets you: https://www.nintendo.com/switch/online-service/ Cloud saves confirmed for subscribers. Free 20 NES games with added online play for subscribers. From May 15th Nintendo will introduce a Familiy system that will allow to link up to Nintendo Accounts You can buy a subscription for an individual account or for a Familiy (more expensive but a better deal) You can link your account to multiple Switches and don't need to subscribe multiple times The previously announced price of $20 yearly is for individual users. Other accounts on your Switch won't be able to use online services. if you want to share your subscription with other accounts (either on your console or another one) you can buy a family plan for $35 yearly. 10 of the 20 NES games are shown here: https://www.nintendo.com/switch/online-service/nes/ Soccer Tennis Donkey Kong™ Mario Bros.™ Super Mario Bros.™ Balloon Fight™ Ice Climber™ Dr. Mario™ The Legend of Zelda™ Super Mario Bros.™ 3 Edited May 8, 2018 by Helmsly 5
MindFreak Posted May 8, 2018 Posted May 8, 2018 I had hoped that cloud saving wasn't only for subscribers but oh well. It's cheap so will probably get the subscription just for that. I don't care for the NES-games at all, although online SMB3 could be fun.
Julius Posted May 8, 2018 Posted May 8, 2018 (edited) 4 hours ago, Helmsly said: Nintendo have updated their online page with details of what a subscription gets you: https://www.nintendo.com/switch/online-service/ Cloud saves confirmed for subscribers. Free 20 NES games with added online play for subscribers. From May 15th Nintendo will introduce a Familiy system that will allow to link up to Nintendo Accounts You can buy a subscription for an individual account or for a Familiy (more expensive but a better deal) You can link your account to multiple Switches and don't need to subscribe multiple times The previously announced price of $20 yearly is for individual users. Other accounts on your Switch won't be able to use online services. if you want to share your subscription with other accounts (either on your console or another one) you can buy a family plan for $35 yearly. 10 of the 20 NES games are shown here: https://www.nintendo.com/switch/online-service/nes/ Soccer Tennis Donkey Kong™ Mario Bros.™ Super Mario Bros.™ Balloon Fight™ Ice Climber™ Dr. Mario™ The Legend of Zelda™ Super Mario Bros.™ 3 This actually sounds quite promising, at least to me. The way that they’re handling cloud saves, as far as I can tell, is the same as PlayStation and Xbox, so I don’t think anyone can complain too much about that if that is the case. I own a number of those NES games, but have only played a select few, and personally wouldn’t mind playing through them, especially with added online functionality. My only concern would be that the vast majority of Switch owners have more than likely already played some/all of those games and aren’t enticed by added online functionality. I’m hoping that this means that previous titles from all of their legacy platforms won’t be tied to such a service if and when they do come to Switch, and that we see the return of a Virtual Console-style set-up that is hopefully a bit more fleshed out and streamlined as a result; personally, I really do not like the idea of a Netflix-style service and would rather pay for and own the games myself as opposed to having them tied to an online service, so hopefully their silence on such a topic (NES games aside) is an indicator that that isn’t part of their plan. The family subscription, at least at first glance, sounds like a very smart idea too, and the online subscription prices currently being quoted seem more than fair given the current state of other online services. All in all, I think the newly announced items are interesting, and a good way to go. I’m still a bit worried about how well the online service will actually perform, and from everything that I’ve read, the smartphone app needs a complete overhaul, but it was smart of them to get this information out ahead of E3. There are still a few areas which aren’t fully explored in this newest release of information, so I hope that they leave this to the side during E3 to focus purely on the games and return to it in a dedicated Direct in July or August. I’m definitely inclined to pick up a subscription when I get a Switch later this year, if only for the special offers With this out of the way and no news on their plans for legacy titles beyond the NES, I wonder if they’re saving Virtual Console/whatever it will be called for E3? Dare I even suggest a shadow launch, on the day following their video presentation? (If you can’t tell, I really want Virtual Console on Switch...) Edited May 8, 2018 by Julius Caesar
MindFreak Posted May 8, 2018 Posted May 8, 2018 Oh, from the FAQ on the website: Quote Which games require a Nintendo Switch Online membership to access online play? Nintendo Switch games such Splatoon 2, ARMS, Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, Mario Tennis Aces, and Sushi Striker: The Way of Sushido, will require a Nintendo Switch Online membership, but other games will vary. Guess that clarifies the discussion here from earlier. 2
