I don't know, but I think they could make a killing. It'll work much better on the NX where the platform is focused on pushing digital like Steam is, so it would make sence for them to wait until then. I can imagine them launching Splatwo (I know, genius) for free on the NX. They could allow you to buy the single player for $20, and then the rest of the monetization would have to be done some other way.

TF2 does it with hats, but I don't see Nintendo getting away with something like that, as a large bulk of Splatoon's audience it much younger than TF2's, and that kind of thing wouldn't sit well with parents. Rusty does it with mini games, but that wouldn't work with a competitive multiplayer game like splatoon. I guess they could kind of combine the two, where anything beyond the base weapons and costumes must be purchased, but the prices can be haggled down like in Rusty's game to be super cheap. Since the base game would be free, and all the modes and maps would always be free, this would hopefully allow them to get away with pricing the weapons and cosmetics at a price while gamifying the purchasing process in a way that made Rusty a successful concept.

But I don't know. It's not my job to figure out how to gouge money away from consumers.

Probably. But I really hope not.

Looking more into Splatoon, it seems literally made to follow Rusty's F2P model. Just look at the way the shops are set up compared to that game:

Rusty -

Splatoon - 

All the shops are set up just like Rusty's. Each of these characters and their shops could be restructured to have a Rusty-like relationship with the player. Instead of winning coins while playing online, you would win their accosiated haggle items. For Rusty, its things like doughnuts, tweezers, wigs, etc. In Splatwo (again, genius), they could have items like that but specific ones made for each shopkeeper. Then all they'd have to do is tweak the dialog so that going to the shop was a minigame centered around learning each of their backstories in order to use it to your advantage in the haggling process. Still have the better items unlock as you level up the way it is now. As long as the prices are fair, and they were plenty fair in Rusty, this should be extremely successful and dare I say more fun and engaging than what is currently in Splatoon.

And if players don't want to pay for anything, they could still play and enjoy the game for free. The vanilla version would come with a few basic choices in clothes as well as one or two weapons of each or at least most types, and they'd still have access to every mode and every map 100% for free. This would also much better follow their model of "free to start" rather than "free to play." They want you to spend money on their games, and they want you to be happy to. They feel that the latter devalues games, so making sure there's a clear discintion between playing Splatwo for free and paying for things in Splatwo in a way that doesn't feel like you're paying to win, being scammed, or getting a raw deal is exactly the kind of thing they'd want.

Whether they actually plan on doing it is a completely different story, though.

unified system across all devices and the VC games to be easily downloaded like apps or somewhat like steam would be awesome.  newer games of course are dedicated to consoles.  better infrastructure on network and additional features for an online feature would help that paid subscription.  integrate their social app (MiiVerse) then add an app for your friend list that you can video call and message them easily with the rewards like from club nintendo gave before.  it might work.

I don't think that Nintendo will ever port games designed around buttons to a platform with absolutely no buttons. They've said as much. The games on mobile will be made from the ground up for mobile to take full advantage of the platform. That means no VC games.

They've also been pretty clear about their issues with a paid subscription. It's exclusive. It devides the player base to people who have it and people who don't. Especially with Nintendo's current audience, that would be very devisive, even if they were interested.

Like I said, they don't need a payed subcription for any of that, especially not for the better infrastructure. They've already come up with ways to monetize without resorting to a subscription plan, and it's very clear that that is the route they'll be going.

Wii U video chat exists and miiverse IM exists. They don't suck because of a lack of a payed subscription. They suck because of a weak OS and an incompitence on Nintendo's part. You don't need a subscription for that kind of stuff. You need a powerful OS and a team that understands how to put those features together into a UI that it simple and intuitive. Hopefully that team is DeNA and with the lofty goals of the NX, it'll have to have an uncharacteristically large amount of recources put into the OS for it to work and be modern and revolutionary the way they seem to be touting it. I think that some of those features, especially cummunication tools like the IM functionality, need to work on phones too via the membership program main app. That seems to be a no brainer.

online servers cost money.

Unless you want to queue up with a host that is a potential hacker, has unstable connection, or bans/kicks people for the lolz, it is best to have a third party (typically the dev) hosting online games.

Unless Nintendo wants to either:

1. continue to take losses on server maintenance

2. shut down some servers early, effectively killing the online portion of some games

3. have people pay for personal servers (EA let people do this before, most were uninterested)

4. have individual games hosted by individual consoles (subject to hacking, lag, harrassment)

Then they will be smart to charge for such service, which would explain why they would want to replace club Nintendo for membership/reward system.

Trust me, I would hate paying for online, but it is the most reasonable thing for Nintendo to do. And if you think about it, you can't expect server maintenance (or any other service) to always be free

If it means a better online service and infrastructure then absolutely they should charge a fee for online. As it stands the reason Nintendo's online service is currently free is because it's not worth paying for.

Most likely yes

Now that Nintendo is FINALLY embracing online connectivity in games, you can bet that there will be a better focus on improving their online infrastructure for games and store.

This costs money to both do and maintain, so for better online connectivity, you can bet they will charge (especially when sony and microsoft do it).

However, I do think they will also include a FREE version. One that will be distinctly worse than the paid version. This will keep them at an "advantage" compared to the competition, but will also look more appealing to kids (no source of income) which is their target audience. The hardcore gaming community will still appreciate the option for better online connectivity and the casual crowd will appreciate the ability to choose cheaper options

can both be an option?

In case they offer a free version and a premium version

I don´t think so