Nintendo Switch paid online coming 2018

[drahkon]

Just now, Glen-i said:

The big "if" is what happens with Pokémon Bank going forward.

I don't know what that is.

[Glen-i]

Just now, drahkon said:

I don't know what that is.

Cloud storage for the actual Pokémon themselves. Let's you store thousands of Pokémon and quickly transfer them between different games.

5 quid a year.

[Hero-of-Time]

Just now, Glen-i said:

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?

Yeah, that's a good point. If they do charge for playing Pokemon online are they are also going to keep the charge for Pokemon Bank? 

I was thinking about Pokemon and the cloud save situation. Surely this opens up a way to duplicate your Pokemon? 

[Glen-i]

2 minutes ago, Hero-of-Time said:

I was thinking about Pokemon and the cloud save situation. Surely this opens up a way to duplicate your Pokemon? 

That's precisely why you can't back up the save data on any of the 3DS Pokémon games. It's also why there's no restore points on the virtual console Game Boy games.

Game Freak are very strict when it comes to stuff like that. I don't think they're going to be thrilled about the online subscription. And that's before we get the overprotective Pokémon Company involved.

Edited May 8, 2018 by Glen-i

[Hero-of-Time]

Just now, Glen-i said:

That's precisely why you can't back up the save data on any of the 3DS Pokémon games. It's also why there's no restore points on the virtual console Game Boy games.

Game Freak are very strict when it comes to stuff like that.

Yeah, I know that's the reason but how are they going to get around this in the next Pokemon game? People are going to be paying money to back their save data. Are GF just going to block the ability to do that on Pokemon Switch when I presume every other game will allow it?

[Glen-i]

16 minutes ago, Hero-of-Time said:

Yeah, I know that's the reason but how are they going to get around this in the next Pokemon game? People are going to be paying money to back their save data. Are GF just going to block the ability to do that on Pokemon Switch when I presume every other game will allow it?

Honestly, I can't even hazard a guess. This is a complete unknown when it comes to Pokémon.

Say the Switch games support cloud saves. What's to stop me from backing up my save, trading someone all of my shiny Pokémon, then using my backed up data to immediately get those Pokémon back with no downsides for the person I just traded with?

And that's before we get to the ethics of those poor people who want to catch 'em all having to pay up for a subscription if they have no friends.

On the other hand, if they get exempt from the subscription, no doubt people will be crying "Why does Pokémon get special treatment!?"

Exclude Cloud Saves and you get subscribers complaining that they're not getting what they paid for.

Game Freak have been thrown in between a rock and a hard place. I can't see anyway of them coming out of this looking good.

Edited May 8, 2018 by Glen-i

[Hero-of-Time]

 

2 minutes ago, Glen-i said:

On the other hand, if they get exempt from the subscription, no doubt people will be crying "Why does Pokémon get special treatment!?"

Not that it really effects me but i'll certainly be one of those people asking that question. For me, it has to be the same thing across the board, the only exception to this rule is the game is FTP and littered with microtransactions or has it's own monthly subscription.

What about you, Glen? You play Mario Kart, Smash and Pokemon online but only when you're at Dcubed's place, correct? Is the price of the service low enough for you to jump in?

[drahkon]

5 minutes ago, Glen-i said:

Game Freak have been thrown in between a rock and a hard place. I can't see anyway of them coming out of this looking good.

No more Pokémon games. Finally.

[Julius]

Going back to how they’re handling the NES games tied to the service, though, I’m reading around and there’s a lot of confusion going on with regards to titles from other legacy platforms. 

“Will SNES, GC, etc., titles be coming to this service? It says that there’s more coming later...”; “It only makes mention of NES titles, so Virtual Console is still an option”; “no, I think this means Virtual Console is dead”, etc., etc.

Nintendo need to have whatever they’re planning for other legacy titles worked out by, and announced at, E3. The Switch is already vulnerable, and all that’s left to do for emulators to run perfectly well on Switch now is optimisation to an fps count relative to the game. 

40 minutes ago, Hero-of-Time said:

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.

Oh, I totally agree. From a PR standpoint, I think such a move is incredibly risky when taking fans of other franchises into account. I don’t think that it’s something that they should pursue, to be clear. However, I do think it’s one of the few AAA titles that, from a business perspective, makes sense to make exempt. 

For one, the online services seen in Pokémon games is incredibly basic and pared down when compared to other games. It also is, by no means, the game’s main draw; I’d argue that it belongs in a conversation alongside Odyssey’s freerunning leaderboards as opposed to the likes of Mario Kart 8 Deluxe. For many children, Pokémon will be a gateway experience into the Nintendo library of gaming, as it has been for the last 22 years, and I think it’s one of their franchises best positioned to do that.  I don’t think that confusing parents with young children with the online capabilities of the Pokémon games and a subscription price being attached to them is the way to go.

