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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - What the literal heck Nintendo?!?

Nintendos attitude towards online has been baffling from the start and shows no sign of changing direction.

With the Wii it was bad but free with optional VC, with Switch its bad and costs... now we have this??

And then there's Pokemon, pay to transfer (from last gen), pay separately to store and pay AGAIN for online play. I always felt the online service should include bank/home etc. 

Unless they have a serious rethink I wont be parting with any money for online. 



 

Around the Network
RolStoppable said:

The only reason why this seems expensive is because NSO has been so cheap up till now.

Lots of people will display a kneejerk reaction along the lines of "what a ripoff," but it won't take long until they enter the bargaining phase where the price isn't so bad because it's only ~$4 per month or less than $1 per week for access to a growing library of classic video games that can be played anywhere they wish. People will begin to remember how much more money they've wasted on games they didn't like, so paying $50 for the known quality of classic games - games they know they like - isn't much, really.

Yeah, no.




I make music, check it out here on Bandcamp, Spotify, and Youtube!
my top 50 games

Licensing costs is supposedly one of a big reasons why Nintendo have increased cost of service.

Last edited by trasharmdsister12 - on 17 October 2021

I was already considering dropping my Switch family plan since literally nobody plays online in my circle. The nostalgia of the occasional SNES game made me say $20 a year isn't so bad.

This, however, is a slap in the face. I have no nostalgia for Sega games and the N64 was my least favorite era of Nintendo gaming. GBA, Wii, or GameCube games? Yeah, I might have considered it. This announcement? I'm dropping my current plan (which I forgot I even had) ASAP.



Twitter: @d21lewis

Going by the current rumours the actual title should be "What the literal heck Sega?!?"

Sega's Wii VC titles did not generate enough return, and now Nintendo has subsidized them heavily via the NSO+?
Is this move even worth it when their VC counterparts did not apparently sell enough?



@Twitter | Switch | Steam

You say tomato, I say tomato 

"¡Viva la Ñ!"

Around the Network

I too dropped my standard £17.99 a year subscription due to not getting the usage out of it, so costing double the price for OoT and Mario 64 (which I have on the 3DS and Super Mario 3D All Stars, respectively) is a big, fat no. I adore Nintendo but I’m sorry - even I won’t debase myself for this shameless cash grab.



hinch said:

Licensing costs is supposedly one of a big reasons why Nintendo have increased cost of service.

So Nintendo is paying a lot for a lot of games that aren`t really worth it and pushing the bill to the customer? Still their fault.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

RolStoppable said:

The only reason why this seems expensive is because NSO has been so cheap up till now.

Lots of people will display a kneejerk reaction along the lines of "what a ripoff," but it won't take long until they enter the bargaining phase where the price isn't so bad because it's only ~$4 per month or less than $1 per week for access to a growing library of classic video games that can be played anywhere they wish. People will begin to remember how much more money they've wasted on games they didn't like, so paying $50 for the known quality of classic games - games they know they like - isn't much, really.

This is so true. I mean people ALREADY complain about paying the insanely cheap $20 a year for online play, cloud saves, the '99' games, and the over 100 NES/SNES games. And you can play the games online (something that is going to get very popular with the N64 games as that was always the dream with all those amazing 4 player N64 games). That's such a good deal and people complain about it. $20 a year is nothing. $1.67 a month. And the family membership makes things even crazier - three people on the family subscription and you're paying under a dollar a month!

Now, the addition of AC DLC to the new subscription is bizarre and stupid. Not everyone owns AC so they are making the thing cost more for something the majority of people can't use. Non-AC owners will be subsidizing AC owners. This only sort of makes sense if they start adding new DLC from a variety of games (so most people would get some DLC benefit eventually) in order to bring in more people to Switch Online, but I doubt that'll happen. With what is available on day 1 of expansion pass, $50 is expensive compared to the super cheap current subscription cuz you're only getting a few N64 and Genesis games and the price is going up 150%. That makes no sense. Take out the AC DLC and it'd probably be $40 which is much more reasonable.

But now you gotta think what is coming in the future. Well, we don't know, but there will obviously be more N64 and Genesis games. We already know of the next round of N64 games. Once there are like 20+ N64 games and 30+ Genesis games $50 starts seeming much more reasonable (though still the AC DLC is a sour point for anyone who doesn't have AC). Then we have to think about the possibility of GB and GBA being added. At this point $50 for the entire retro collection of Nintendo systems, plus Genesis, plus the Switch stuff you get (online play, cloud saves, the '99' games) starts seeming like an amazing deal.

Once the N64 and Genesis games library is more built out, and they add in another let's say 50+ games from GB and GBA, they could easily separate the retro game membership from the other Switch Online stuff and sell it on it's own for $50 or $60 a year and that'd be a steal.

