-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Nintendo Online will be paid on Switch after initial free trial
- Thread starter maxcriden
- Start date
Sora the Cat
Member
I need to see the price before deciding not to buyt the Switch. But it certainly sucks.
Man, at least we don't have to pay per screenshot that we share to social media. Maybe they DO get it!
Obviously the IDEA of the app is not too bad. Like setting up appointments for playtime from your smartphone would be neat if not for the fact that this is the ONLY way. Once you get back home things should just run through the fucking system.
Fuck off, tendo
Obviously the IDEA of the app is not too bad. Like setting up appointments for playtime from your smartphone would be neat if not for the fact that this is the ONLY way. Once you get back home things should just run through the fucking system.
paperspace
Member
Last edited:
prag16
Banned
I doubt they show us the price prior to launch. I'm still in awe that they have the balls to do this. I'm sure all those parents will be PUMPED to pay Apple style prices for hardware and accessories plus start maintaining another subscription for little Timmy.
Polioliolio
Member
Seriously, they're going to wonder why Timmy can't get the thing to work where he plays online with his friend Billy, then if they ever understand they need to subscribe to some bullshit, it'll probably be the last Nintendo thing they buy.
birthbystars
Member
Not happy about this, but depending on the monthly download (especially being able to reach back into the backlog/VC) I might be more on board with it. But, at the very least, the VC is still open to non-paying customers.
fluffydelusions
Member
Do they even have a proper account system yet where purchases are tied to your actual account rather than the hardware?
tareqsalah1
Member
I knew this would eventually happen. It started with xbox and sony followed because we payed for xbox live and now nintendo has to do it.
Screw this
Screw this
muetimueti
Neo Member
I think the really low amount of users is almost guaranteed, the emergency change not so much...
GoldenDarkness
Banned
To me this comes across as a similar move to Capcom asking people to pay a season 2 season pass for SFV while not knowing what this pass will buy them post Akuma. (Off-topic: I mean, why not just show the new characters if they are actually brand new; what's the point in teasing those? And what about other content like single player modes and such? What are we buying here?)
Like others have pointed out, Nintendo should first prove to us that they will offer enough games with online multiplayer modes that are worth it as well as an online infrastructure that works well before starting to charge people for it (and I doubt that the short trial period will be enough to do that honestly). To ask people to pay let's say 50 euros during the first year (after summer) mostly to play Splatoon 2 and Arms online is crazy, especially because most of the other current online enabled games can more or less still be played online for free on Wii U (like MK8, or the rumored Smash port, or Splatoon 1 for that matter) and because we don't have info on many other online enabled games as of yet (first or third party).
Offering VC titles for free but with heavy restrictions or discounts on digital versions of games doesn't get me excited either since I prefer buying physical copies and because it also remains to be seen it they won't again trickle out the same overused VC games like before and if the games will run at 60hz this time. I also think that Miiverse should have returned in some capacity as that was one of the few actual cool additions they offered compared to the competition.
I'm very sceptical overall, in other words, if this will work out to our - and the larger public's - benefit at all and whether it's not just another way to squeeze more money out of already loyal customers or to get more people to buy digital versions to lower Nintendo's costs on physical releases.
Like others have pointed out, Nintendo should first prove to us that they will offer enough games with online multiplayer modes that are worth it as well as an online infrastructure that works well before starting to charge people for it (and I doubt that the short trial period will be enough to do that honestly). To ask people to pay let's say 50 euros during the first year (after summer) mostly to play Splatoon 2 and Arms online is crazy, especially because most of the other current online enabled games can more or less still be played online for free on Wii U (like MK8, or the rumored Smash port, or Splatoon 1 for that matter) and because we don't have info on many other online enabled games as of yet (first or third party).
Offering VC titles for free but with heavy restrictions or discounts on digital versions of games doesn't get me excited either since I prefer buying physical copies and because it also remains to be seen it they won't again trickle out the same overused VC games like before and if the games will run at 60hz this time. I also think that Miiverse should have returned in some capacity as that was one of the few actual cool additions they offered compared to the competition.
I'm very sceptical overall, in other words, if this will work out to our - and the larger public's - benefit at all and whether it's not just another way to squeeze more money out of already loyal customers or to get more people to buy digital versions to lower Nintendo's costs on physical releases.