Pokémon Sun and Pokémon Moon were easily on course to cruise past the 20 million units sold mark, which would have been the first time this happened in the franchise since Pokémon Gold and Pokémon Silver. Nintendo’s radio silence on numbers since January 2017 means it’s unlikely that this mark was crossed, and the release of the divisive Pokémon Ultra Sun and Pokémon Ultra Moon likely borough Sun and Moon’s figures to a standstill. Just imagine how well a Pokémon Switch game will sell compared to this, what with a relatively older average consumer than the 3DS playing into the hands of a franchise that depends  arguably a bit too much on nostalgia.

However, my lukewarm take aside...

29 minutes ago, Glen-i said:

The big "if" is what happens with Pokémon Bank going forward.

I don’t think this can be understated.

If Bank is turned into a free app, or one that’s bundled with a purchase of a Pokémon game, then maybe Pokémon Switch will be one of the games tied to the online service. But, if not, it seems unfair to ask Pokémon players to shell out for a subsidiary service on top of the core online subscription service when players of other games don’t have to.

An important point that I forgot about up until now, though, is the actual price of the game: there is no way that Pokémon Switch doesn’t have an RRP of £59.99. The 3DS games has an RRP of £39.99, so what’s going to be so different about these games that their RRP is on the same level as games such as Super Mario Odyssey, Breath of the Wild, etc.?

As much faith as I have in Gamefreak when it comes to giving me an experience that makes me feel like a child again, I just don’t see them making this the fully fledged game that everyone optimistically wants to see at an RRP of £59.99. I think the addition of a free online for what is essentially only side content and not the main feature of the game, as well as access to a Pokémon Bank which doesn’t require any further cost, could go some ways towards justifying that kind of price tag.

Edited May 8, 2018 by Julius Caesar

[Glen-i]

6 minutes ago, Hero-of-Time said:

What about you, Glen? You play Mario Kart, Smash and Pokemon online but only when you're at Dcubed's place, correct? Is the price of the service low enough for you to jump in?

Yes, that's correct.

But no, it's not enough. And for one massive reason. Cost. I get very little disposable income. I start subscribing to this and I pretty much can't buy games anymore. It's the reason I don't  have internet access at my house.

For the more Party focused multiplayer games like Mario Kart, Smash, Rocket League, it's no big deal. Chances are high that @Dcubed will jump in for the cloud saves, so I could just use his account.

Unfortunately, games like Monster Hunter and Pokémon, where progress is a big part of the Multiplayer side, become unfeasible.

Pokémon Switch is quite likely to force me to retire from online Pokémon Battling, and that really bums me out. The competitive scene is the saving grace of the admittedly average 3DS entries for me.

[Hero-of-Time]

1 minute ago, Glen-i said:

Pokémon Switch is quite likely to force me to retire from online Pokémon Battling, and that really bums me out. The competitive scene is the saving grace of the admittedly average 3DS entries for me.

That's a shame as you do love some competitive Pokemon battling. I hope for your sake then that Pokemon does turn out to be exempt from the subscription service.  

[Dcubed]

1 hour ago, Glen-i said:

Yes, that's correct.

But no, it's not enough. And for one massive reason. Cost. I get very little disposable income. I start subscribing to this and I pretty much can't buy games anymore. It's the reason I don't  have internet access at my house.

For the more Party focused multiplayer games like Mario Kart, Smash, Rocket League, it's no big deal. Chances are high that @Dcubed will jump in for the cloud saves, so I could just use his account.

Unfortunately, games like Monster Hunter and Pokémon, where progress is a big part of the Multiplayer side, become unfeasible.

Pokémon Switch is quite likely to force me to retire from online Pokémon Battling, and that really bums me out. The competitive scene is the saving grace of the admittedly average 3DS entries for me.

I’ll probably be getting the family membership, so you’ll be able to piggyback off of that.

 

As for Pokemon Bank? I expect it to be integrated into the Switch Online App as part of the subscription.  You’re already getting cloud storage as part of the subscription, so it would make no sense to have to pay for a separate cloud save subscription (which would be storing very small amounts of data in comparison to Nintendo’s Switch one).  The issue of cloning is easily solved by making it so that you move Pokemon to Bank instead of copying them; so that when you transfer them, they’re deleted from your local save file.  Alternatively, they could use the current system, but make it so that the game constantly updates the cloud when you perform a local trade or save your game with matching data, preventing you from save scumming and cheating.

Edited May 8, 2018 by Dcubed

[Dcubed]

As for my own thoughts regarding the announcements?

 

Family sharing is great, cloud saves is great, needing the phone for voice chat is bad, initial NES game selection is good, no SNES games is bad, no mention of further VC support is fucking bullshit.

