Not yet. Even though they added a new system, theres only like 6 new games...

But if you aren't into retro games there is no reason to complain about the expansion pack because you aren't going to be interested in it anyway and nobody is making these people buy it. In which case you can just pay the insanely cheap $20/year if all you want to do is play online - which is so cheap it'd be silly to complain about that even if you don't play any of the NES, SNES, GB games that make the basic NSO subscription just an insanely good deal.

I'd say the only real valid criticisms are that Nintendo needs to work on its online infrastructure because occasionally people experience lag (or like me if you use AT&Ts mobile network as your internet you can't play even play online because their NAT type doesn't allow Nintendo's P2P gaming but just the retro games is worth the price of the Expansion Pack so I have it), but the main complaint would have to be Nintendo's desire to keep people from interacting online - having to connect through friend codes, no way to message friends, only voice chat through a mobile app, etc. None of those things have to do with the expansion pack or the price.

Yeah some people complain because they want to buy overpriced retro digital games like how the VC was, rather than pay a cheap annual membership for entire library of games, but third parties put out collections of old games digitally on the Switch so it's not like you can't already buy tons of old games on the Switch already. I do think it would be nice in the eshop if Nintendo had a retro games section so companies could advertise their games there and make it easy for users to search through old games on the Switch by the system(s) they were on. And sure it would only make Nintendo more money if they added their own retro games digitally since buying those games cost way more than the NSO, but also companies tend to like subscriptions because of the reliability of the income they can make better forecasts on revenue.

I guess my point is the service is so cheap that unless there are only a few games in the entire library of old Nintendo games that you want to play the NSO is much more cost effective for users and the features (access to all the games, online play with friends, plus online Switch gameplay) are much better than the VC was so the reasons to complain are very niche, while people on this website seem to make the very niche complaints into like so huge deal that they never get tired of shouting about no matter how many more games and systems are added. I think the people who are still complaining just complained at the launch for legitimate reasons (the N64 emulator was crap and there weren't enough games at launch to really be worth the extra $30 a year but of course everyone knew that would change soon) and they are just being stubborn and refuse to accept the fact that the emulator has been fixed for a year now and over twice as many N64 games and I think 3 times as many Genesis games now, plus GBA (and GB on basic subscription) making the main reason for complaining at launch completely irrelevant now.

The problem is that it is not really worth paying an extra 30/year on top of $20 for NSO in perpetuity for 2 or more years until they add even more games and content than they already have.
I would say if you wanted the Mario Kart and Animal Crossing content to play for a year, it's already worth it. The N64, Genesis, and GBA games are just the cherry on top.
I finally subscribed in January of this year, based on some content they added and with more N64 games on the way. But it's pretty likely I'll unsubscribe before my subscription expires unless the GBA and N64 games keep me interested.

I think it's worth it if someone thinks it's worth it. I keep telling myself I'll sign up for it in 6 or so months when they add more games to the service. They keep adding new games, but I keep not subbing to it. The lack of some major games that aren't available to purchase either hold me back like Mario RPG, Chrono Trigger, multiple rare games from the N64. If they would add Wizards and Warriors (not sure who owns the rights) I would sub right away. I may sign up for it one day.

You know some platforms are completely free to play online, right?

$20 isn't "insanely cheap" when the competition is literally free. It's the opposite, it's insanely expensive! It may look decent next to what Sony/Microsoft charge, but for anybody that plays on PC it's just a ripoff.

I would say it depends on a couple things. One, do you have these games in their physical forms? And two, how much do you plan on playing them? If you have most of the games physically, like I do, then it's a hard sell. And if you're not into retro games at all, then naturally, it's another hard sell. But if neither of those things apply to you, then I can see the value there. Yes, you're "renting" them, and digitally no less, but that's still a lot of fun to be hard.. warts and all. Especially with local co-op. I would imagine they would be great for families and drinking get-togethers with friends etc.

It depends on how much you use it. People are talking about 50 USD a year like it’s 50 USD a month.

But I’d say if you use it at least a couple hours a month, it’s worth the price.

Gold -used- to be decent when we got 4 games per month. - But two of them were Original Xbox or Xbox 360 titles... Which you could keep using even when your subscription expired.

That was good value in my eyes... But when you compare that to PC where you get free games weekly via epic store and don't need a subscription at all? Yikes. Shafted.

I think that's the biggest issue I have, you don't keep these titles, eventually the online stores will close (Looks at 3DS and WiiU) and you won't be able to play them anymore.

“You can play games for free on PC, therefore all games on console are insanely expensive.”

This is why your argument against Slownenberg is invalid.

Nope. You may not agree with me, but my opinion is definitely still valid regardless.