Ideally, Nintendo's online would continue being free and, on addition, they'd offer a premium service for those interested in exclusive deals and whatnot. From that perspective I'd even feel like checking it out. But forced to pay for any kind of online interaction, eeeeeeeeeeeeh...
matrix-cat
Member
This is the kind of thing you might expect most companies to detail before they started asking for money. I mean, we obviously expect them to overhaul their whole account system with My Nintendo and the Switch, but they sure didn't say anything about it on stage before they dropped the paid subscription bomb P
They're probably still setting up infrastructure world wide, but have made the most process in the U.S.
It's probably going to be the same like Pokemon Go. They are going to pinpoint your location and block users from leeching their stable network infrastructure.
That's my worry.
I don't care about online Splatoon, Mario Kart or Smash but if the online portion of Animal Crossing is tied to this subscription service then I'll be annoyed.
As far as I'm concerned it's part of the core game and should be included free.
Zomba13
Member
And pay for online to use all the non-local multiplayer features in future Pokémon games.
old manatee
Banned
A list of your purchases will be split evenly between your father and the mayor.
Which is pretty sad, given how much time they've had.
Audioboxer
Member
This. Completely forgot about how ridiculous Nintendo's current network is for ownership. Wish a journalist had asked this.
If I have to pay for a subscription to upload and download mario maker levels then Nintendo has finally lost it, because I won't be paying monthly to play mario kart and smash online.
And if that's the case, there's no way I'm touching this thing. I was gonna say maybe for emulation but it doesn't even have a fucking d-pad.
Wtf.
And if that's the case, there's no way I'm touching this thing. I was gonna say maybe for emulation but it doesn't even have a fucking d-pad.
Wtf.
clay_ghost
Member
Just realized that this may kill online Pokemon lol............
Edit
As in the online aspect of Pokemon as i don't see many parents willing to pay a fee for their kids to pay online Pokemon every year. Pokemon Bank is only a small fee each year so unless Nintendo online is almost as cheap as that..........
Edit
As in the online aspect of Pokemon as i don't see many parents willing to pay a fee for their kids to pay online Pokemon every year. Pokemon Bank is only a small fee each year so unless Nintendo online is almost as cheap as that..........
Donniewahlberg
Banned
That's probably my biggest concern for online. As an adult, I don't mind paying to play online for splatoon, mario kart, smash, for me to play. When I start to think in terms of my kid though, or friends with kids who play nintendo consoles, I begin to feel a little more uneasy. How far does this reach? If animal crossing or pokemon make the jump to switch (my preference is that they would straddle both switch and 3ds), do kids hit a pay wall when they try to go to the island to play with others? When they try to access wonder trade? Kids or more casual players seeing the joy from uploading levels in mario maker and people playing them, rating them etc.
Even take Splatoon as something we know will only be on switch. It's one thing to charge for the deeper online experience. Party grouping and chat, maybe pro ranked playlists, but even just a 8 year old just playing random people online, in their own little bubble at home? Splatoon is a super friendly game that allows all ages to jump on and have fun with no negative connotations, and it would be sad if people were cut off from that.
Like all I want to know is if I can play Bomberman and Mario Kart online when they launch. Hopefully.
JetSetRadio
Banned
Kimishima doesn't fuck around, not at launch is a good move, you don't want barren wastelands online.
plagiarize
Banned
I think you'll see player numbers plummet once they start charging.
So long as Splatoon 2 isn't late summer, I'm going to get it and enjoy the free online while it lasts. But baring some dirt cheap price tag, or a huge improvement to what extra value they offer, I'm not going to pay just to play Splatoon 2 online.
wild wild rice
Member
It was smart not to release more details, primarily the cost. I hope they are reassessing this thing before officially unveiling the details.
Honestly, I could care less about the monthly game. I have like 2 years worth of unplayed stuff on PS+. I also don't give a shit about apps and smartphone integration or whatever. I just want the multiplayer paygate to be as inexpensive as possible so I can enjoy me some Splatoon year round.
PS+ is basically my Overwatch surcharge at this point in time and I'm not terribly happy aobut it.
Honestly, I could care less about the monthly game. I have like 2 years worth of unplayed stuff on PS+. I also don't give a shit about apps and smartphone integration or whatever. I just want the multiplayer paygate to be as inexpensive as possible so I can enjoy me some Splatoon year round.
PS+ is basically my Overwatch surcharge at this point in time and I'm not terribly happy aobut it.
down 2 orth
Member
They're copying everything bad about Sony and Microsoft's consoles and ignoring all the things those consoles do right. Just looking at all the Switch threads on gaf right now makes me so amazed that Nintendo could fuck up so much so quickly.
