I was hoping for no more than $29/yr, so this is good.

Those arguments are so forced xD They are borderline lies.

1: Nes and Snes games with new online funtionalities (let's be accurate)
2: You know shit about how bad or good is the service since nobody tried it, so you got that out of nowhere.
3: Games like Mario Kart, Smash Bros, Pokken, Splatoon, Arms, Animal crossing, Tomodachi Life, Pokemon and Monster Hunter will use the online for sure, many other games can be added to that list in this gen (Pikmin, Mario Party, Fire Emblem, etc could use it) most of them are pretty big and they said they are adding online modes to nes and snes games, that's already a bunch of games, it will justify the online for the public since most people only pays online to play Fifa and CoD and not 80 online games per year as some of you want to make us believe.

That's not that bad. If the features work out, i might pay it.

Wow that extremely affordable, i don't mind digging it actually now let see what we can get from the service?

It will certainly be good for marketing purposes for every other portable gaming device, be it PC, Android, Vita, IOS and even Nintendo's own 3DS all of those are completely free online. All of those provide a lot more online games too.

People are comparing it to Xbox live and PSN plus but those are for full home consoles with decent performance and a huge range of online titles. This is only a low power arm based portable with a 150 gflops performance. Any multi-platform titles will be free online for every other portable format.

I think people are being overly optimistic here. Nintendo are first to charge for online for a low performance portable format and there could be some resistance, again not by the Nintendo fanbase so much but the wider audience Nintendo hopes to appeal to as well.

I think again this will be damaging to Nintendo. I just don't think they have enough content to get away with it. Hopefully I'm wrong but I can see Switch failing horrifically in many markets even if it succeeds in some. There are many markets where value is important.

If people resist paying it and then there are few players online then the few who have subscribed will stop and the whole online system gets a reputation for being pointless and people play online gaming on other portables. Without online much of the appeal of Switch games will be reduced and sales will drop. Lets not pretend charging for online is not high risk because it means those that refuse to subscribe have no online functionality and therefore games will be dependent on their offline content completely to those people.

Yet it didn't affected ps4 or Xbox, and lets stop pretending people uses the online on those consoles because of the hundreds of oinline experiences it offers when in reality most people paying online in those consoles do it for CoD and Fifa, the average consumer doesnt buy dozens of online games yet they do pay the subscription.

I still don't like it. NN is already better than PSN.

Most people would subscribe just for Pokemon when it releases.

I said I wouldn't pay over 25€ and I stand by that. It's nice to see Nintendo agree though.

From what we know that's still too much for what they offer. I'm more happy to pay 50 Euro for PS+ and get all the games than pay 20 Euro for the crap monthly rental of ancient games I already have on my DS or could emulate if I cared. Nintendo needs to sweeten the pot if you ask me.