Quantcast
Nintendo's paid online service continues to disappoint

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Nintendo's paid online service continues to disappoint

mZuzek said:

Hell no, it's Nintendo. I'd take a price raise after they can prove they're gonna make the online better, not before it. At the moment the low price (paying $4 yearly on a shared family plan) is the only thing making this whole fiasco borderline acceptable.

What would make the service more acceptable is if they had better offerings than NES games so something has to eventually give because slapping a low price tag means you getting a lower value in the end ...

Who wants to pay for no added functionality or very old games that are only available for a month ? With XLG and PS+ there is something in each that does better than the others. With XBL, a lot of Microsoft's own content offers online functionality but it gets better since they offer "backwards compatibility" games in their GwG program too and PS+ offers an amazing desirable selection of both high quality and valuable modern content all the while the Switch Online doesn't excel in anything ... 

Heck, offering cloud games bi-monthly or at least per quarter would make the Switch Online a lot more attractive than it is now ... 



Around the Network

Calculators these days are able to emulate NES games. I don't see why anyone would pay good money for some random NES games each month.

Isn't Nintendo's paid online service meant to actually improve online functionality, like dedicated servers, reduced lag, more and better communication options, etc?



JRPGfan said:
DonFerrari said:

More or less.

But I didn't want to be greedy and demand Wii and WiiU games for free =p

Why not? tbh.

Wii was 13 years ago..... whats wrong with Nintendo giveing out a few of those along with their service?

Xbox Gold in jan is giveing Celeste (1y game), WRC 6 (2y old game), Lara Craft - Guardian of the Light (6yo game), Farcry 2 (10yo game)

Playstation does likewise, they dont give you some 30yo (NES) games, some of them are newer titles.

Why shouldnt Nintendo do the same?

Well can't disagree, even though PS+ and XBL are quite more expensive, Nintendo could give some gems of WIi and WiiU since they are discontinued and not really seeing much sale anyway.

fatslob-:O said:
mZuzek said:

The thing with the online is that they didn't even try. It's not that they got actual servers that didn't improve the online enough - it's that they never got servers in the first place, essentially charging us for the same P2P online they've had for ages, which as far as I know costs little to no money to maintain. And exactly zero online functionalities were added (still can't even send people god damn messages). It's a whole new level of laziness.

Maybe increasing the price could motivate them to get shit done ?

That isn't the right way to do it. You first improve your offering to then request higher pay. If you get away just charging for more there is little incentive to improve.

Actually if costumers would behave the right way, if Nintendo increased the price without increasing value they would just stop paying for it.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Xxain said:
Blaster Master is awesome. Zelda ll is an insult; nobody wants that crap. The big problem here is starting with NES....again. SNES/GB would absolutely been a better start. Nintendo's current fanbase on average are not even old enough to appreciate NES games.

I want that crap. 



Intel Core i7 8700K | 32 GB DDR 4 PC 3200 | ROG STRIX Z370-F Gaming | Nvidia RTX 2080 Ti 11GB VRAM | Asus PG27AQ gaming on 3840 x 2160 | HTC Vive Pro :3

Reached PC Masterrace level.

I have every console. Let's compare.


Price-
Nintendo: $20 a year
Xbox: $60 a year
PSN: $60 a year

Games-
Nintendo: You get random NES games monthly that you lose when you stop paying.
Xbox: You get two Xbox One and two Xbox 360 games per month. You keep the 360 games forever, even if you stop paying.
PSN: You get a variety of PS3, PSV, and PS4 games.

Cloud saves-
Nintendo: Supports most games. Disappears after a certain time when you stop paying.
Xbox: Unlimited automatic cloud saves for everything, for free. If you log in on a different console, your saves is already waiting for you. You don't have to do a thing.
PSN: Cloud saves with PS+. Disappear after a certain time when you stop paying.