Hero-of-Time Posted May 8, 2018 Posted May 8, 2018 Quote Online Play: A Nintendo Switch Online membership will be needed to participate in co-op and competitive online features for many current and upcoming Nintendo Switch games, such as Splatoon 2, Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, ARMS, Mario Tennis Aces and Sushi Striker: The Way of Sushido. Nintendo Switch Online App: The Nintendo Switch Online smartphone application can be used to enhance the online experience for compatible games through voice chat and other features. As many of us expected, it looks like no games will be exempt from paying a fee to play them online. I had hoped they would ditch the mobile app thing that they were pushing last year but it seems that is still their plan, with voice chat still being tied to it. Gotta say, i'm very disappointed with all of this. I had hoped that with the service being delayed a year that Nintendo would have made the offering far more substantial but it seems nothing has changed. Also, as pointed out by many on Resetera, it's a bit shocking that they are locking back up saves behind a paywall. If you could do this locally for free then there would be no issue but as it stands you are having to pay just to protect your save data. I doubt I will be jumping in on this. Yeah, the fee is small, especially when compared to the other 2 console manufacturers, but there has yet to be a game released that has hooked me enough to justify spending money on an online subscription. NES games that I have already played a thousand times ain't exactly making the deal any sweeter. I'm still eager to see how Pokemon is going to handle this online fee... 2
Hero-of-Time Posted May 8, 2018 Posted May 8, 2018 6 minutes ago, Julius Caesar said: The way that they’re handling cloud saves, as far as I can tell, is the same as PlayStation and Xbox, so I don’t think anyone can complain too much about that if that is the case. Both other consoles offer ways to back up your data locally for free, which is why many are kicking off with Nintendo actually charging for it and not giving players another option. Hopefully this will change. 2
Julius Posted May 8, 2018 Posted May 8, 2018 (edited) Quote Starting May 15, 2018, it will be possible to create a Nintendo Account Family Group via your Nintendo Account settings. One Nintendo Account can create a family group and up to 7 other Nintendo Account holders can join it; all members of the group will have access to Nintendo Switch Online family membership. ~$4.40 if you split the $35 cost with the maximum seven other Nintendo Account holders seems like something that many will want to take advantage of. I’m curious if this is by design or if Nintendo have been a bit too innocent in assuming that users will use the Family membership as it was designed (i.e. for a family)? 23 minutes ago, Hero-of-Time said: Both other consoles offer ways to back up your data locally for free, which is why many are kicking off with Nintendo actually charging for it and not giving players another option. Hopefully this will change. My bad forgot that PS Plus only expands storage for users, but it’s offered regardless; in which case, I’m not a fan of how it’s behind a paywall either. And yeah, I’m definitely getting the sense that Pokémon will be one of the titles exempt from the online subscription cost. It’s a system seller which always manages to play on nostalgia to the right degree for most (though notably a bit too much for some) much like Zelda and Mario. I don’t think I’m too concerned about a potential backlash which might arise from Bank returning as a paid service in addition to the cost of the online subscription, because every generation of Pokémon is keen to include every single species across their respective games (something I’m personally not a fan of, but alas) due to how competitive play is handled (i.e. a Pokémon must be native to the current generation of games to be used in tournaments, etc.). Then again, I could definitely see a small minority of hardcore competitive players being irked by that, seeing as they would feel obliged to pay for Bank to transfer their perfect Pokémon for breeding to the new games. Edited May 8, 2018 by Julius Caesar
FireMeowth Posted May 8, 2018 Posted May 8, 2018 Yeah, I don't think anyone can - or should, at least - complain that cloud saves require a subscription, but not having local save backup options definitely sucks. Just let me use all that space on my microSD card, Nintendo... The family subscription plan is pretty good, at least. I have no interest in playing online, NES games, or their special offers (assuming that they'll probably be eShop discounts, and I always buy physical), so the cloud saves are the only part I'd be paying for, but if I can split the bill with a few of my family members it doesn't sound too horrible... ...But they should still definitely add local save backups.
Hero-of-Time Posted May 8, 2018 Posted May 8, 2018 7 minutes ago, Julius Caesar said: And yeah, I’m definitely getting the sense that Pokémon will be one of the titles exempt from the online subscription cost. Honestly, I don't see how they could justify not charging to play Pokemon online when every other game is behind the subscription service. I mean, both Mario Kart and Splatoon are huge sellers as well but they are part of the service. If Nintendo start picking and choosing what games do and do not need the subscription service then things are going to get messy, especially when some gamers value one franchise over the other.
drahkon Posted May 8, 2018 Posted May 8, 2018 There's no way Pokémon won't be behind the subscription service. As we all know, it's a system seller and if it has online modes it will also be a subscription seller.
Glen-i Posted May 8, 2018 Posted May 8, 2018 (edited) 4 minutes ago, drahkon said: There's no way Pokémon won't be behind the subscription service. As we all know, it's a system seller and if it has online modes it will also be a subscription seller. The big "if" is what happens with Pokémon Bank going forward. I do hope the Retro games aren't tied to the online service. I just want to buy a game and own it. Is that so bad? Edited May 8, 2018 by Glen-i
Recommended Posts