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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Nintendo Switch Online announced

Paperboy_J on 02 June 2017

If this is a hit, I wonder if MS and Sony would feel pressure to lower their prices haha.



Around the Network
Kai_Mao on 02 June 2017

I think it works out. $20 for a year is a godsend to me. I reluctantly paid for a full year of PS+ and just for signing up to play online and maybe download a game or two that I probably wouldn't play in the end wasn't really making a bang for my buck. But in the end, Sony is making a lot of money for that and for the rest of the Playstation Network. For Nintendo, it works out for me because its $20 mainly to play online, get a few games I choose from their classics and such. Voice chat isn't for me because I've heard too much %^ when playing with strangers (yes, I could mute it or have it only for friends, but I wasn't experienced as an online gamer at the time when I experienced those things on Xbox Live for the 360).



ninjapirate42 on 02 June 2017

So for the classic will we get to download them and keep them? I know I saw someone's comment thinking that we would only be able to play for them for month.
If we can keep them I'm loving this, especially with online multiplayer for some of those classics...



freebs2 on 02 June 2017
Barkley said:
freebs2 said:

Besides the fact it's 72 on 3 different systems (two of which have are basically dead), I barely have the the time to play form 10 to 20 games for year, why should I care for 72 I don't even choose. If you have the free time to play those and then play the games you're actually looking forward to play than yes, it's a very good value proposition.

Which is fine, Switch subscription is better for you. Doesn't mean the statement you made is right.

Of course value is subjective. I'd rather spend 20$ for a mystery box and save 40$ for a boat, than spend 60$ for a mystery box.



Green098 on 02 June 2017
ninjapirate42 said:
So for the classic will we get to download them and keep them? I know I saw someone's comment thinking that we would only be able to play for them for month.
If we can keep them I'm loving this, especially with online multiplayer for some of those classics...

As long as you keep paying the subscription, It looks so.



Around the Network
Veknoid_Outcast on 02 June 2017
Volterra_90 said:
Not bad. I've stopped paying my PS+ subscription because it's really expensive and the rewards are pretty shitty. I honestly prefer some retro games. I can get more value from them personally.

Sometimes I swear I fall asleep, then wake up in the middle of the night and post as Volterra_90  

I just dropped my PS+ sub for the same reason!



Frogger on 02 June 2017
superchunk said:
While I would rather not see this paid model continue to expand, but at least Nintendo continues to do so with the customer's interests in focus.

This is far superior value than what MSony offer.
1/3 the cost and still gives you free games. You may argue that classic nes/snes games are not the same as the games given by MSony model, but they are. In both cases you are getting old games that are only worth a few bucks. I personally like VC content more than 99% of the games MSony offer each month. It also appears Nintendo dropped the 1 game per month and only for that month limitation. This reads as if you can select any game from what is being labelled as their classic library. That has potentially to be FAR more valuable and superior to any of the years old games MSony shovel out.

The only differences where MSony will still obviously be better is in voice chat and possibly cloud saves. Granted, Nintendo's vision for this new app may actually be a game-changer and awesome, but I still think the simplicity and in just having it integrated into the console will always be better. But, at only $20 this is still a far better deal. (especially as I could care less about voice chat, but that's just me)

Still hope they break down VC in E3.

...NES/SNES are worth cents if anything at all. It is very much not the same. Objectively, this you're getting less for less.



niceguygameplayer on 02 June 2017

They couldn't come up with a better name for their online service? That and the low price give me little confidence in their service. Well, also their track record.



Wyrdness on 02 June 2017
spemanig said:

...NES/SNES are worth cents if anything at all. It is very much not the same. Objectively, this you're getting less for less.

Not entirely true as some games like Chrono Trigger were sold at prices well above a few cents some were and still are sold at more than what newly released games are. Most of the most sort after games would cost you more than the 20 quid a year to play them all.



Acevil on 02 June 2017
Veknoid_Outcast said:
Volterra_90 said:
Not bad. I've stopped paying my PS+ subscription because it's really expensive and the rewards are pretty shitty. I honestly prefer some retro games. I can get more value from them personally.

Sometimes I swear I fall asleep, then wake up in the middle of the night and post as Volterra_90  

I just dropped my PS+ sub for the same reason!

I am going to switch to a month by month basis myself. I was going to do month by month basis here as well but twenty bucks. Honestly of the three I have zero temptations on the games offered on the blue brand. Green brand is the most appealing but I ain't buying that console.

(I hate mobile sometimes, constant typos)