The games are a bonus the service is for online play, there is no cheaper version without the games is there?
-
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.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
It's unbelievable how the Switch's paid online service is worse than the free service of the WiiU/3DS
- Thread starter OrdinaryUsername
- Start date
I say this every time the topic comes up, but I strongly believe that the Switch had to be rushed to market to save their falling stock price, and the UI was released in an unfinished state to be fixed later. When the Switch became a success, they realized that they didn't have to add any new features.
Nintendo has been taught that they can do the bare minimum and their consumers will like it, and often thank them for it for some reason. NSO is pretty bad other than the two times they've dumped like 20 games on it. The fact they ditched monthly releases is pathetic. But again, they've learned that they can do this.
Nintendo has been taught that they can do the bare minimum and their consumers will like it, and often thank them for it for some reason. NSO is pretty bad other than the two times they've dumped like 20 games on it. The fact they ditched monthly releases is pathetic. But again, they've learned that they can do this.
Welcome to Nintendo. While the rest of the industry has long since advanced, they haven't implemented basic things that were common to consoles since the 2000's.
When it was free, it was a bit harder to complain about, but now that they're making you pay for it, it's beyond excusable for what they're offering... Especially since we're paying for basically the same thing before that was free. The paltry offering of NES and now SNES titles (...woooo) doesn't make up for lack of in-game messaging system, voice chat, or use of unified gamertag system that doesn't rely on friend codes. And that's not even mentioning their online infrastructure and issues that affect the actual online games, like latency and lag.
It's overwhelming disappointing that they refuse to change. They have all the potential to make something great and unique when it comes to an online service, but they completely squander it by refusing to listen to their consumers and pay attention to their competitors. Online just clearly is not a priority to them (And probably will never be at this point).
The only reason they can afford to continue being so complacent and indignant is because the Switch was a success, but that may not be the case with the next console. That very lack of willing to adapt is going to catch up to them sooner than later.
When it was free, it was a bit harder to complain about, but now that they're making you pay for it, it's beyond excusable for what they're offering... Especially since we're paying for basically the same thing before that was free. The paltry offering of NES and now SNES titles (...woooo) doesn't make up for lack of in-game messaging system, voice chat, or use of unified gamertag system that doesn't rely on friend codes. And that's not even mentioning their online infrastructure and issues that affect the actual online games, like latency and lag.
It's overwhelming disappointing that they refuse to change. They have all the potential to make something great and unique when it comes to an online service, but they completely squander it by refusing to listen to their consumers and pay attention to their competitors. Online just clearly is not a priority to them (And probably will never be at this point).
The only reason they can afford to continue being so complacent and indignant is because the Switch was a success, but that may not be the case with the next console. That very lack of willing to adapt is going to catch up to them sooner than later.
They're not a bonus, they're a core part of the service. If there was a cheaper no games version then yeah, maybe you could call them a bonus.
I see this as a 8 Euros per year subscription (I'm sharing a family plan with friends) to play nes/snes and Tetris 99. It's the only way to make it worth it.
It's literally called switch online you're paying for the privilege of playing online with the bonus of having retro games, it's a fake value just like the other online services are, the ps3 and Wii U didn't have a paywall and the online worked great, it makes you wonder what you're paying for.
I hold a sliver of hope that Furukawa being from a younger generation of player may influence a better approach to online services than the Iwata era. That would really not manifest itself until late on Switch or Switch 2 though.
Generally, I'm resigned to online services only ever being an afterthought with Nintendo. I try to keep my expectations as low as possible.
Generally, I'm resigned to online services only ever being an afterthought with Nintendo. I try to keep my expectations as low as possible.
And the retrogames are literally called "Nintendo Switch Online: Nintendo Entertainment System" and "Nintendo Switch Online: Super Nintendo Entertainment System". They're literally given equal billing on Nintendo site and all their PR/advertising with "online play". They might be a bonus to you but that's not how Nintendo's designed or is promoting the service at all.
If you aren't really interested in playing a bunch of super old games, it's not really much of a pro for paying for online.
Because you realize that promoting a paywall is a pr suicide right? The retro games are only there to make it seem less terrible.
When you consider most of Nintendo's online focused games run on player hosting and not dedicated servers, you really feel like complete and utter idiot for forking over any amount of cash for that "privilege".
And even more baffling is how bare bones and limited online has been implemented in some of their other online/multiplayer focused titles, even after introducing the damn fee.
And even more baffling is how bare bones and limited online has been implemented in some of their other online/multiplayer focused titles, even after introducing the damn fee.
P
Personally I'm fine with paying 5€ a year. I've already recouped the cost thanks to the vouchers.
