https://www.gamesindustry.biz/artic...nline-after-surge-in-short-subscription-plans
Didn't see a thread for this but close if old.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Gamesindustry.biz: Nintendo plans to "boost" Switch Online after surge in short subscription plans
- Thread starter Saucycarpdog
- Start date
Unlike PS Plus and Live Gold, Nintendo has somewhat reasonably priced the shorter subscription options. They'll just have to make one month cost $6, 3 months for $10 and the annual stay at $20. Then everyone is going to have to go for the annual one to not get ripped off. It's how Plus and Gold already work.
I'd rather they address the subscriptions issue by improving their abysmal online rather than adjusting the prices.
2 big hints, Ninty :
1. Add decent in game chat.
2. Stop fucking with the NES app and open the floodgates.
Yeah I'm not confident that Nintendo are able to realize a competent offering in the current framework. They need to go back to the drawing board and reinvent the service if they want it to grow beyond a core base.
It's cheaper because it;'s shit, let's not get it twisted. PSn and Live are magnitudes better. They should be aiming to improve it rather then adjust prices.
Yeah this is definitely where I land on this too. Make your service better and people will buy into it for longer.
Same here. I really hope they dont change the family plan because with their shitty online service is the only price were i feel im not totally being ripped off, i used exactly the same way that when the exact same service was free so 5 is not that steep of a price to pay a year.
Pretty obvious. When companies are launching new products/services they make adjustments according to how they perform in the market.
Or you know they could actually address why most people subscribing don't want a yearly subscription
The price comparison was about 1, 3, 12 months fees, not about different consoles.
Like the "enrich the content" in the OP?
Haha, it'll have to be an RTTP tho :P. I've played Link to the Past multiple times.
The raddest thing would be if they uploaded an "SP Version" that was literally just a Randomized run.
Only reason why I bought the one year plan is because of cloud saves. If Nintendo was competent and had other ways to backup your saves where you don't need an online subscription, I wouldn't have signed up in the first place because of how bad their online service is.
How about we start by making it on par with Wii U's online first.
Then we can worry about giving it value.
Then we can worry about giving it value.
I hope that Snes games will come to the party. If I can get 2 Snes games a month, I'll be a very happy man :)
It's super obvious they've been alluding to SNES games for awhile but that's not going to be enough. Like what else can they do?
GB and GBA games (that is, if the N64 Classic is actually happening anytime soon).
I mean, hopefully they'll actually make the online part of the online service, but I don't expect that. At this point, I just hope I'll get to play old games that I actually want to play, like Pokemon lol. Knowing Nintendo and considering their current NES drip-feed, I'd be better off expecting that for the Switch 2 smh.
It doesn't even need to be Miiverse. Is there a way they can filter Twitter on a Switch so that it only shows posts and conversations from Nintendo Switch?
My assumption is that Nintendo won't do anything like Miiverse/Swapnote again because they don't want their system to be used to expose kids to certain things, which I realize is ironic as I type this because YouTube is now on Switch.
I agree with this. It's hard to believe I feel this way over something that is only 20 bucks a year, but I do.
Read again, the user is comparing how Nintendo prices the shorter subscriptions not the whole thing
You have no other choice if you want to play non-f2p games online and Smash just came out. It's not the drip-feed of NES titles that's pulling people in.
Nobody cares how "good" or "bad" the "service" is. If you want to play online, you must pay. People are not paying for PS+ or Live Gold because of how great the "service" is (very few had Plus on PS3). When you press the Multiplayer button on a game's main menu, the quality of the "service" does not matter. You're told to pay. And many people will.
If you're shocked by that, wait till you hear how many people subscribe to Comcast. The number will astound you.
Would be such a good deal. Pay money to use twitter on Switch while it's free on everything else including your phone. The Stockholm syndrome was always strong with Nintendo.
i mean, just the robustness of the VC library that they implemented 13 years ago would be rad
Oh I wasn't really focusing on the pay money part, but on the idea that Switch needs a way to let gamers communicate with each other. That communication should 100% be free.
How about releasing all your fucking NES and SNES games and not doing this 2 game a month trickle?!
Bare minimum of communication standard as seen in gaming in general since 2006?
Provided access to a vault of NES, SNES, N64 and GC games that subscribers can play as much as they want of.
I mean, it's the only way to play Splatoon 2 and Smash Bros online, offers cloud saves and it's like <$2/mo for the yearly sub. It's not that surprising.
Heard nothing great with regards to Smash Bros. working online, which sucks because I barely have anyone to play with it locally, but absolutely would have plenty to play with online. Also their chat system is crap...so I'm hardly surprised.
It's weird how a console that marketed itself constantly playing and socializing with other people, couldn't translate that into an online service that is particularly social.
It's weird how a console that marketed itself constantly playing and socializing with other people, couldn't translate that into an online service that is particularly social.
