Topic: Let's talk about Nintendo Switch's online service...

[Soren]

So Nintendo kinda threw a curveball with their online services on Switch. I don't think it's for the best. Here's the details so far

- Free Online at launch: sign in on your Nintendo account, and you can play online co-op and competitive multiplayer games.
- Paid Online at Fall: With a smartphone app you can connect to Switch and have online lobbies and voice chat (a free version of this will come during the Summer).
- Monthly Game Download: You get to play a NES and SNES game with newly added online play for free for a month. The wording though makes it sound like you'll only have access to that game for that specific month only. Then you lose it.
- Exclusive deals: Yay, more 10% off deals!

I am divided on this. On one hand, Nintendo has very little to offer online that I feel like they really need to make this service worth it. Which means that fringe games that didn't have online now need to have online. Mario Party games need to have online, Mario/Kirby/Donkey Kong games need to have online co-op. Nintendo needs to go all in if they expect people to pay for this.

The monthly game thing looks like a terrible sell. I can understand a situation where you lose your games if you let your subscription expire. But I find it ludicrous to have access to a game for just one month and then either lose it forever or be forced to buy it.

As it stands, this does not feel like a good step up.

[Kairon]

It's gonna be a very hard sell for them, really they don't have the sort of software library at launch that screams for online support, but they'd be leaving so much money on the table by not having paid online. In fact, it's probably costing them oodles of money to keep it free.

On the one hand it gives them real incentive (and resources) to make good, robust online experiences and start actually attempting to catch up to competitors in this regard. On the other hand for a good long while they most likely will NOT be competitive with this as a paid service.

It's a path to set down on though, since both Sony and MS charge for full online and the world has accepted that.

It IS curious to wonder if this will pressure them to make certain types of games or experiences to justify the service though. Will everything have shoe-horned online multiplayer now, like you suggest?

[Adrock]

Pricing will dictate how well this is received. Free is obviously ideal. I think most people can live with $20 a year. Same as Xbox Live and PlayStation Plus, get the **** out of here. Nintendo is starting at a deficit because its online infrastructure has never been great, and it won't have as much content as One and PS4. Considering the epic nickel and diming Nintendo is pulling with Switch peripherals, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if Switch's online service exceeds the cost of Xbox Live and PlayStation Plus.

[lolmonade]

I'm not surprised by paid online, I AM surprised and disappointed at the wording implying that the "Free" game will no longer be available for those who downloaded it after the month ends, even with an active subscription.


Also, while I don't play Nintendo games online with other friends enough to matter, I think it's a joke it requires a separate app for inviting friends to a group, voice chat, and other online features that the consoles have baked INTO THE SYSTEM.  Maybe logic for Nintendo is that those with phones are adults (or at least teens), so they're less concerned about moderating those avenues if they're pushing it to a phone app and it's not on their particular device?  Dumb either way, IMO.


An annual subscription for me needs to be no more than $40, otherwise it really needs to wow me at launch to consider forking over for ANOTHER online subscription.

[Evan_B]

Yeah, if it were 5 dollars a month, I think I could swing it (Switch it?). But only if matchmaking in Splatoon and ARMS was really streamlined.

The "free game for a month" thing is bullshit and they should feel bad for it.

[KeyBilly]

Nintendo tends to make a mess of things when they get positive feedback.  It happened after the initial positive showing of the 3DS, after the NES/SNES era, and more recently after the Wii.  They become anti-consumer, or at least behave that way, and try to milk us mercilessly.  It usually doesn't work, and I hope it doesn't this time either.

This is referring to the presentation in general, including the console and accessory prices, lack of a bundled game, etc.  At a time when they should be humbled and seeking favor with customers as Sony did at the PS4 presentation, they went in the opposite direction and took the steam out of their comeback (and Steam is free).  They do have two incredible games this year, so it's not so bad.

[TheSevenYearSwitch]

I'm not sure what everyone's gripe is with the free for a month game. To me, FFaM > 20min demo.

