Support NeoGAF

[The Hermit]

The family plan is way better than I expected.

I will share 35 with a couple of switch owners and we can have access to each other games. It's gonna be even cheaper than 20 bucks

 

[Fbh]

Since we haven't heard otherwise, we have to assume that they're just planning on being incredibly shitty.

I wouldn't be surprised if cloud saves were the only way to back up your saves once this goes live. They would need an incredible amount of user backlash that they probably won't get in order to allow users to do something for free that they're planning on charging money for.

Yeah I guess so. Just another thing that would get almost every other company backlash but when Nintendo does it it's ok.

At least to me this is the sort of thing that will end up pushing me to CFW once that's released

 

[Fitzchiv]

I really don't get how Nintendo are thinking on this one. Make NES, GB, SNES, GBA, N64 games accessible on the Switch and they solve any issues there may be with keeping older players interested between the dispersed big name titles. Surely they know this, so what baffles me is why the drip feed approach? I assume support for the above will come in time, and I also assume it's not a technological constraint making it unavailable right now, so there has to be a deliberate strategy to not making it all live from launch (or even better, from console launch).

It's a real headscratcher. The only rationale I can come up with is they think slow release will keep subs bought in for longer, and encourage new waves of adopters rather than a big glut at the start which slowly recedes as people play what they want then get bored. I guess they know their business but for me it means I'll probably just sell my Switch with nothing I really want to play on it in 2018 now.

 

[Zog]

Great price and good value with the NES games. I'm all in.

What is the going rate for NES rentals in 2018?

 

[Fbh]

It's a real headscratcher. The only rationale I can come up with is they think slow release will keep subs bought in for longer, and encourage new waves of adopters rather than a big glut at the start which slowly recedes as people play what they want then get bored. I guess they know their business but for me it means I'll probably just sell my Switch with nothing I really want to play on it in 2018 now.

They are probably still trying to figure out how they want to release SNES, N64, GB and GBA games.

It's Nintendo, there is no chance they'll make all of it available for $20 a year. Convincing executives and investors to include so many NES games with the service instead of selling them each for $8 is probably why it took so long for the service to be revealed.

My guess is that they will eventually introduce a higher tier (like $40 or $50) which gives access to more games.

 

[DryvBy]

This is super expensive given the amount of online games the Switch has. The only game I'd even both with using online for is Mario Kart (a new one as I already have the Wii U version) and Super Smash Bros.

 

[MrTroubleMaker]

^ yeah its to expensive for whats available,

Cloud saves behind a paywall is a dick move

yup :/

 

[Saiyan-Rox]

Cloud Saves: Please note: not compatible with all software.

Eep wonder what's exempt

 

[Blam]

So welcome to Xbox Live at the end of the 360 gen? Cloud saves behind a paywall nice.

 

[Zog]

So welcome to Xbox Live at the end of the 360 gen? Cloud saves behind a paywall nice.

I am expecting multimedia apps to be behind a paywall too.

 

[tim_pkmn89]

Cloud Saves: Please note: not compatible with all software.

Eep wonder what's exempt

Pokemon

 

[nowhat]

The family plan is way better than I expected.

I will share 35 with a couple of switch owners and we can have access to each other games. It's gonna be even cheaper than 20 bucks

Where you got "we can have access to each other's games"? The way I understood the family plan was that multiple people get access to the online services/cloud backups (and sure, the NES games too I guess, meh), but as to actual sharing of games between family members, I haven't seen anything to that effect yet. I'll be glad to be proved wrong, but reference please.

 

[Vawn]

I find it funny how people are excited this much lesser service is $20 a year, yet happily pay $20-$40 more PER GAME compared to the other three platforms.

 

[Pejo]

Well, my thoughts -

+It's only 20 bucks a year.
+NES games sound cool on Switch
+Cloud Saves

-Still kept god awful chat through mobile idea
-Paying for Nintendo online at all
-Locking Cloud Saves behind paywall as ONLY option to backing up saves
-With homebrew and emulators potentially on the way, why bother with Nintendo's drip feed of NES games
-Lack of compelling games to want to play online.

