By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Nintendo Subscription Debate


How much would you spend a year for all previous gens?

$60 or less 27 71.05%
$60 or more 6 15.79%
$120 or more 3 7.89%
$180 or more 1 2.63%
$240 or more 0 0%
$300 or more 1 2.63%

This is a topic that has been debated for years now and is once again a hot topic, let's address it here where we can ask questions, express opinions, and analyize the numbers. When Nintendo Online was first announced for $20 a year, people generally seemed to be fine with that price point. We got an okay selection of NES games as well as promise of better internet than we had with Wii/Wii U/3ds (not great, but better). Then they added, for free, more NES games (making that library move from okay to decent, not good or great, but decent), cloud saves, and a decent amount of SNES games. That brings us to now:

N64 + Genesis games announced for an additional fee. People are either supportive of it or quite vocal against it, thinking Nintendo should have added the tier for free to the current $20 plan. This brings me to a big question I'd like to ask:

How much would you be willing to pay a year to get access to a growing list of games from their entire library prior to current gen?

I don't think it is realistic to expect Nintendo to put their current system on a plan like Gamepass does, but I do think their longterm goal is to put popular games from all of their previous systems on the service one day (probably won't totally get there until Switch 2 due to Switch 1's limited internal storage).

So again, how much would you be willing to pay? I pay $10 a month for Gamepass PC (which includes a lot of newer games, but very limited selection of older MS owned games). Gamepass has saved me over $1000 so far on games I don't have to purchase. Nintendo's service is more the opposite, lot's of old content with no new content, so they kind of balance each other out, so I'll just use $10 as an example. Gamepass owners are paying roughly $120 a year for access to more games than they could possibly have time to play. Would you be willing to pay the same amount for every system Nintendo owned? Is it more valuable than $120 a year, about good, or less valuable? If you are good with $120, then here is how you could breakdown the tiers:

Tier 1 - $20 year, NES/SNES/Cloud Saves/Better Online than previous gens.

Tier 2 - $40 (total a year), tier 1 benefits, N64/Genesis at launch, added GB/GBC down the road.

Tier 3 - $60 (total a year), tier 1-2 benefits, GameCube, GBA.

Tier 4 - $80 (total a year), tier 1-3 benefits, Wii/DS

Tier 5 - $100 (total a year), tier 1-4 benefits, Wii U/3ds

Tier 6 - $120 (total a year), tier 1-5 benefits, Switch (won't come until Switch 2 is out).

Personally, I think above would be an absolutely amazing deal that would save us all a lot of money (unless you just don't play more than a few games a year). When I look at the numbers above, and see the complaints people have about spending more on N64, I just don't get that perspective. There is no way Nintendo is going to stop at N64. We didn't know for certain we were going to get SNES added to tier 1 when it was first came out, all we had were rumors and empty white space on images that made it seem like another system would be added. I'm sure Nintendo will add a lot more games and maybe another system at that tier, but then they will keep adding tiers and I think that's great. I'm personally excited about the future of these tiers!

Around the Network

I wouldn't. I buy the games I want to play. Paying for a service I wouldn't have the chance to use to its fullest seems dumb, and all streaming services would end up costing me more than I would really use them. maybe paying for a month or two during holidays or during the periods of less work, maybe. But yearly? No way.

You know it deserves the GOTY.

Come join The 2018 Obscure Game Monthly Review Thread.

Less than 60 USD. Actually I don't even know if I would subscribe regardless of the price 

The good point of subscription is a growing library of unknown games that otherwise would be sold at 60 USD  that would make me motivated to keep the subscription going.  That's the case of GP and PS Plus

For older games it's better just purchase them unless you really love retro gaming and have a big list of retro games to play. I have maybe a dozen old games I want to play, so for me it's better just buy them slowly and be done with it then keep paying X USD a year for the rights of games that sometimes I don't have time to play 

That's why I like collections, I've bought KH, Megaman and KOF collections this year and I have no rush to finish every single game in the collection, I can play them slowly and I will not lose them if I cancel my PS Plus membership, I find it a better deal than Nintendo's proposition 

The most I would pay is $40 for N64, Genesis, GB, GBC, and GBA and maybe Turbo Grafix if Konami is feeling really crazy and wants to get in on the action. I don't really see Gamecube and Wii and DS games coming to that service because if Nintendo's recent actions indicate anything I think they are more likely just to port/ remaster/ remake those games on Switch.