So while I agree that based on what is available at launch, jacking up the price 150% is bad relative to the current cost, ya gotta remember more games will be added, and hopefully GB/GBA will be added to this as well without another jacking up of price. And also the current $20 price is insanely cheap for what you get. People just loooove to complain. And the subscription model is sooo much better than the old VC model of you having to buy every single game you want for $5 to $10 each!! (this is why Netflix pretty much destroyed the movie rental industry - people like subscription models better where you get everything for a low cost), I bet all the people complaining about 'not owning' the games think nothing of paying like $100/year or more a month for Netflix even though they don't own anything there either.

Nintendo is making two mistakes though. Adding the AC DLC that only benefits some people was a stupid move as it makes everyone who doesn't have AC feel like they are being charged extra to subsidize the people who do own it. And also not announcing Nintendo's plans for this service - that's a huge mistake. At least they did announce the next round of N64 games. But it would put any reasonable person at ease with regards to the $50 price is Nintendo said hey next year we are launching another 15 N64 games and 20 Genesis games, along with a few more NES and SNES games, and then in 2023 we will add a handful of more games to each system as well as add GB and GBA games. A simple public commitment like that, so that people know what we will be getting for the price, is all it would take to get rid of all reasonable objections to the new price tier.

Rant over. But yeah basically Rolstoppable is right. Mostly I think maybe this next 6 months or so people will complain about the price, but once there's a bunch more games added $50 will start seeming reasonable. There just isn't a $30 value difference between the two tiers at launch unless you play AC. Remember, since this isn't the VC anymore, Nintendo doesn't have to rebuild the library every system and you don't have to rebuy games all over again. This will (presumably) be Nintendo's permanent retro games service, it's only going to keep getting more games and systems in the future. Even if it isn't worth it to you now, it probably will be worth it in a year (so stop complaining and just wait until more games come out!), and will probably seem super cheap in 2-3 years assuming they don't make another tier to add GB and GBA. Personally I'll probably hold off until they've doubled the number of N64/Genesis launch games. Yeah we can fault Nintendo for being very slow on this whole thing and not being transparent about what is coming, but just as the $20 service is insanely cheap for what you get now, I expect the $50 service to be the same once a bunch more games are added. Think about 100+ NES/SNES games, 30+ N64 games, maybe 40+ Genesis games, 50-100 GB/GBA games, all for $4.17 a month (not to mention the non-retro games services)! When this thing is fully built out it'll be amazing for the price. Nintendo is just stupidly slow in getting everything out.



dx11332sega said:

Word is out why the Expansion Switch online is 50$ , culprit Wii VC low sales . Licenses costs.

Excuses, excuses. -_-

IcaroRibeiro said:

Price aside and how much would anyone pay for old games, let's to the central question when paying for online services:

Has anyone questioned how low quality is Nintendo online service actually is? The experience in both Steam online and PS Online are overall just better and smoother

Splatoon 2 still a sorrow to play with so many players dropping every single match. After 3 years I was expecting some progress, but it never quite get any better

In Animal Crossing time wasted travelling between islands is also excruciatingly high. Try to make a party with 6 friends, you better have patience to wait at least 30 minutes until everyone is in

^This. They're not even TRYING to fix their online features.

Rick1331 said:

Nintendos attitude towards online has been baffling from the start and shows no sign of changing direction.

With the Wii it was bad but free with optional VC, with Switch its bad and costs... now we have this??

And then there's Pokemon, pay to transfer (from last gen), pay separately to store and pay AGAIN for online play. I always felt the online service should include bank/home etc. 

Unless they have a serious rethink I wont be parting with any money for online. 

Same. I've already turned off auto-renewal. I'm not giving them a dime until they fix this shit.



Slownenberg said:
RolStoppable said:

The only reason why this seems expensive is because NSO has been so cheap up till now.

Lots of people will display a kneejerk reaction along the lines of "what a ripoff," but it won't take long until they enter the bargaining phase where the price isn't so bad because it's only ~$4 per month or less than $1 per week for access to a growing library of classic video games that can be played anywhere they wish. People will begin to remember how much more money they've wasted on games they didn't like, so paying $50 for the known quality of classic games - games they know they like - isn't much, really.

This is so true. I mean people ALREADY complain about paying the insanely cheap $20 a year for online play, cloud saves, the '99' games, and the over 100 NES/SNES games. And you can play the games online (something that is going to get very popular with the N64 games as that was always the dream with all those amazing 4 player N64 games). That's such a good deal and people complain about it. $20 a year is nothing. $1.67 a month. And the family membership makes things even crazier - three people on the family subscription and you're paying under a dollar a month!