You get the play the game free for a whole month, an NES or SNES game that has been upgraded and has online multiplayer. You're not paying for the game being online, you're paying for the game, and the online part continues with your paid subscription. What's so bad about that? I don't mean for that be snarky, I'm actually asking because to me it seems pretty fair. It's basically a demo, but you get it every month and without any limitations except for only having it for 30 days. No "you must purchase this game to continue to the next level" or "multiplayer is only available in the full version". Nope, you just get to play the full game, with online multiplayer, and if you like it, you buy it. That is leagues better than just getting a half-assed demo.

[lolmonade]

I'm not sure what everyone's gripe is with the free for a month game. To me, FFaM > 20min demo.

You get the play the game free for a whole month, an NES or SNES game that has been upgraded and has online multiplayer. You're not paying for the game being online, you're paying for the game, and the online part continues with your paid subscription. What's so bad about that? I don't mean for that be snarky, I'm actually asking because to me it seems pretty fair. It's basically a demo, but you get it every month and without any limitations except for only having it for 30 days. No "you must purchase this game to continue to the next level" or "multiplayer is only available in the full version". Nope, you just get to play the full game, with online multiplayer, and if you like it, you buy it. That is leagues better than just getting a half-assed demo.

For me (and I assume others here), we have a direct comparison point of PS+ or Xbox live.  Comparatively, those give you access to the games offered indefinitely for as long as you hold a subscription to their service.


Nintendo's offering may be fine to you personally, but to me, knowing that they're providing a 30 day pass instead of offering it outright, when they are NES and SNES games no less, makes the value proposition for me pretty low.


You may question the value of some of the PS+ game offerings, but it's also 2-3 games per system compared to the 1 for the switch.  I suspect this is more a reflection of how slowly Nintendo expects to trickle out virtual console games than anything else, which is another concern of mine.

[Mop it up]

Yeah, I'm not surprised at all, in fact I expected them to try paid online this time. Still bums me out though.

The cynic in me is expecting the fee to be $10 a month, or $100 if you buy a year. Lately, Nintendo has been charging a premium for most of their products and services.

The sad thing is, I could actually envision free online being a selling point against the XBONE and PS4, especially when considering the Switch as a secondary console to them. It would be one less thing owners of those systems would have to pay for if they wanted Switch games.

[Caterkiller]

Well we'll see how this goes I guess. If the price is reasonable like $20 a year I'd be cool. I really don't want to pay more than $2 a month. But If its worth it at a higher price I just may bite.

I will say that I kind of like the idea of having lobbies and stuff on my phone right next to me.

[Kairon]

A lot will obviously depend on the price. With the current lineup of games $40 for a year still sounds like a big ask for someone like me who simply doesn't play online a lot to begin with.

Hmm... I wonder what sort of title would sell me on this without question? Probably an MMO like Phantasy Star Online or Dragon Quest X... Animal Crossing would ALMOST do it for me honestly LOL

Since I'm not into PVP, I guess I'm looking for more peaceful, cooperative, collaborative reasons to pay for online multiplayer.

[Miyamoto]

I seem to flip-flop between being absolutely furious and then being beyond caring about how shambolic Nintendo can so often be when it comes to utilising their back catalogue. Their whole library (or as much as possible) should be readily available at the Switch launch and should also be extremely aggressively priced. This would counter-balance the lacklustre 2017 release schedule and drive console sales which would in turn encourage further third party support. However, Nintendo seems perfectly happy to either hide their catalogue behind unrealistic prices or simply not make it available at all. It would appear that Nintendo continue to make poor decisions and require radical changes from the top down before they can begin to compete once more.


 

[Evan_B]

I mean, SNES multiplayer games are definitely not the most compelling multiplayer experiences for online play. Many of them work much better as couch multiplayer games.

I don't know, there are other subscription services that are a bit better about giving free games and discounts. Of course, we've seen nothing of this service yet, so it's too early to judge.

[TheSevenYearSwitch]

You may question the value of some of the PS+ game offerings, but it's also 2-3 games per system compared to the 1 for the switch.  I suspect this is more a reflection of how slowly Nintendo expects to trickle out virtual console games than anything else, which is another concern of mine.

I don't own any consoles atm, so this is an honest question, but PS and Xbox give 2-3 free games every month?

[lolmonade]

You may question the value of some of the PS+ game offerings, but it's also 2-3 games per system compared to the 1 for the switch.  I suspect this is more a reflection of how slowly Nintendo expects to trickle out virtual console games than anything else, which is another concern of mine.