Overall Score: 0/10

[Julius]

The more and more we talk about it, the more I’m convinced that Pokémon Switch will be exempt. @Hero-of-Time‘s and @Glen-i‘s point about how cloud saves could lead to cloning is something I hadn’t even thought about, and is an excellent point. There’s also the issue of multiple user accounts on the Switch, and saves currently being tied to the system, which means that multiple save files for a Pokémon game would be allowed, which I just don’t see happening. Having multiple people in a household have the same game is one of the biggest ways that I imagine they cash in.

The only solution to these problems I can see them realistically using is the one that they’ve used since the first games, and that’s having the game save locally to the cartridge. That would almost certainly mean that it wouldn’t be tied to the online subscription service, in my mind?

[Julius]

9 minutes ago, Dcubed said:

...no mention of further VC support is fucking bullshit.

I’ve mentioned this before, but, personally, this is probably the sole reason that I’ve been able to hold out on purchasing a Switch for so long. As enticing as Breath of the Wild, Super Mario Odyssey, etc., are, I have an obscenely long back log of hundreds of games, about half of which I’d reckon are Nintendo games. I have no doubt in my mind that I’ll never be able to get through all of them, but the portability of the Switch is an aspect which can’t be overappreciated when it comes to playing such widely adored legacy titles. 

I’ve had to stave off the temptations of heavily investing in the Wii/Wii U/3DS Virtual Consoles, because Virtual Console has to come to Switch eventually. Right?! 

All I can think of is that they’re saving it for E3 as one of their trump cards. As great as Nintendo have been doing, they seriously need to fill out the second half of the year with some excellent titles, and I think Virtual Console being launched would help ease the mounting pressure that’s on them to deliver at this E3. 

Edited May 8, 2018 by Julius Caesar

[liger05]

Why NES games? Just skip the nes. 

 

No interest at all in classic nes games 

[Ganepark32]

While having some info is certainly better than being left in the dark, I feel it's probably in Nintendo's interests to just get all of the details out there regarding their online service. Dripping out small amounts here or there doesn't inspire confidence, especially as certain details about the paid online service were still up in the air late last year.

They'd be far better getting it all revealed now so that come E3, they're not spending time discussing this in either their pre-recorded Direct or during the Treehouse Live segments as E3 really isn't the place for that kind of talk. Get the details out now, maybe save the VC details for E3 if wanted (unless they're going for the Netflix style model which could be the case with the announcement of NES games being part of the subscription), and focus E3 on games which push the online service. Show off some big third party titles with heavy online components, free to play titles and new first party initiatives as well to drum up enthusiasm for the service but don't leave the full announcement of details till then.

There are some steps in the right direct with cloud saves and the family pass but they need to give the specifics to show exactly what's being covered beyond the already available cumbersome app for voice chat. It doesn't need to be revolutionary, it could even copy the basics of the other platform holders, but they need that info out there given their adding paid online 18 months after launch.

[liger05]

“There are currently no plans to bring classic games together under the Virtual Console banner as has been done on other Nintendo systems,” a Nintendo spokesperson told Kotaku in an e-mail late last night.

https://kotaku.com/virtual-console-...witter&utm_campaign=Socialflow_Kotaku_Twitter

[drahkon]

Well...gonna be a looooooong time until I get a Switch, then, if ever.

[Serebii]

21 minutes ago, liger05 said:

“There are currently no plans to bring classic games together under the Virtual Console banner as has been done on other Nintendo systems,” a Nintendo spokesperson told Kotaku in an e-mail late last night.

https://kotaku.com/virtual-console-...witter&utm_campaign=Socialflow_Kotaku_Twitter

Because they're adding them on their online subscription service.

1 hour ago, liger05 said:

Why NES games? Just skip the nes. 

 

No interest at all in classic nes games 

Other people do?

 

It takes time to convert and test the games too, don't forget that. I have no doubt we'll be seeing the other consoles added as time passes

 

This is what we've been asking for, a Netflix style subscription to play classic games (with added features) and now we've got it, we're still complaining because they're not dumping everything in one go with no care for quality control.

Edited May 8, 2018 by Serebii

[liger05]

16 minutes ago, Serebii said:

Because they're adding them on their online subscription service.

Other people do?

 

It takes time to convert and test the games too, don't forget that. I have no doubt we'll be seeing the other consoles added as time passes

 

This is what we've been asking for, a Netflix style subscription to play classic games (with added features) and now we've got it, we're still complaining because they're not dumping everything in one go with no care for quality control.

 

We have every right to complain if their is a lack of content. 18 months since launch and come up with some nes games. It's poor. 

Should I just assume snes, N64, Gamecube games will come? Why would I do that. 

This company has a snes mini and will probably release an N64 mini so can't see any rush to get titles on switch. 

