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

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

I think I'm gonna stick to the $20 a year plan for now. The only thing that really interests me in the Switch online expansion is the DLC for Animal Crossing: New Horizons. Good thing I can buy that by itself for $25.



Around the Network

I would join in, but I recently found out I was subbed to Nintendo Online for a year without realising, so probably shouldn't be complaining.



KLXVER said:
Captain_Yuri said:

What?

Oh, I thought you meant the Animal Crossing Direct when it was first revealed.

No, we were talking about the Switch Online Expansion Pack Overview video.



I don't have a Switch, and never made any online purchases or subscriptions with my 2DS, but I have some friends that are quite pis... Mad at Nintendo.

I wonder if they will keep up with this absurd of a plan. The outrage of the fans seems to be real, and they probably have a reputation to sustain...



I have a Youtube channel... A Twitter, and... Yeah.

Looks like I'm not upgrading.



Around the Network

Well, then vote with your wallet. I'm just glad we still have a cheaper option. They could've moved everyone to the higher tier.

I'll just add that the US price difference is steeper than in Europe 

US: 2.5x 
EU: 2x
UK: 1.9x 

Last edited by Kristof81 - on 18 October 2021

Well just to add that I rather buy a Sega Collection Disk, be it their arcade, their genesis or whatever they launch (and with trophies) which would likely release for less than 30USD, but a year later be less than 10USD and own it forever than having a small number of their titles on a rental and even less of those to my liking =p
But sure if it was almost the whole library (or at least all the titles released by Sega themselves) that would be another conversation.



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."

There is something that needs to be cleared up. I saw some comparisons with Gamepass here but it's not correct.

Nintendo Online is 20USD per year, meaning less than 2USD per month. In contrast, Xbox live gold is currently at 10USD per month, meaning 120USD per year. So given the 100USD difference, the level of quality is understandable. What Nintendo needs to do is increase the price of Online while also improving the quality. Otherwise it is useless and will always feel like 20USD poorly spent.

Nintendo Online + Expansion is 50USD per year, meaning a little over 4USD per month. Gamepass is a whole different beast, it seems to be priced at 15USD per month and includes gamepass. Now that will always remain an unbeatable offer no matter what Nintendo does. For 180USD per year, you get almost all the AAA games you need on the console and indies. There is very little Nintendo can do to stop this other than to make its own gamepass but I'm not for it since it will only consolidate the market even more, and could come across as another Disney+ type of capitalistic hedged garden.

What they probably should do to remain strong is to outsource the online service and throttle on usage, then charge online on a per-game basis, since many online Nintendo games like Animal Crossing and Pokemon don't need twitch timing. Only certain specific action or fighting games need it such as Smash, Mario Tennis, Mario Kart or Mario Golf. There should be a 3rd plan for dedicated games that allow this type of customization on a per-game basis, with checkboxes adding up the subscription. Everything else can fall under your typical online speeds.



padib said:

There is something that needs to be cleared up. I saw some comparisons with Gamepass here but it's not correct.

Nintendo Online is 20USD per year, meaning less than 2USD per month. In contrast, Xbox live gold is currently at 10USD per month, meaning 120USD per year. So given the 100USD difference, the level of quality is understandable. What Nintendo needs to do is increase the price of Online while also improving the quality. Otherwise it is useless and will always feel like 20USD poorly spent.

Nintendo Online + Expansion is 50USD per year, meaning a little over 4USD per month. Gamepass is a whole different beast, it seems to be priced at 15USD per month and includes gamepass. Now that will always remain an unbeatable offer no matter what Nintendo does. For 180USD per year, you get almost all the AAA games you need on the console and indies. There is very little Nintendo can do to stop this other than to make its own gamepass but I'm not for it since it will only consolidate the market even more, and could come across as another Disney+ type of capitalistic hedged garden.

What they probably should do to remain strong is to outsource the online service and throttle on usage, then charge online on a per-game basis, since many online Nintendo games like Animal Crossing and Pokemon don't need twitch timing. Only certain specific action or fighting games need it such as Smash, Mario Tennis, Mario Kart or Mario Golf. There should be a 3rd plan for dedicated games that allow this type of customization on a per-game basis, with checkboxes adding up the subscription. Everything else can fall under your typical online speeds.

Well you can ignore GP and just go versus Gold and PS+, 2 or 3 current games (sometimes AAA that is less than 1 year old) for about similar price of what Nintendo wants to charge this expansion to give several gens old games.

And if we are talking only the multiplayer aspect of the online, Nintendo version is very much worse than all the rest (even more for adding friends and the like), worse even than what PSN was when free.



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."

padib said:

There is something that needs to be cleared up. I saw some comparisons with Gamepass here but it's not correct.

Nintendo Online is 20USD per year, meaning less than 2USD per month. In contrast, Xbox live gold is currently at 10USD per month, meaning 120USD per year. So given the 100USD difference, the level of quality is understandable. What Nintendo needs to do is increase the price of Online while also improving the quality. Otherwise it is useless and will always feel like 20USD poorly spent.

Nintendo Online + Expansion is 50USD per year, meaning a little over 4USD per month. Gamepass is a whole different beast, it seems to be priced at 15USD per month and includes gamepass. Now that will always remain an unbeatable offer no matter what Nintendo does. For 180USD per year, you get almost all the AAA games you need on the console and indies. There is very little Nintendo can do to stop this other than to make its own gamepass but I'm not for it since it will only consolidate the market even more, and could come across as another Disney+ type of capitalistic hedged garden.

What they probably should do to remain strong is to outsource the online service and throttle on usage, then charge online on a per-game basis, since many online Nintendo games like Animal Crossing and Pokemon don't need twitch timing. Only certain specific action or fighting games need it such as Smash, Mario Tennis, Mario Kart or Mario Golf. There should be a 3rd plan for dedicated games that allow this type of customization on a per-game basis, with checkboxes adding up the subscription. Everything else can fall under your typical online speeds.

Game Pass is expensive not because of the quality of infrastructure, but because of licensing fees. Game Pass is also supposed to mainly replace gaming purchases, at least from first party, overall gaming spending will be always smaller on Game Pass unless you play less than 3 games a year, the online being far superior to Switch Online is just the cherry on top 

Your solution for asking will only need to another increasing in overall spending. I can already see Nintendo asking 10 USD for each game you want to play online

Granted, there is no reason to ask money for online when online is the reason why the software is being sold in first place. Let's remove online gameplay for Mario Kart, Smash and Animal Crossing and see how much less they would be selling, specially with gen Z kids and teenagers that are used to play everything online