I don't own any consoles atm, so this is an honest question, but PS and Xbox give 2-3 free games every month?

Can't speak to Xbox live (don't pay for their service), but for PS+ this past month, 2 games were given out, and as long as your subscription service is active, you're able to access and play any game that was available that you've redeemed.

[BranDonk Kong]

The downloadable game is free to play for a month, then you have to buy it if you want to keep it. It doesn't disappear.

[lolmonade]

The downloadable game is free to play for a month, then you have to buy it if you want to keep it. It doesn't disappear.

Is anyone arguing this?  Pretty sure everyone here understands what you wrote is Nintendo's plans, I think the sticking point is why Nintendo is doing it this way when you'd expect a business like theirs to know that if they're going to charge for their online service, they're going to be compared to their peers and scrutinized accordingly.


I'm almost entirely convinced Balloon Fight will be one of the first month's games.


That said, I reserve complete judgement until I get my hands on the system in March and see what it will actually entail for features, sales, game of the month chosen, and pricing.

[BranDonk Kong]

Per the OP

- Monthly Game Download: You get to play a NES and SNES game with newly added online play for free for a month. The wording though makes it sound like you'll only have access to that game for that specific month only. Then you lose it.

Didn't see that it was clarified earlier. Still lame though, you should be able to get the game entirely for free if you pay for their online service. I have a ton of free PS3 and free PS4 games. They aren't AAA games every month, but sometimes they are.

[lolmonade]

Per the OP

- Monthly Game Download: You get to play a NES and SNES game with newly added online play for free for a month. The wording though makes it sound like you'll only have access to that game for that specific month only. Then you lose it.

Didn't see that it was clarified earlier. Still lame though, you should be able to get the game entirely for free if you pay for their online service. I have a ton of free PS3 and free PS4 games. They aren't AAA games every month, but sometimes they are.

Sorry about that, misunderstood what you were getting at, and I was confused by who you were conversing with. 

[Ian Sane]

The NES/SNES game thing is like the sort of idea that would sound good in theory to someone completely ignorant of what the competition offers.  So that's probably exactly what it is.  Nintendo is not known for being hip with what the rest of the industry is doing.  In a vacuum it's a cool sounding idea.  It's just next to the outright free games Sony has offered that it looks bad.

I'm confused about this phone app thing.  Do I need to use my phone to do online play on the Switch?  If so that's stupid as ****.  Why the hell can't the system itself do it?  Every other online videogame system to ever exist, including ones by Nintendo, do it themselves.

[Evan_B]

I'm confused about this phone app thing.  Do I need to use my phone to do online play on the Switch?  If so that's stupid as ****.  Why the hell can't the system itself do it?  Every other online videogame system to ever exist, including ones by Nintendo, do it themselves.

Likely because they're trying to get the system itself to handle as little as possible.

[Khushrenada]

No chat - less lag kind of thing maybe.

[Khushrenada]

The sad thing is, I could actually envision free online being a selling point against the XBONE and PS4, especially when considering the Switch as a secondary console to them. It would be one less thing owners of those systems would have to pay for if they wanted Switch games.

Yeah, with the hype the Switch had going into event and the amount of people excited about its potential, I thought Nintendo sticking with their free online might be another to tip more people into purchasing the system. It was free with the Wii but there weren't a lot of games that took advantage of it and Nintendo was still going through growing pains of getting online experiences to work smoothly. With the 3DS and the Wii U, I've thought their online has been very good the few (and I admit its very few) times I've used it. However, with most of the gaming public shunning the Wii U, I don't think many have experienced or are aware that Nintendo's online has improved from the Wii. That is why I was hoping that if Switch can get even half of the Wii's sales then more people experiencing and using that free online might make it more appealing and cause players to switch over to the Nintendo console for more online gaming which could possibly lead to better sales of third party FPS type games on a Nintendo console. So much for that optimism.

Unless Nintendo has some really big plans for their online that they are waiting to reveal, I think this just solidifies the competition's hold on to the "hardcore" online multiplayer consumer.

[pokepal148]

Don't forget as far as we know pokemon bank is still sold separately

[TheSevenYearSwitch]

How do those free PS+ games hold up to SNES and NES games?