Communication-
Nintendo: voice chat in some games. Some native. Some via app. No messaging or invites whatsoever.
Xbox: Voice chat, party chat, chat with people playing an entirely different game, voice messages, video messages, text messages, updates on what friends are doing, screenshots, videos, achievements, etc.
PSN: Mostly the same as Xbox

Clubs-
Nintendo: nope
Xbox: Automatic "game hubs" for every game. If you play the game, people can see your content. You can see theirs. It's optional. User created clubs.
PSN: Mostly the same as Xbox

Broadcasting-
Nintendo: No built in option to broadcast to others.
Xbox: Supports Twitch streaming and Mixer
PSN: Supports Twitch

Miscellaneous-
PSN and Xbox One support various ways of letting others control the game you're playing via the Internet and they have dedicated servers.

Nintendo offers a 10% reward for every digital purchase (ie: but a $60 game. Get $6 to spend on something else). All companies offer huge digital discounts with M$ and Sony offering the biggest price cuts on top tier titles and additional discounts for subscribers.

That's the gist of it. There's a few other things like the Xbox One app that lets you use your phone as a controller or keyboard or watch digital captures from your friends or the PSN app that lets you buy games or message via your phone amongst other things.

There's also a robust app store on Xbox with everything from Kodi to a Kinect baby monitor. It all depends on what you value.

For me, my Switch is a personal portable gaming machine so I'm happy not paying for Nintendo's online service until they make some improvements. I just miss the days of playing Mario Kart online. 😥



Twitter: @d21lewis  --I'll add you if you add me!!

Around the Network
ironmanDX said:
Wait.... It's p2p connection?

Yea, it is. That's why there were still hackers going around in Splatoon even after the "service" began, and why you can't have cloud saves in the game because stuff such as your online ranking is stored locally (lol). It's arguably less of a problem for fighting games, since P2P can be better than servers for 2-player games, but still.

fatslob-:O said:
mZuzek said:

Hell no, it's Nintendo. I'd take a price raise after they can prove they're gonna make the online better, not before it. At the moment the low price (paying $4 yearly on a shared family plan) is the only thing making this whole fiasco borderline acceptable.

What would make the service more acceptable is if they had better offerings than NES games so something has to eventually give because slapping a low price tag means you getting a lower value in the end ...

Who wants to pay for no added functionality or very old games that are only available for a month?

Just to clarify, they're not only available for a month, they're available for as long as you're paying. You can always play the games that were added in earlier months, it's an ever-growing library - ever so slowly, that is.



Jumpin said:
Yerm said:

Up until now Nintendo has been keeping us in the dark about which NES games would launch for the Switch's NES app in 2019, after what seemed like a consistent schedule for 2018. But they have just dropped the ball by announcing just 2 more games that will be added to the service for January, these being Blaster Master and Zelda II.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJb8KSG1q74&t=0s

Fans are rightfully upset that not only are the number of games to expect each month has been halved only several months in, but this month's games are a snooze fest. Personally, I have never heard of Blaster Master, and have no interest in Zelda II since it is widely considered to be the worst Zelda game. If anything this just reinforces the mentality that Nintendo is putting in the bare minimum effort to improve the quality of their service. At least when the service began there was hope for it to get better, but it seems Nintendo is going in the wrong direction. 

You've got to try harder in your trolling than that.

It's not 1990s anymore, no one buys the "I'm too ignorant to know shit or have opinions of my own" act these days.

it may surprise you to learn that i have never owned an original NES console, nor was I alive during the time it was relevant, and as such i have never heard of Blaster Master. i also have played Zelda II through VC before and agree that it lacks any of the merit that other Zelda games have. this really isnt a troll post, its just information about the Online Service



Never heard of Blaster Master? Sounds like you’re the disappointment.

In all seriousness though, check it out. It’s a good game.



It's not only the amount of NES games which is bad with this service.

1. Nintendo promised with Nintendo Switch Online exclusive offers for members. The only offer is the two NES controllers since the service started in September 2018.

2. Beside Splatoon 2 there has no other game been added to the online app since May 2017. WTF? Only voice chat has been added to MK8D, Mario Tennis Aces, ARMS and NES NSO.

3. Obviously no dedicated servers for Mario Tennis Aces, Smash Bros. etc. Sometimes unplayable due to lag. Only Splatoon 2 seems to benefit from dedicated servers.



siebensus4 said:
Only Splatoon 2 seems to benefit from dedicated servers.

News to me... if true, that is.