Anyways, I'm going to keep an eye on the homebrew scene to see where that goes before I do any sort of online plan. I have Mario Kart and ARMs but I never play either of them anymore so there's not a single reason to get this (yet) for me. That voice chat option is such a fucking joke.

 

[VectorVictor]

Well, my thoughts -

+It's only 20 bucks a year.
+NES games sound cool on Switch
+Cloud Saves

-Still kept god awful chat through mobile idea
-Paying for Nintendo online at all
-Locking Cloud Saves behind paywall as ONLY option to backing up saves
-With homebrew and emulators potentially on the way, why bother with Nintendo's drip feed of NES games
-Lack of compelling games to want to play online.

Anyways, I'm going to keep an eye on the homebrew scene to see where that goes before I do any sort of online plan. I have Mario Kart and ARMs but I never play either of them anymore so there's not a single reason to get this (yet) for me. That voice chat option is such a fucking joke.

Add to the negatives that:

-There's no uniform platform for backwards compatible titles (the Virtual Console model helped establish a baseline for consistency and quality). Now it's a wild west with publishers/developers doing whatever, whenever.
-There's no discussion of anything other than NES titles...which makes me think the Netflix style of service will be relegated to just NES titles that are reconfigured for online/network play (since they're probably the easiest to update)
-We're having to potentially buy titles again (some for the third time)

Yeah, this is a s***show on Nintendo's part, and it's only going to help bolster the homebrew/jailbreak scene for the Switch, and not hinder it in any way.

Then again, Nintendo got this crap news out now instead of sullying all of their potentially exciting announcements at E3...but I can see this still casting a pall on whatever they roll out, especially if someone in Gaming Journalism gets some integrity and calls Nintendo out on this bulls*** during the show.

 

[Deleted member 738976]

Well it will be nice to play old games online since the emulation way usually ends up in desyncs.

 

[VectorVictor]

I find it funny how people are excited this much lesser service is $20 a year, yet happily pay $20-$40 more PER GAME compared to the other three platforms.

Really you can't compare physical releases to each other--at its heart, the Switch is a mobile platform you can happen to play on your TV, and the media of choice to sell the games on adds to the cost, but provides portability.

Now, if you want to go on about the digital pricing, then you're going somewhere. There's zero reason that should cost the same as an in-store, physical purchase, or be a higher price than the same digital purchase on another platform (PC, Console, Portable).

 

[Fbh]

Now, if you want to go on about the digital pricing, then you're going somewhere. There's zero reason that should cost the same as an in-store, physical purchase, or be a higher price than the same digital purchase on another platform (PC, Console, Portable).

They don't want to piss off their retail partners. If games are cheaper digitally that might upset Gamestop, Best Buy, Amazon, etc which are still where a significant portion of game sales are being made.

Even on Ps4/Xb1 the regular price of digital games is normally higher than what you find in stores. The big difference being that on Ps4 and Xb1 we get pretty frequent sales and special offers, but with Nintendo being Nintendo we will be lucky to get 15% off some select old games during black friday.

 

[Vawn]

Really you can't compare physical releases to each other--at its heart, the Switch is a mobile platform you can happen to play on your TV, and the media of choice to sell the games on adds to the cost, but provides portability.

Now, if you want to go on about the digital pricing, then you're going somewhere. There's zero reason that should cost the same as an in-store, physical purchase, or be a higher price than the same digital purchase on another platform (PC, Console, Portable).

Are you implying mobile games should be more expensive? This has never been the case before now. In fact, it usually was just the opposite.

 

[Agent_4Seven]

Then again, Nintendo got this crap news out now instead of sullying all of their potentially exciting announcements at E3...but I can see this still casting a pall on whatever they roll out, especially if someone in Gaming Journalism gets some integrity and calls Nintendo out on this bulls*** during the show.

Never gonna happen, although there'll be planty of angry people on youtube doing exactly that... right about now.

