Quantcast
Nintendo Is Unhappy About Surge in Short Term Switch Online Plans

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Nintendo Is Unhappy About Surge in Short Term Switch Online Plans

Dulfite said:
When they release the SNES games I'll be happy for that price (I did the year one). Currently I'm less than happy, but it's chicken fee so who cares? If they out 64 games on, I'll be very happy. If GameCube comes, I'll be flipping through the ceiling.

They could've just, I don't know, start with 5 games each from those 4 systems, and add 2 to each every month. Is that so hard?



Some days I just blow up.

Around the Network
CaptainExplosion said:
Dulfite said:
When they release the SNES games I'll be happy for that price (I did the year one). Currently I'm less than happy, but it's chicken fee so who cares? If they out 64 games on, I'll be very happy. If GameCube comes, I'll be flipping through the ceiling.

They could've just, I don't know, start with 5 games each from those 4 systems, and add 2 to each every month. Is that so hard?

Exactly. It's like Nintendo is trying not to rely on it's past for its current revenue. I could understand GameCube being hard, but 64 and below should be a joke to emulate or whatever.



V-r0cK said:
Farsala said:
Nintendo might be unhappy about that, but I am sure they are more happy about already having 8m subscribers. 25% of the userbase to start with comparing with PS plus at 39% is quite good, considering how much less digital savvy they are.

Nothing happy about having 8m subscribers knowing that the next month it can be drastically reduced. 

That only becomes an issue for them if they quit the subscription. If they allow it to roll through and opt to go with constant short term subscription, then Nintendo ends up with more profitable customers.

What Nintendo has with the short term subscriptions is a large number of conversions, regardless of the price. A person who has paid any amount of money is more likely to return as a customer than an unconverted customer who hasn't paid any amount.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

https://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/pdf/2019/190208e.pdf

If you quote any or all of this Q&A, please display the URL to this website or insert a link to this website.

That line is at the top of the Q&A PDF. Nintendo always puts it there because they know how rubbish game journalism can be, so if they are going to get misquoted or comments get taken out of context, readers can at least click the link to read the source material.

The writeup by gamesindustry.biz isn't even bad, except that it's missing the link to the source. What hurts this thread here is the CaptainExplosion factor which adds its own interpretation.

Nintendo's answer to question 8 doesn't provide anything of significance. Of course Nintendo wants to increase the number of subscribers. Of course they want people to subscribe for longer than one month. Of course they'll add more value to the subscription service. But there isn't anything specific being said. Everyone can safely assume that more games will be added down the road, including games from systems other than the NES. Likewise, Nintendo will release new Switch games with online functionality.  Luigi's Mansion 3 is an obvious example.

Most importantly, all of that would have happened regardless of the number of one-month-subscriptions.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

I don't really see the point of the "but it doesn't mean Nintendo isn't happy" argument. Seems pretty clear to me that Nintendo wants what Microsoft brought to the forefront, which is customers becoming tethered to the ecosystem. You don't really get that with people dropping in and out. People who feel attached to an environment spend more freely and people who subscribe to a service are more likely to feel a need to use that service in order to justify having it in the first place. I don't think there is any real argument that longer term subscribers aren't a more stable revenue stream. PS Plus and Xbox Live don't just represent subscription fees, they represent higher levels of engagement. There is no business that doesn't push long term subscriptions, even though the short term subscriptions would yield a greater return IF the consumer keeps renewing--I mean, everyone knows WHY the long term subscriptions are better deals, right? It's because businesses want customers to pick those plans over the short terms subscriptions.

Regardless, Nintendo is doing a poor job of creating ecosystem engagement. That's kind of inexcusable when the model is RIGHT THERE in front of them and has been for many years. Microsoft understands this completely and does everything they can to make people want to stay connected to the Xbox ecosystem. That's the whole point of things like Achievement records and Gamer Scores--once people build that stuff up, they feel like they'll lose it all if they walk away. Everything they do, it's to keep that leash in place.

Sony did something clever when they decided to go up against Xbox Live--they tied value to the service. They made it so that a smart user could get more out of the service than they put in, financially speaking. The years I had PS Plus (33$ each year) I'm almost certain I got that back in discounts alone. Microsoft wisely matched that value.

Now, Nintendo doesn't have to do what Sony did to compete with Microsoft, or what Microsoft did to even up the value disparity, because Nintendo isn't really trying to take the place of those services (which is why I think the much cheaper rate is a good move) but they do need to avoid looking bad in comparison. They're going to have to at least raise the quality of the service while providing more of those built-in engagements, like Achievements. As far as the free games go, yeah, I think they overestimated the appeal of random NES games to the market. I understand that they have to spread out freebies to make them last for many years but they should have started with something really big, perhaps by picking one title from different generations. They need to avoid turning people off at this point.



Around the Network

Did anyone honestly expect anything else? Bear in mind that this is the same company that requires a dongle to go from your cellphone to the headset in order for voice chat to work.....

Like seriously, anyone who isn't a Nintendo Switch fanboy saw Nintendo's shitty online service coming from a mile away.



Dulfite said:
CaptainExplosion said:

They could've just, I don't know, start with 5 games each from those 4 systems, and add 2 to each every month. Is that so hard?

Exactly. It's like Nintendo is trying not to rely on it's past for its current revenue. I could understand GameCube being hard, but 64 and below should be a joke to emulate or whatever.

It's like they're not even trying.



Some days I just blow up.

Hmmm.. Should we actually make the service worthwhile and add value to it so people stick around longer? No, it's the customers who are wrong, they really want two NES games a month and nothing else.



Isn't there a bit of the Epic Store factor here. One of the criticisms of the Epic Store was despite having the steam template to guide them, it came without many of the features that Steam has and customers now take for granted. it seems like the exact same criticism can be laid at Nintendo's door .



It's 2019? ..... FUCK!



 

Everything in the above reply is my opinion, from my own perspective and not representative of reality outside of my own head!

-Android user, please be gentle with critique on my spelling.