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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Nintendo Switch Online announced

Boutros on 02 June 2017
spemanig said:
Boutros said:

That 40$ can easily be recovered in a year with sales which offer an additional 10-20% off (sometimes a lot more) when you have PS Plus (like the most recent sale) and with 70+ 'free' games there's bound to be a few you might be interested in or might discover. There are also a bunch of F2P games available when you have PS Plus like Let it Die or Paragon. There's honestly a lot of value there and I think it's pretty ignorant to dismiss it so easily.

Not to derail this, but the Switch's online will offer sales/discounts too. And you get full access to games that used to be $5-$8 each, accessible at anytime. And it's a bit disingenuous to imply that F2P online games are a "deal" you get with PS+/Gold when you are literally paying $60 for the ability to play them. Also, they'd be on the systems whether the online was free or not. So those differences aren't really there the way you say it is.

I mean, I get you, but it's still a meaningful $40 difference. And not an ignorant comparison at all.

It's not a comparison...I'm saying that the additional cost of PS+/Gold is justified through added value.

We have no idea what the discounts will be with the Switch Online so again there's no comparison to be made here.

Also it's not because NES games are $5-$8 that they aren't overpriced lol

I didn't say F2P games were a deal but they do exist on PS+/Gold. What F2P games are coming on Switch?

So yes it is ignorant to dismiss PS+/Gold as if their higher price isn't justified. But the point is that at $20 I'm certain the Switch Online will also be of great value.



Around the Network
ninjapirate42 on 02 June 2017
Green098 said:
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.

Well that's an easy sell for me. I know some people may not be happy with the content/price or whatever, but for roughly $1.67/month that's easily worth playing the classics alone for me. There's not much you can get for $20 these days anyway.



taus90 on 02 June 2017
Einsam_Delphin said:
taus90 said:
Am I missing something here!! How on earth is this cheap service.. $20 for a year just to play online on a console that will not see Overwatch, Destiny 2, GTA Online, rocket league or any other big multiplayer third party games??

and free games are classic games which basically doesnt cost anything to nintendo to give out.. unlike Sony and MS offering where they have to give money to developers to put it on the system for free.

How is this better than PSNOW???

People are fine with $60 a year for consoles that wont see Mario Kart, Smash, Splatoon, Pokemon, Animal Crossing, etc. so that shouldn't be a problem for Switch.

Value-wise it's not better, but that's why it's cheaper, which makes it better for the majority of people who are only buying subscriptions because online play is locked behind them.

Thats your Point! I'm pretty sure people showed that they are fine not playing those same nintendo exclusives on wii U that too with free online play over the third party multiplayer games with $60 online fee. So No none of the nintendo exclusive will be enough to compete with $60 and third party multiplayer games.



Mandalore76 on 02 June 2017
spemanig said:
Volterra_90 said:

I understand your position. However, I'm not entirely sure how are we supposed to value games. There are classic games that I'm willing to pay a lot for them nowadays. But that's just subjective value. 

Which is what matters to me in the end. As a consumer 20 bucks is such a good deal for me.

Don't get me wrong - I'm willing to pay a lot more. I bought a ton of Wii/WiiU/3DS VC games at full price.

But they definitely are not worth those prices. I just couldn't be arsed to protest $5-$15 game prices. I could have downloaded all of those games for free elsewhere (not that I would), but I didn't. But anyone can with no ramifications, and I honestly see little reason why they shouldn't outside of the obvious when the games have been outrageously overpriced since VC first started.

$20 isn't a good deal for a drip feed of just NES/SNES games that are worth pennies if anything at all, but considering how much they were before this, it's an astronomical improvement, and I'm all for supporting significant steps in the right direction like this. Less than $2 a month access to classic games, once the library is actually sizable, is fine.

I see PSOne games on the Play Station Store listed at $5.99 to $9.99.  Why is it okay for Sony to charge up to $10 for it's 1st Tier of games?  But when Nintendo prices it's 1st Tier (console) games at $4.99, there is this insistence from some people that "those games are worth .50 to $1 at most".  At least Nintendo keeps it's pricing consistent per Tier.



DélioPT on 02 June 2017

Price is what we already knew (it was between 18-20 Dollars/Euro).
So far, we only know about 3 games, but Nintendo has said launch will see more games coming.

Question is, what games/consoles will come to it in the future?
I expect SNES, N64, GBA to make a return, but i really hope there's more coming - although Neo Geo and Data East games are there (Data East is coming in the near future).



Around the Network
KLAMarine on 02 June 2017
Bandorr said:
KLAMarine said:

I think I'd rather save the extra $40 and spend them as I please.

The issue is tha the "40" you save can't compare to the value of the game services. PS "combined" value of the games was over 1000. Xbox was around 900.

Compare that too... 40.

Can you actually look at a YEARS worth of games and not find at least $40 in value?

 

Boutros said:
KLAMarine said:

I think I'd rather save the extra $40 and spend them as I please.