 

[OH-MyCar]

This is so surreal to me that I'm one of Nintendo's biggest critics around here, hate the fact that everyone makes excuses for some of their dumbest shit and yet I'm fairly positive and excited about this (provided they don't drop the ball on the retro library). It's like I finally have an X-Band for the NES that doesn't require me to be tethered to a PC. I only hope there aren't a million hoops to jump through to play with strangers opposed to having to do it directly through the Friends List.

Chat via phone is still embarrassing, though. If games are taxing the Switch so much that it can't do a basic function that the Original DS could...

Edit: Ok after thinking about it more, the fact that you can't back up any save without this service is obscene. That's a big component I was overlooking.

 

[Horsemama1956]

Really you can't compare physical releases to each other--at its heart, the Switch is a mobile platform you can happen to play on your TV, and the media of choice to sell the games on adds to the cost, but provides portability.

Now, if you want to go on about the digital pricing, then you're going somewhere. There's zero reason that should cost the same as an in-store, physical purchase, or be a higher price than the same digital purchase on another platform (PC, Console, Portable).

Yeah it's a home console you can take on the road. You can try and argue otherwise but pretty much everything gets developed with max power in mind and they squeeze in the low power mobile mode.

 

[CloudStrife_ca]

Well this is good news, I'd wondered how this would work online for my fiance and I as we each have our own separate user profiles, Family plan it is. I'm thinking about $40.00 CAD.

 

[jwillenn]

What the hell do you look at and mess around with while driving?

The road?
*runs*

 

[VectorVictor]

Never gonna happen, although there'll be planty of angry people on youtube doing exactly that... right about now.

Trust me, I know. Doesn't mean that someone in gaming journalism may actually decide to do some journalism one day...but I doubt it will be any time soon and with the current model we have.

And that baby .gif always puts a smile on my face.

 

[VectorVictor]

Are you implying mobile games should be more expensive? This has never been the case before now. In fact, it usually was just the opposite.

True, but mobile games were using card sizes that were significantly below the capacity of many AAA disk-based games. Nintendo is trying to make these same, AAA disk-based games portable, so there's going to be a higher cost associated with it compared to disk games.

But again, I agree with you if you keep your scope to digital downloads. I think we can find common ground there.

 

[VectorVictor]

The road?
*runs*

Man, I hope you don't get the runs. May turn into a road...rash?

 

[MickeyPhree]

Nintendo is the only console manufacturer to charge to back up saves. What a dick move.

 

[JCK75]

I don't care about voice chat on consoles, but I do at least want to be able to do all grouping/joining friends on the device itself not on a phone.

 

[Syrklens]

What about the virtual console launch separate from the membership? Can I buy these NES games separately?

 

[DonF]

Bets on what is going to be the back up storage size? Im going with 512 mb.

 

[Vawn]

True, but mobile games were using card sizes that were significantly below the capacity of many AAA disk-based games. Nintendo is trying to make these same, AAA disk-based games portable, so there's going to be a higher cost associated with it compared to disk games.

But again, I agree with you if you keep your scope to digital downloads. I think we can find common ground there.

But card prices only explain so much. Just looking at the shelves at Wal-Mart, it's insane to see the price deferential.

I was looking for a Switch game and was considering Doom. But when I see the price of $59.88 on Switch and the cabinet over the PS4 version for $19.93, it is difficult to blame that on the cost of the cartridge.

 

[Osukaa]

I can't say that i'm impressed but hell for $20.00 a year ill take it. I wont ever play any of those NES games and most likely wont even use the phone app for the lousy excuse for voice chat but hell its Nintendo. Not that they should get a pass for this but I wasn't expecting much from them anyway. To be honest I woulda paid extra to have some sort of Trophy/Achievement system in place. My Switch hasnt been getting much use lately so I was kinda hoping the online service would add something that would make me want to boot it up more often but yeah.. all my 3rd party games are going on PS or MS for the near future. Nintendo gonna Nintendo *sigh*

 

[Caayn]

Shame about the paywall for cloud saves. Do we know if there's a storage limit?

