Please.

Do people really think that Nintendo couldn't match XBL/PSN if they wanted to?

People need to understand that for Nintendo, it's as much about the experience as what it's capable of. That means no swearing or racism or griefing or kiddy fiddlers contacting your children.

For parents, ie the people who actually pay for these subscriptions, Nintendo seems to be offering a far better service, at a cheaper price too.

It's not just parents though. Switch is a portable system remember? I don't want to carry a headset with me wherever I go. It'd also be good if I could talk to people on other systems too.

People need to get rid of the notion that Nintendo can't make a better online or more powerful console. They can but they choose not to. Sony/MS just throw in whatever works on PC and hope for the best. Nintendo has other priorities.

Sounds good. If it actually turns out to be $20-25/y I'm on board. Especially if this means I'll actually be able to get some kind of dead on Nintendo's first party titles.

Typical greedy Nintendo. I hoped I could save 50€ a year. Now I'll only save 30€ WTF -.-

agree with live would agree with psn if not for error code ws 37397-9 so for my experience psn is the worst online experience I have had between the three manufacturers and its not even close i can't access anything without the most tedious work arounds from sony

It's a good price point I've been saying for years that Xbox and PS should off a $20 sub option just to play online rather than the $50-60 cost to get games most people are not interested in so I have no problem with the price for Switch online.

I'm still a bit skeptical, but I'm def glad Nintendo isn't doing $60 a year, or else that'd be outrageous.

Too cheap? No one would bat an eye if Switch was $199 like some of you had the nerve to suggest. The amount of irony in this thread.

If you say so

Anyone complaining about that price is doing so for the sake thereof: that's way cheaper than my PSN/XBL fees, and I rarely use anything other than voice chat and multiplayer.

So, paid online is bad, but cheap online is worse because the quality will be compromised? Hadn't we decided that paid online was not necessary and that companies only charged for it because were evil, greedy corporations?