I already own most of the games I want for those consoles so really the only thing I'm paying for is convenience, portability, and online play added, which I don't personally use. 

I would pay $60 a year for all that but not rly anymore than that. I often cant get past super dated mechanics so a lot of those games dont rly appeal to me anyways

Around the Network

If Nintendo had their own version of gamepass that included all their games and select third parties (obviously less third parties than possible on xbox) then I'd be willing to pay $120/year.

For previous generations only, no more than $60/year. That's assuming it includes all of their previous generation content WiiU and prior, not just the drips Nintendo want to feed.

I don’t care too much about price in itself. And let’s be real, Nintendo’s pricing is cheaper than dirt (literally, I pay more for garden soil on a yearly basis than I do Nintendo online services). The price of four to five years of Nintendo online services multi-user plan is less than I pay taking my family out to dinner on an average night out.

Time is my main consideration. If it’s something I want, I’ll pay for it. I generally look at games the same way I look at other entertainment. I give myself a budget of up to 70 €/£/$ per week, or 10 a day. This includes factoring new hardware and software, so if I pay 600 for new hardware and games, I better be getting 2 months out of that alone - that’s in total - not stacked together. Switch + Breath of the Wild brought me hundreds of hours of play very quickly, so that alone justified my purchase of a Switch, and then games like Witcher 3, Mario Kart 8D, and others have added hundreds more hours… meaning the Switch is a lot of bang for the buck entertainment, much like the Wii and DS Lite. I rarely find much dilemma in purchasing new Nintendo hardware :)

Something else I’ll note, if I’m buying it for myself, likely others in my family are taking advantage of it, so that also increases its value to me as what benefits my family benefits my interests.

Into services: if it’s something I’ll play three to five times a month, then 10 a month is a fair price... five to ten is 20 a month, something like every day even up to 50.

Right now, I don’t think that will be the case. Nintendo’s current track record of getting new content to their services is not very good. I’m going to want 2+ new games per week… or 5+ new games if they’re stuff like Shadows of the Empire and stuff I’d probably only play an hour or two at most. Now, if they brought out games like Goldeneye and Banjo Kazooie, I wouldn’t give a crap what else they released that month :D
But games like that are really limited on the current platform selection… unless SNES and NES get pulled into the premium package, too!
Example; bring on the SNES RPGs! Maybe drop Earthbound and/or Mario RPG on their basic service since they’re first party, and then shell out to get Chrono Trigger, FF4, 6, Illusion of Time, Terranigma, and (dare I dream?) Fire Emblem 4 on the premium at around the same time… basically using Earthbound and/or Mario RPG as a gateway to an upsell of the premium service during the month of RPGs. That’s just good business… but a bit aside the point since this is about what I think the service would be worth.

A more relevant example: I’d pay no less than 25 per month if the service offered every (within reason due to licensing) SNES game, every Mega Drive game, every NES game, and every N64 game. That would be something I could play almost indefinitely for many hours a month for years on end.

Want a never ending stream of content? Let indie devs have their own corner of a subscription platform on the Switch online premium service, pay them based on downloads and impression… Track impressions based on offline play as well by updating the database at each new online connection.

So, to answer the question. I’m not sure how much I want to pay at this point, it could be as low as 5 per year, or as high as 25 per month (50 if they do the indie idea). It really depends on how often I’d be using it… that depends on the cadence and quality of content release.

Nintendo really should do a direct with comprehensive plans for the service. Personally speaking, they need to demonstrate the value than a few N64 and Sega games that are widely available (plus Winback)… Personally speaking, they need to show that it’s something I’m going to want to play every month for hours; otherwise, I have other games to play.

I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

I honestly don't care. What bothers me is that there's no option for people who just want to buy certain games, which has already existed since the Wii. There's no logical reason, aside from Nintendo making money, to lock that content behind Nintendo online.

I'm not sure, they would have to announce it for me to consider it at any price. I wouldn't need to any Wii games but if they did end up adding the Gamecube, Saturn and Dreamcast I would consider it, I'm just not sure how much I would be willing to spend though. By the time they got around to it, we more than likely would have already moved onto the Switch 2 or whatever the successor ends up being.

I would be okay with 60 if it includes all Sega consoles on top of the Nintendo consoles and maybe TurboGrafx 16. But I probably would only subscribe for a few months when I want to play something there and then unsubscribe when I'm done.