Hoping that Pokémon Bank and mystery gift events won't be locked behind this.

 

[Cert.in.Death]

As principally opposed as I might be to pay yet another online subscription fee, $20/year is peanuts.

 

[Fbh]

But card prices only explain so much. Just looking at the shelves at Wal-Mart, it's insane to see the price deferential.

I was looking for a Switch game and was considering Doom. But when I see the price of $59.88 on Switch and the cabinet over the PS4 version for $19.93, it is difficult to blame that on the cost of the cartridge.

Did you see the Tropical freeze thread?
Sadly, a large part of the audience on switch is fine paying these prices and as long as that doesn't change prices won't either

I just checked amazon. Skyrim, which was originally released 7 years ago, is being sold for its regular price of $25 on PS4 and X1. Meanwhile the switch version is on sale.... For $51 down from $60.

The only way I can explain that, is that despite the fact that even on sale the switch version is over twice as expensive as every other version, it continues to sell well

 

[Agent_4Seven]

All of this bullshit kinda makes me wonder... The re-release of NES Classic, will it be comming this year at all and as promised for all of those people (including me) who haven't had a chance to buy it the first time around? It's just there was no mention of it since last year and since the annoucement....

 

[The_Mike]

So welcome to Xbox Live at the end of the 360 gen? Cloud saves behind a paywall nice.

Or welcome to current gen where Sony also charges for cloud save

 

[Malcolm9]

Or welcome to current gen where Sony also charges for cloud save

But with Sony you still have the option to manually back up, whereas Nintendon't.

 

[B_Signal]

I can't say that i'm impressed but hell for $20.00 a year ill take it. I wont ever play any of those NES games and most likely wont even use the phone app for the lousy excuse for voice chat but hell its Nintendo. Not that they should get a pass for this but I wasn't expecting much from them anyway. To be honest I woulda paid extra to have some sort of Trophy/Achievement system in place. My Switch hasnt been getting much use lately so I was kinda hoping the online service would add something that would make me want to boot it up more often but yeah.. all my 3rd party games are going on PS or MS for the near future. Nintendo gonna Nintendo *sigh*

apologies for singling you out, but you've just listed a lot of reasons to not hand over $20 to them. They don't deserve it, don't reward them for being greedy

 

[Agent_4Seven]

They don't deserve it, don't reward them for being greedy

Too late, we already lost him and so many others

 

[cireza]

I guess I will stop playing ARMS online in september. Not paying for a single game, and definitely not paying for cloud saves.

 

[Evil Calvin]

Sounds like Xbox One Games with Gold. You get to play the game only when you have Xbox Live Gold. If you let it lapse then you cannot play the games. I want to be able to purchase retro games and own them...not rent.

 

[Osukaa]

apologies for singling you out, but you've just listed a lot of reasons to not hand over $20 to them. They don't deserve it, don't reward them for being greedy

LOL No harm no foul your exactly correct but i'm an idiot lol I bitch and moan but most likely ill pay. I seem to have developed a taste for crow and foot in mouth lol. Its a problem and I need help.... >:0(

 

[RPGCrazied]

I don't want virtual games, specially not NES ones. The price is okay, but not playing any Nintendo multipalyer games currently. Doesn't seem worth it to me.

 

[cryptoadam]

Blame Microsoft and Sony on this one. It was great on PS3 when I didn't have to pay for online and now to play BF1/KF2 and star wars I have to pay 60$ a year. I would gladly pay 20$ a year and not have PSN+ games, discount and all the other bells and whistles.

People are getting mixed up, Nintendo isn't trying to sell VC or classic games or discounts with this service, they are just charging people to play online like their competitors. It would be great if the decided to remain free and use that as a bullet point against Sony/MS. But they decided rather than fighting it to get on board and charge online like every other console out there. For playing online they are charging the bare minimum. 1.66$ a month for online is as cheap as you can get.

