Unless you will only ever buy less than 4 VC games, there is no way that this is better than a $20 subscription model where you have access to everything. It's disappointing news.

No its not.If you buy through VC, you get to keep them for life(or until your console breaks, then you gonna need to buy a new console).

If you only had the option of getting through the subsciption, you would have to pay it every year 20 dollars just to play a very selective game you want.Plus, if someday Nintendo ever decides to end the program for that console(due to the console age and there being a a new console out already), you wouldnt be able to go back and play those games you want.

What you are proposing is that less option is better for the consumer.This way is much better.You get to buy and own the games you want, but at the same time, if you just want constant acess to hundreds of old games(which Im sure this library will get bigger over time, and encompass more consoles over time), you simply subscribe.Its the better choice for Nintendo to make(this way they also make more money out of it, and make consumers happier)

But you don't really own them through VC either, same as all digital content. At least with a sub there's a near-guaranteed revenue stream to keep servers up and keep them compatible with future consoles/TVs.

This dosent make sense.A subscription model, by all accounts, is much less likely to be maintained  for a long period of time, and thus your library of games.As maintaining the servers of a console long past its lifetime is expensive, the moment the Switch is substituted, is the point that the servers can be shutdown at any moment, or at the very least the subscription program deactivated, thus evaporating any money you poured into it.And the point you make about making it compatible with future TVs/consoles can be said the same about VC.Actually, its much more likely that happen for vC, since it would, theoretically bound to your account, which would carry over, but the library build by the subscription program could not carry over(due to a number of reasons, such as trying to implant a new program, with different rewards, or not being there day one, etc).I mean, just look at the PS Plus for an clear example.Can you carry over the games you got from the subscription?Therein lies your answer.And mind you, that is a more expensive model, and thus should have a better service tied to it.

As for owning the games or not, you own it as much as any games you buy digitally.Its still more safe than the subscription, that is much more tied to Nintendo will to keep the system going.And as far as I know, the game can be saved to your system(dont know if thats how the Switch works), and thus your digitally downloaded games dosent depend on a server and can be played anytime, as long as your console works.Can the same be said for this "Netfilx" system you guys propose?

No matter how you look at it, if you wish to really garantee that you gonna have the game that you want to play, having a VC in the Switch is the way to go.Or simply want to play one or two games from legacy consoles, thats also the way to go.

If you care about keeping them for life, you have the Wii U, 3DS, and Wii VC with digital versions. If it's between one or the other, a subscription is obviously the superior option.

And there is the NES, and SNES if I wanted to get the physical versions.So what?I want convinience.I want to get them on the most recent Nintendo console, which also happens to be portable.And betwenn the two options, VC is clearly superior for people like me.As for reasons why, I already wrote in the previous posts, in which you didnt counter them.Having VC is clearly better for the costumer.Cant believe you think less choice is better.

Can't believe you think paying potentially hundreds of dollars for 30 year old games is better than $20 a year for everything.

My stance on choice has always been clear. No point in giving anyone the freedom to make an inferior choice.

Not giving the choice to someone make the "inferior" choice is the definition of not having a choice.Not to mention thats your own view of what is inferior, not everyones.And also the fact that, yet again, you fail to present any kind of argument to counter mine.

I think you are also falling into the assumption that, once the subscription begins, you aren going to be presented access to all NES games(assuming thats all there is at the moment this program launches).This will be more similar to PS Plus than you think.The library will eventually expand, but only if you keep subscribed to it.So lets say in month 1 you get three games.Next month you get more three games.By the end of the year, you would have 36 games(12 months X 3 games).But that will only happen for someone who is part of the program from day one.If someone enters it at the end of year one, its library will start building up at that point.Much like, guess what, PS Plus and Xbox Live.Not so much of a great deal anymore, is it?

And are also assuming that the rpice will never change, that the VC games prices cant be lower or higher, that the My Nintendo Rewards could give nice discounts or free VC games, and many other variables.Much like when you were obcessed, and certain, that the Switch would be an digital only console, you dont take into account other possibilities outside your own.

VC is a good thing.It gives choice to the consumer, and it is also a way for Nintendo to make more money, which in turn makes Nintendo get more legacy games into the VC(and the subscription).Its a win win scenario.