The only people winning are the homebrew community. 

[Hero-of-Time]

17 minutes ago, Serebii said:

It takes time to convert and test the games too, don't forget that. I have no doubt we'll be seeing the other consoles added as time passes

This is something Nintendo really needs to address and comment on, if it is indeed what they plan on doing. As it stands, the message is getting mixed and reactions are pretty negative.

It's been pretty sloppy how this has been handled. Nintendo knows their user base is interested in their classic games, so why not just be upfront about it instead of dropping bits and bobs of information. All they need to say is either yes or no as to whether their legacy console games will arrive on the Switch. It baffles me that Nintendo have created this perfect handheld device but aren't letting it live up to its potential in terms of their back catalogue, at least at the moment. 

I think a lot of anger and disappointment could have been avoided if they went with Gamecube or even N64 titles. Starting from scratch again with NES stuff is just asking for trouble. N64 games are well known for their multiplayer component and having these games online for the launch of the service would have been a home run.

 

 

[Kav]

Cloud saves locked behind a pay-wall... that’s so Nintendo!

Not bothering with this. Their online games aren’t good enough to keep me off my PS4 anyhow.

The Switch is just a single-player console for my commute... even though I’ve not actually brought it on my commute for a little while now.

Edited May 8, 2018 by Kav

[liger05]

22 minutes ago, Hero-of-Time said:

This is something Nintendo really needs to address and comment on, if it is indeed what they plan on doing. As it stands, the message is getting mixed and reactions are pretty negative.

It's been pretty sloppy how this has been handled. Nintendo knows their user base is interested in their classic games, so why not just be upfront about it instead of dropping bits and bobs of information. All they need to say is either yes or no as to whether their legacy console games will arrive on the Switch. It baffles me that Nintendo have created this perfect handheld device but aren't letting it live up to its potential in terms of their back catalogue, at least at the moment. 

I think a lot of anger and disappointment could have been avoided if they went with Gamecube or even N64 titles. Starting from scratch again with NES stuff is just asking for trouble. N64 games are well known for their multiplayer component and having these games online for the launch of the service would have been a home run.

 

 

This. 

Why do we always have to start with nes. There isn't some set rule which says must start at the beginning of nintendo games. 

[Julius]

1 hour ago, liger05 said:

“There are currently no plans to bring classic games together under the Virtual Console banner as has been done on other Nintendo systems,” a Nintendo spokesperson told Kotaku in an e-mail late last night.

https://kotaku.com/virtual-console-...witter&utm_campaign=Socialflow_Kotaku_Twitter

The exact phrasing is interesting.

Quote

...under the Virtual Console banner...

This is pretty much marketing speak for “Yeah, we’re rebranding”. To what extent remains to be seen: is it a Netflix-style service as @Serebii seems to think? I don’t necessarily think so; it could just as easily be classic games brought together under a different brand name, which isn’t surprising at all, considering that Nintendo have been doing a lot of work to reinvent their brand since the NES Classic was revealed.

To be clear, the branding (Nintendo Entertainment System — Nintendo Switch Online) for the Switch online service on their site very clearly outlines that their current plans are for NES games only. Suggesting that legacy titles from the GB, SNES, GBA, GC, DS and/or Wii are guaranteed to come to this service when Nintendo are being so cryptic about it - when the text “with more on the way” is so vague as to what is actually coming - is a bit on the naive side. I absolutely agree with @Hero-of-Time: this has been handled poorly, and is notably unprofessional considering just how well Nintendo has done at accurately conveying the message of what the Switch is in its marketing campaign.

We already knew that their plans were for a rebrand in some form anyways, though; the return of a brand called Virtual Console was never on the cards, but rebranding doesn’t necessarily mean a change in concept (such as to a Netflix-style service). Here’s an excerpt of an interview from last June, conducted by Kotaku:

Quote

Kotaku: Have you guys said if there’s going to be, aside from all that, a Virtual Console experience? 

Fils-Aime: We’ve not used the term Virtual Console.

I’m both extremely worried and excited by what many seem to think Nintendo are currently proposing. 

Excited because, hey, I’d love a third party physical Final Fantasy or Dragon Quest collection for the Switch. 

But I’m worried because the phrasing of this seems to suggest that Nintendo are only going to be featuring first- and second-party games in their catalogue, regardless of whether it’s Netflix-style or just Virtual Console with a different name. While Nintendo has a great back-catalogue - arguably the greatest - the presence of a service/brand associated with a quality standard which allowed for third parties to rerelease legacy titles was a great way to incentivise third parties to do so.

I just genuinely don’t see many third parties wanting to go out of their way to optimise, market and release legacy titles. I can’t see this actually being more profitable than Virtual Console, when one considers the size of Nintendo’s back-catalogue and the low cost of their online service if shared through a Family account.