Well, somehow Sony and MS still manage to attract players for online, so it's natural for Nintendo to follow their lead. Is there any indication that a paywall made player numbers plummet for the PSN or XBL services? Or do XBO / PS4 games still have "semi-multiplayer" features running without the subscription? The market is different now and Nintendo basically has to follow.
Knowing as much as we know now (which is almost nothing), I'd be ready to pay up to $3 per month for that entry ticket, depending on the games. Monster Hunter would be a huge plus, but then again: I am a fan of local MP and Nintendo will be the best provider of that experience in any case, so I am not hurting too much.
But the more they charge, the more they would have to offer in return. Or at least add a 1 month/week or so subscription to multiplayer-heavy games like Splatoon as a preorder / Day1 or general bonus.
UserDoesNotExist
Member
This online service is a microcosm of the Switch launch in general: Nintendo is embracing the industry trends that they think will make them money, but ignoring the addendum to the industry trend where they have to actually give something extra to the consumer.
I would have been fully on board if they had a selection of, say, 5 NES and 5 SNES games rotating in and out every month, like a mini Sega Channel, but this feels like a slap in the face.
I would have been fully on board if they had a selection of, say, 5 NES and 5 SNES games rotating in and out every month, like a mini Sega Channel, but this feels like a slap in the face.
Well, at least Nintendo does not force me to install games, buy season passes or download 20GB+ "day one patches" out of the box. It's true that they're copying the bad stuff, but looking at GAF and their playing preferences, I would argue that this is the "normal" stuff by now and that people should not expect Nintendo to be friendlier than nearly every other competitor.
However, let's wait and see about the online structure and its reveal. Maybe they don't ignore all the things the other consoles "do right"?
Has that ever been the case in the past? I mean do the ever seem to put all that money back into the things that they output. Nintendo likes money, they like profits . They like high prices, they like to take high margins from developers and publishers, they like to keep all that money they've gained sitting in a large vault somewhere.
I mean a free game for a month, they cant even be bothered to compete. We'll see how that works out for them.
down 2 orth
Member
Being different from Sony and Microsoft was just about the only competitive advantage that Nintendo had left. I know that alone is not enough to succeed, but without it they sure seem a lot worse off.
The difference is that Sony and Microsoft actually have a wide array of online games on their platforms and also offer additional services to make the fee more
or less worth it.
On Switch, the online fee will just be a Splatoon, Mario Kart and Smash Bros. tax. To make matters worse, even the additional service announced so far is a joke
compared with the competition. Being able to play a 30 to 20 year old game for free for a single month is just bizarre, as if Nintendo is living in a bubble.
I hope this is at least dirt cheap.
That's not limited to Pokemon. Other franchise that kids like AC, MK, Smash, Spaloon, MH the list goes on. Overall Switch doesn't strike me as a kids friendly machine at all.
Horsemama1956
Member
Everything new I read about this things just gets worse and worse. WTF is Nintendo doing?
GeekyDad
Member
Musta just been the timing of me reading this, but I literally laughed out loud. I know that feeling...
Johannsson
Member
don't like the sound of this.
plagiarize
Banned
Both have more games with well established online communities than Nintendo has.
Also, both added much more value to their sub than Nintendo is promising.
That's why I'm thinking $30 a year sounds fair given what they've promised compared to their competitors... but it's hard to know how insulting the service is until we know the price.
Heck, they haven't even made me any promises to use that income to improve their infrastructure or servers or whatever. Wii U's online certainly wouldn't have been worth paying for. They haven't given me any indications that this is going to be worth paying for.
Unlike both Microsoft and Sony who have gone out there and justified why they're charging. Nintendo are just like... well that's normal now, right? Please pay! We'll let you borrow one twenty or thirty year old game each month! Will we make our servers any better? We're not telling!
DryvBy
Member
Their online level on Wii U was a blend of Dreamcast and Xbox Live original. I hope it's at least Xbox 360 quality if they're gonna charge but I doubt it will be.
I probably won't ever pay. I've used my Wii U online maybe a handful of times for Smash, Kart and Super Mario Maker. I can't imagine paying for online if I'm not going to use the online that much.
I wonder if they'll backtrack from this like the xbox did with drm. I just don't see that many people willing to pay for an unproven service. Nintendo doesn't have enough goodwill yet to pull a "ps+ is now $49 a year" like sony did in the middle of the conference to which no one batted an eyelash.