Great price imo.

The games obviouslly sell well at that price or Nintendo would have lowered it already. A product is as valuable as the price people are willing to pay.

Still way too much for what it offers.

Should bé free

Then a cheaper price should be considered less greedy, not a sign of less quality. 

I'm not going to pay for online (I don't use it enough) but I understand that they charge for it.

at least $25 isn't too much. Less than half of the $60 the others charge us. Suddenly the one Nes/Snes game per month doesn't sound like too bad of a deal.

As Nintendo's network sales and revenue show, I don't think you can really argue that case. Whether a few people are good with paying for it at that price doesn't suddenly make it a bargain.

You barely know anything about what is offering

Based on what benefits it will provide and how low-cost they are, I think a $20/$25 yearly fee is acceptable, if it goes over $30 then I'm out. I also think it will allow substantial cash flow for infrastructure. It's low enough that most wouldn't consider NOT getting it, so you'll have a high subscription rate. It's also low enough that people won't complain about the NES/SNES free game rotation / demo.

It's just within what I expected based on what they announced.

Wrong, WE know à lot :

- Only nes games only borrowed for a month before they take them back

- very bad services forcing to use smartphone for chat and matchmaking

- À very very low number of online games since no Third party support ans éven from Nintendo, not enough to justify à paid online.

So sorry but yes WE know dnijgh to say its too much for what it is and doesnt deserve to bé paid