No, the NES/SNES games, Tetris 99, the vouchers and the NES/SNES controllers are inherently part of the Switch Online service, just like the ability to play online is or - to make a comparison - like the PS Plus games are. That's why I don't like when people say Nintendo or Sony are offering "free" games with their services - they aren't free at all, they are part of something you are paying for.
Personally I'm fine with paying 5€ a year. I've already recouped the cost thanks to the vouchers.
I thought they would give subscribers some kind of discount when buying on eShop, or double gold coins on every purchase. Edit: forgot about vouchers (limited time in NA) and that I played Mario Tennis for free for a week. Maybe if they did the vouchers again I would get a couple.
I used the first year (free) to play Splatoon and now I'm using it (paid) to play Mario Maker. Don't intend to renew it after it expires.
I used the first year (free) to play Splatoon and now I'm using it (paid) to play Mario Maker. Don't intend to renew it after it expires.
I can play Super Metroid, Link to the Past, Mario World and Yoshi's Island on the way to work in the morning. It's fucking worth it for that alone.
Yep, it's really annoying how Switch doesn't allow for local back-ups for saves. Let people that don't pay for online have an option. I pay the fee, but it'd be nice to have the option.
It's not value when you can't choose what you're paying for, all of those subscriptions exist to provide another revenue stream.
Is it? Microsoft pulled it off pretty well on 360.
The point though is all these things (online play, cloud saves, retro games, phone app, special offers) are all parts of this service and according to Nintendo equal parts at that. Just because you view one as a bonus doesn't mean it is. That doesn't make make NSO above criticism, frankly there's issues with ALL aspects of it, but that's the thing in that these are all aspects of it. It's not just the online play.
Last edited:
It is value for money, you don't consider it enough value for money. It is also a revenue stream, yes, none of these companies invest in products out of a charitable interest.
However in the essence I agree, the value should be a whole lot higher. And the online paywalls from our beloved companies are shit.
$19.99/year is not enough to make it have higher values.
I like the hashes for Discord and battle.net as a solution. Friend codes aren't as elegant but they also do the trick. I think the hate for friend codes is exaggerated. It's not that big a deal to take 10 seconds to type in a long code imo
Switch online is in many aspects a step baxk not because 20 bucks from every online user isn't enough, its because everything beyond games and a snappy interface was a secondary priority.
I can live with that. You can too. But I want better. And ain't nothing wrong with that.
Steam also has friend codes. Again, not the only way of adding people, but they're there. And short of sending someone your profile link, it's often easier since giving someone your steam name doesn't work a lot of the time since your steam username and steam profile name can be totally different.
I have a very strongly opinionated thought about the connotation of "wanting Switch Online to be better". I apologize if I sounded pushy, but it's really not directed at you.
If people wanted Switch Online to be better, they need to send emails or get in contact with the customer service and explain what aspects of Switch Online needs improving, and have Nintendo actually log down those feedback.
If they don't get any feedback logged down, they can't determine what to do with Switch Online. I wished there's a coordinated effort to encourage people to submit feedback to Nintendo directly by the community.
NESFlix and SNESflix is already so much nicer than the Wii U stuff, but that being said Wii U had MiiVerse and games that really pushed that service with cool features. It's just a bad campaign so far, and I hope somewhere down the line Nintendo surprises us with something that actually warrants online service and not a bonus benefit from buying online.
Yea, it's a pile of crap and just has made me not bothering to buy games on Switch that have a big online component that I happily bought on Wii U like Mario Maker, Mario Kart and Splatoon. Mario Maker in particular is the biggest offender needing a subscription to play other people's levels is horseshit.
I loved miiverse, being able to take a snapshot of a spot in a game and show off your accomplishment or ask a question was so cool since each game had its own individual community. Why would they drop the one thing that the other guys were lacking at the time. Sony has since added a community feature like that
I think this is hyperbole. Friend codes aren't that bad, and they're just giving us free NES and SNES games instead of having to buy each one for $5/8. It's a trickle, sure, but they've already got most of the ones up that I'm interested in, anyway.
It's also more reliable than the service was on Wii U in my experience, and at least they give third parties the option of implementing voice chat directly.
It's also more reliable than the service was on Wii U in my experience, and at least they give third parties the option of implementing voice chat directly.
Agreed. We got a fast OS and region free, but bare bones is, went right back to friend codes and can't even message or voice chat with friends on a centralized system. The snes new games are great, if you okay them. Otherwise a huge step diwn
Imo, miiverse was the best OS/software on the Wii u by far.
Imo, miiverse was the best OS/software on the Wii u by far.
That's crazy. Dreams on the PS4 lets you play with the creations of others, and share your own creations, all without needing PS+. I can see them drawing the line at online multiplayer games created in Dreams (not yet possible but coming) but at least that fits in with what the PS+ subscription is supposed to be for.