Now, the addition of AC DLC to the new subscription is bizarre and stupid. Not everyone owns AC so they are making the thing cost more for something the majority of people can't use. Non-AC owners will be subsidizing AC owners. This only sort of makes sense if they start adding new DLC from a variety of games (so most people would get some DLC benefit eventually) in order to bring in more people to Switch Online, but I doubt that'll happen. With what is available on day 1 of expansion pass, $50 is expensive compared to the super cheap current subscription cuz you're only getting a few N64 and Genesis games and the price is going up 150%. That makes no sense. Take out the AC DLC and it'd probably be $40 which is much more reasonable.

But now you gotta think what is coming in the future. Well, we don't know, but there will obviously be more N64 and Genesis games. We already know of the next round of N64 games. Once there are like 20+ N64 games and 30+ Genesis games $50 starts seeming much more reasonable (though still the AC DLC is a sour point for anyone who doesn't have AC). Then we have to think about the possibility of GB and GBA being added. At this point $50 for the entire retro collection of Nintendo systems, plus Genesis, plus the Switch stuff you get (online play, cloud saves, the '99' games) starts seeming like an amazing deal.

Once the N64 and Genesis games library is more built out, and they add in another let's say 50+ games from GB and GBA, they could easily separate the retro game membership from the other Switch Online stuff and sell it on it's own for $50 or $60 a year and that'd be a steal.

So while I agree that based on what is available at launch, jacking up the price 150% is bad relative to the current cost, ya gotta remember more games will be added, and hopefully GB/GBA will be added to this as well without another jacking up of price. And also the current $20 price is insanely cheap for what you get. People just loooove to complain. And the subscription model is sooo much better than the old VC model of you having to buy every single game you want for $5 to $10 each!! (this is why Netflix pretty much destroyed the movie rental industry - people like subscription models better where you get everything for a low cost), I bet all the people complaining about 'not owning' the games think nothing of paying like $100/year or more a month for Netflix even though they don't own anything there either.

Nintendo is making two mistakes though. Adding the AC DLC that only benefits some people was a stupid move as it makes everyone who doesn't have AC feel like they are being charged extra to subsidize the people who do own it. And also not announcing Nintendo's plans for this service - that's a huge mistake. At least they did announce the next round of N64 games. But it would put any reasonable person at ease with regards to the $50 price is Nintendo said hey next year we are launching another 15 N64 games and 20 Genesis games, along with a few more NES and SNES games, and then in 2023 we will add a handful of more games to each system as well as add GB and GBA games. A simple public commitment like that, so that people know what we will be getting for the price, is all it would take to get rid of all reasonable objections to the new price tier.

Rant over. But yeah basically Rolstoppable is right. Mostly I think maybe this next 6 months or so people will complain about the price, but once there's a bunch more games added $50 will start seeming reasonable. There just isn't a $30 value difference between the two tiers at launch unless you play AC. Remember, since this isn't the VC anymore, Nintendo doesn't have to rebuild the library every system and you don't have to rebuy games all over again. This will (presumably) be Nintendo's permanent retro games service, it's only going to keep getting more games and systems in the future. Even if it isn't worth it to you now, it probably will be worth it in a year (so stop complaining and just wait until more games come out!), and will probably seem super cheap in 2-3 years assuming they don't make another tier to add GB and GBA. Personally I'll probably hold off until they've doubled the number of N64/Genesis launch games. Yeah we can fault Nintendo for being very slow on this whole thing and not being transparent about what is coming, but just as the $20 service is insanely cheap for what you get now, I expect the $50 service to be the same once a bunch more games are added. Think about 100+ NES/SNES games, 30+ N64 games, maybe 40+ Genesis games, 50-100 GB/GBA games, all for $4.17 a month (not to mention the non-retro games services)! When this thing is fully built out it'll be amazing for the price. Nintendo is just stupidly slow in getting everything out.

So stop complaining about the very valid criticisms you've already laid out and go ahead and shell out the money now for an overpriced service that you admit isn't it worth it for most Switch owners now, and hope that it gets as good as you say it will years from now, even though you also admit that Nintendo's messaging about future plans for the service has been and continues to be poor?

And how long do you think it will take for GB/GBC and GBA games to hit the service, given that it's taken years for N64 and Genesis to finally come, even though they were there much, much earlier for the Wii and Wii U virtual consoles? Are we supposed to shut up and pay for this service for several years while waiting for them to come and validate the price, while hoping the price doesn't hike up again?

Man, Square Enix (Marvel's Avengers), EA (Titanfall), Activision (Destiny) love people who think like this. Everything you said is no different from their "live services" and "roadmaps", followed by their promises that things will get good eventually, so keep paying for the barebones content now.