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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Nintendo Switch Online announced

Einsam_Delphin said:
taus90 said:

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.

But that's just it, they are fine not playing those games... on Wii U. The Switch isn't a Wii U however, for one it'll actually be getting Pokemon and Animal Crossing. Your logic is the equivalent to saying people don't care about Sony exclusives and third partys going by the Vita. I probably shoulda worded it better, but my point was Nintendo still has plenty of online games that people are going to buy subscriptions to play. Those third party games aren't stopping people from buying a Switch in the first place so not sure what you're getting at there.

My point is $20 is too much for online play considering there wont be any big major 3rd party games or any real incentive for new buyer or old buyer of switch, people will always choose new better looking games then 30 year old SNES classic... and my point also apply for playstation and xbox if they offered PS1 and PS2 games in their monthly games then I am out.. I'll stick with PC. 

But like i said with $60 for a year and just the first 3 months, I completed many great games which other wise i would have not bothered playing. Life is strange, ABZU, God Of War 3, Alienation, Tales of zesteria, Untill Dawn, Disgaea 5, etc and now looking forward to Just Cause 3. So in Short I am paying for these game not for online play as i rarely play online. 

So $20 with online play and one wii U or NS game a month.. would have been a good deal.  



Around the Network
Pyro as Bill said:
spemanig said:

Famitsu just confirmed that VC and this subscription model are not the same thing, rendering many points in this thread, mine included, invalid.

AKA Great new is no longer great news.

So VC is either years away or it's going to be another drip feed given that SNES games are still under construction. I think I'll avoid VC until Nintendo confirms they're permanently tied to an account.

The SNES games are still under consideration remark is a reference to the online, not to VC.



jason1637 said:
Einsam_Delphin said:

Because we already bought the game in full, we own it completely. The only reason they've made it pay to play is to weasel more money out of us.

You bought the game yes so you can play SP content for free while MP is made specifically for those that pay a subscription. 

It actually isn't. Its a part of the package that you already paid for which is locked behind a paywall. We've become so accustomed to this that we're now defending it.



The quality/price ratio is horrible imo compared to the value of PS+ and Gold.



Price is okay, let's see what it delivers. I'm still against paid online in principle but at least this is cheaper.



Around the Network
Mystro-Sama said:
jason1637 said:

You bought the game yes so you can play SP content for free while MP is made specifically for those that pay a subscription. 

It actually isn't. Its a part of the package that you already paid for which is locked behind a paywall. We've become so accustomed to this that we're now defending it.

Well yea there's a pay wall to play the MP portion. It's like you need to buy a console to play the game, so you need to have a subscription to play the multiplayer.  Online should be payed for imo, it's best for the gamer.



taus90 said:

My point is $20 is too much for online play considering there wont be any big major 3rd party games or any real incentive for new buyer or old buyer of switch, people will always choose new better looking games then 30 year old SNES classic... and my point also apply for playstation and xbox if they offered PS1 and PS2 games in their monthly games then I am out.. I'll stick with PC.

But like i said with $60 for a year and just the first 3 months, I completed many great games which other wise i would have not bothered playing. Life is strange, ABZU, God Of War 3, Alienation, Tales of zesteria, Untill Dawn, Disgaea 5, etc and now looking forward to Just Cause 3. So in Short I am paying for these game not for online play as i rarely play online. 

So $20 with online play and one wii U or NS game a month.. would have been a good deal.  

 

Uh I know, I've kinda been saying your point will be wrong. I mean I personally agree as any amount of money is too much for something that should be free, but that's not at all gonna stop me or many others from playing Nintendo games, thus in a general sense it's not accurate to say it's too much if people are willing to pay for it. We'll have to wait and see I guess, but the Switch is currently doing well despite pay to play and lack of third partys being known since January.



jason1637 said:
Mystro-Sama said:

It actually isn't. Its a part of the package that you already paid for which is locked behind a paywall. We've become so accustomed to this that we're now defending it.

Well yea there's a pay wall to play the MP portion. It's like you need to buy a console to play the game, so you need to have a subscription to play the multiplayer.  Online should be payed for imo, it's best for the gamer.(?!)

pls dont do dis



jason1637 said:
Mystro-Sama said:

It actually isn't. Its a part of the package that you already paid for which is locked behind a paywall. We've become so accustomed to this that we're now defending it.

Well yea there's a pay wall to play the MP portion. It's like you need to buy a console to play the game, so you need to have a subscription to play the multiplayer.  Online should be payed for imo, it's best for the gamer.



Look how $20 can lead too.......



Pocky Lover Boy!