The Switch online feels 5 years behind the wii U online, and *that* felt 10 years behind the xbox 360 Live. I actually like the wii U shop though, even the little inconsequential jingle. I can hear tumbleweeds while browsing through the Switch eshop.
There are so many problems with their Online service I don't even know where to begin.
The fact that you have to pay an online subscription to play old SNES and NES games is ridiculous. Why not just let you purchase them and have them tied to your account like everyone else? It's as if they ran out of ideas to justify paying for online (as their options are so limited to begin with compared to their competitors) so they thought up of this method with old games.
The games are also drip fed. The same games that have been digitally distributed by them before on Wii have now all of a sudden reset themselves and are released slowly over the Switch's life. Before you know it the next console will be out and the cycle will repeat.
The infrastructure seems barebones. There is no way to clearly see what people are playing, which part they're playing. What bits they haven't completed compared to you. I guess this Is where achievements would help and that's another whole topic for discussion but I'm not even gonna go there on here. Bottom line is this should have been implemented to provide a richer online presence and incentive to accomplish things in games.
Other than playing online what is the actual point of paying for it? All the other features that are tied behind it shouldn't have been or at least give you multiple options such as saving to usb. The limited options they have on their system with the presence of online shows this and it's forced their hand. They want a slice of that online money but have very little justification for it.
as if they are clutching at straws by locking certain things behind a subscription paywall when they shouldn't be. There are many many features missing which would make their online presence better.
Put it this way when I use my Seitch I never really feel I'm "connected" to anyone with it. Like I know it's connected online but something about it just screams as if I'm playing a SNES or something.
The fact that you have to pay an online subscription to play old SNES and NES games is ridiculous. Why not just let you purchase them and have them tied to your account like everyone else? It's as if they ran out of ideas to justify paying for online (as their options are so limited to begin with compared to their competitors) so they thought up of this method with old games.
The games are also drip fed. The same games that have been digitally distributed by them before on Wii have now all of a sudden reset themselves and are released slowly over the Switch's life. Before you know it the next console will be out and the cycle will repeat.
The infrastructure seems barebones. There is no way to clearly see what people are playing, which part they're playing. What bits they haven't completed compared to you. I guess this Is where achievements would help and that's another whole topic for discussion but I'm not even gonna go there on here. Bottom line is this should have been implemented to provide a richer online presence and incentive to accomplish things in games.
Other than playing online what is the actual point of paying for it? All the other features that are tied behind it shouldn't have been or at least give you multiple options such as saving to usb. The limited options they have on their system with the presence of online shows this and it's forced their hand. They want a slice of that online money but have very little justification for it.
as if they are clutching at straws by locking certain things behind a subscription paywall when they shouldn't be. There are many many features missing which would make their online presence better.
Put it this way when I use my Seitch I never really feel I'm "connected" to anyone with it. Like I know it's connected online but something about it just screams as if I'm playing a SNES or something.
My young nephew has a Switch, but he doesn't have a phone yet and he isn't allowed to have social networks yet. Answer me this: How am I supposed to invite him to an online match?
I could easily do it if we were on PS4 or Xbox.
It's frankly embarrassing.
Fact people login elsewhere to register friends shows how awful it is. This makes it look even worse, not everyone has social media accounts for good reason. I've not played online since launch but you couldnt even message back then, it's got a clumsy daisy chain method of voice chat too, the lengths you guys go through to defend incompetence is so odd. These workarounds are not good simply because the industry showed back in 2003 how to implement these features successfully. Why Nintendo continue to use the equivalent of square shaped wheels is simply incomprehensible, and the Stockholm syndrome of some fans display is even more bizzare, it doesn't help them change.
Last edited:
I assumed (many of us did I imagine) that unifying the wii U/3ds eshop was going to allow licenses to carry forward. But nope. Nintendo intends to monetize those NES and SNES titles into perpentuity. In fairness, many third party developers are now bundling their own games and cutting out Nintendo as much as they can on that front ( like the Contra, Disney, Castlevania, Megaman collections) but the big N has more than enough in-house content across 30 years to sustain their own first party virtual console.
I'm just not sure why they don't offer the option to both buy those games or subscribe. Surely you'd get a fairly large cross section of people who both pay for the online and also buy games ala carte. In essence two bites of the cherry. Hell, discount the games for paid subscribers. Maybe they have some spreadsheet telling them this is the best route, but it's just odd that we have less choice compared to their older consoles.
Nintendo's awful online impacts their 3rd party support as well IMO. They need to sort that out. Not only is it a potential gold mine in terms of revenue but it will make the platform a better choice particularly for big 3rd parties.
Also as a primarily PC based gamer I still refuse to pay for online on any console.
Also as a primarily PC based gamer I still refuse to pay for online on any console.