That 40$ can easily be recovered in a year with sales which offer an additional 10-20% off (sometimes a lot more) when you have PS Plus (like the most recent sale) and with 70+ 'free' games there's bound to be a few you might be interested in or might discover. There are also a bunch of F2P games available when you have PS Plus like Let it Die or Paragon. There's honestly a lot of value there and I think it's pretty ignorant to dismiss it so easily.

 

Ehh, I'd rather have the choice to spend those $40 as I please. That's just me though...



Frogger on 02 June 2017
Wyrdness said:
spemanig said:

Not only are there are isolated cases in literally everything, but all of those cases are due to scarcity, an issue that doesn't exist in the digital market place. Chrono Trigger, the digital game, is worth pennies if anything at all. Most of the sought after games, digitally, would be worth a dollar or two put together period, if that if we're just talking about NES/SNES games.

You didn't really debunk anything here as my point still stands as the are a significant number of games that cost way more than pennies if you try to go out and purchase them even games that aren't rare. SMB3 on NES and GBA for example cost 6 quid on ebay which is more than a quarter of the 20 quid subscription, your they'll only cost this digitally claim is nothing more than your own assumption at this point, I can easily think of over 30 games on NES and SNES that I'd like to play again and under your dollar or two argument if we were to take it at face value would cost me more than the 20 quid subscription.

Then we are talking about two completely different things that have nothing to do with each other. What I'm talking is relevant to this thread. What you are is not.

Just because you would pay more for something doesn't mean it's worth what you payed for. I can easily think of every NES and SNES and N64 etc game that has ever existed that I can download now for free. I bought plenty of VC games at full price knowing they are worth pennies, if that. Like I said in this thread, I don't believe in protest spending, so I'm not going to not buy and enjoy what I want when I can afford it just because I don't think it's worth the asking price. But it definitely is not worth the asking price, which is fine. $20 a year is fine. It's much better than $5 for SMB or $8 for SMW like before.

And the idea that my digital claim is merely my assumption is silly. These are 20-30 year old games in a marketplace where they are all easily available for free and there is an infinite supply of them. In what realm of existence would the value not be driven down to pennies if not worthlessness? There are 10 year old AAA games being sold in bundles for $1 in this market place literally every month, but games 2-3 times older wouldn't be worth exponentially less? Come on.



Frogger on 02 June 2017
specialk said:
spemanig said:

Don't get me wrong - I'm willing to pay a lot more. I bought a ton of Wii/WiiU/3DS VC games at full price.

But they definitely are not worth those prices.

Don't you, by definition, think they were worth what you paid for them if you continued paying for them?

No. I just don't protest spend.



Pyro as Bill on 02 June 2017
RolStoppable said:
Pyro as Bill said:

Or instead of letting people buy SMB3 one last time before they own it for life, they could drop the virtual console altogether and bundle the back catalog (good and bad) behind a Nintendo Netflix subscription. Why limit the classics to Switch when every smart device and rival console can run NES/SNES games? (the emulation peasants are doing it already anyway) 

Software sells hardware, so having Nintendo's back catalogue exclusively on a Nintendo console serves as further incentive to buy a Switch and future Nintendo hardware.

Joycons still count as hardware though, good luck playing NES games on a touchscreen. Nobody should be playing NES games with anything other than a NES controller or a mini joycon sized NES controller at least, bundle a years sub with controllers. Software sells software, they can give and take away games as they please, no harm in the occasional 'brand awareness month'. Nintendo could still tailor the service to benefit their own consoles the most. It allows them to make their games available on every device without the platform holder taking a cut and there's no reason why it has to stay as classics. Would Sony/MS/Apple/Google even want it on their devices if they don't get a %?

Regardless of whether it's available on other devices, a subscription service is the only way to guarantee the revenue needed to support future consoles, TVs, new gimmicks, online servers.



Nov 2016 - NES outsells PS1 (JP)

Don't Play Stationary 4 ever. Switch!

Frogger on 02 June 2017
Mandalore76 said:
spemanig said:

Don't get me wrong - I'm willing to pay a lot more. I bought a ton of Wii/WiiU/3DS VC games at full price.

But they definitely are not worth those prices. I just couldn't be arsed to protest $5-$15 game prices. I could have downloaded all of those games for free elsewhere (not that I would), but I didn't. But anyone can with no ramifications, and I honestly see little reason why they shouldn't outside of the obvious when the games have been outrageously overpriced since VC first started.

$20 isn't a good deal for a drip feed of just NES/SNES games that are worth pennies if anything at all, but considering how much they were before this, it's an astronomical improvement, and I'm all for supporting significant steps in the right direction like this. Less than $2 a month access to classic games, once the library is actually sizable, is fine.

I see PSOne games on the Play Station Store listed at $5.99 to $9.99.  Why is it okay for Sony to charge up to $10 for it's 1st Tier of games?  But when Nintendo prices it's 1st Tier (console) games at $4.99, there is this insistence from some people that "those games are worth .50 to $1 at most".  At least Nintendo keeps it's pricing consistent per Tier.

It's not.

What are you getting at?