The app is disapointing, but nintendo is for some crazy reason doubling down on it and want to push it. But ya if you don't care about playing games online then don't spend the 20$. You can still get on the eshop and do other online things. I bet even some 3rd party games will forego this service.

There is no good value propostition for charging people to play online games. Its just how the industry is. Xbox Live started it all and PSN followed and now nintendo. Online should be free and Xbox Live/PSN should be 40$ or something for all the bells and whistles they charge. But no one would pay for it then. So here we are having to pay for online. Nintendo is offering a bare bones service at a bare bones price. I can't wait for 2 or 3 years when Nintendo catchs up to MS/Sony and the price triples I doubt anyone will be celebrating how great it is.

 

[Vawn]

Blame Microsoft and Sony on this one. It was great on PS3 when I didn't have to pay for online and now to play BF1/KF2 and star wars I have to pay 60$ a year. I would gladly pay 20$ a year and not have PSN+ games, discount and all the other bells and whistles.

People are getting mixed up, Nintendo isn't trying to sell VC or classic games or discounts with this service, they are just charging people to play online like their competitors. It would be great if the decided to remain free and use that as a bullet point against Sony/MS. But they decided rather than fighting it to get on board and charge online like every other console out there. For playing online they are charging the bare minimum. 1.66$ a month for online is as cheap as you can get.

The app is disapointing, but nintendo is for some crazy reason doubling down on it and want to push it. But ya if you don't care about playing games online then don't spend the 20$. You can still get on the eshop and do other online things. I bet even some 3rd party games will forego this service.

There is no good value propostition for charging people to play online games. Its just how the industry is. Xbox Live started it all and PSN followed and now nintendo. Online should be free and Xbox Live/PSN should be 40$ or something for all the bells and whistles they charge. But no one would pay for it then. So here we are having to pay for online. Nintendo is offering a bare bones service at a bare bones price. I can't wait for 2 or 3 years when Nintendo catchs up to MS/Sony and the price triples I doubt anyone will be celebrating how great it is.

No thanks. I'll go ahead and blame Nintendo for this one.

Now if they were charging for something even comparable to what XB Gold and PS+ offer, we could talk.

 

[cryptoadam]

No thanks. I'll go ahead and blame Nintendo for this one.

Now if they were charging for something even comparable to what XB Gold and PS+ offer, we could talk.

but if neither of those guys charged for ONLINE play then Nintendo wouldn't either.

This service is about playing games ONLINE, not the bells and whistles. If they offered this for 60$ then it should be comparable. Since its 1/3rd the price, well you get 1/3rd the value.

ONLINE play should be free across all systems. But we don't live in that world. I would prefer the cheaper option that is bare bones, then the more expensive option with a bunch of "value" added that I don't really use. I would rather MS/Sony did what nintendo did and charged 20$ to play online and another 40$ to get the "premium" versions with all the stuff they add on. Instead I am stuck over paying to play BF1 or KF2.

 

[Vawn]

but if neither of those guys charged for ONLINE play then Nintendo wouldn't either.

This service is about playing games ONLINE, not the bells and whistles. If they offered this for 60$ then it should be comparable. Since its 1/3rd the price, well you get 1/3rd the value.

ONLINE play should be free across all systems. But we don't live in that world. I would prefer the cheaper option that is bare bones, then the more expensive option with a bunch of "value" added that I don't really use. I would rather MS/Sony did what nintendo did and charged 20$ to play online and another 40$ to get the "premium" versions with all the stuff they add on. Instead I am stuck over paying to play BF1 or KF2.

How do you know?

Did Microsoft make them charge $60 for a game they've been selling for $20 and released for $50 in 2014?

Did Sony teach them to have their customers rebuy the same classic games each time they moved to their new console?

Did anyone decide that that same games running at lower resolution and framerates should be anywhere between $10 to $40 more expensive on Nintendo hardware?

Given all the myriad of extra costs this generation with Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft have a lot to answer for.

 

[Zog]

Blame Microsoft and Sony on this one.

I'll blame Microsoft for Live Gold and Sony for PSN. This is on Nintendo.