There is no correlation. This is a completely nonsensical topic. It's like blaming Switch online for Let's Go missing a bunch of online features for Sun and Moon.
You can with Battle Arenas. Set up a Battle Arena, set it to Public, set it to Team Battle and whatever other rules you want, and you and your friend can then wait for other random people to join.
99.9% sure you can do that in the battle arenas (private matches/lobbies). I can't remember what the player limit is there, but they have spectating/waiting options there. The fighter limit is always 4.
All that needs to be said, really. I don't know what some of you guys were expecting the moment Nintendo announced they were going to start charging for online with the Switch.
Yeah it seems super cool and not being able to play it online is a bummer. I don’t have any gamer friends to play with.
Nintendo's online system has nothing whatsoever to do with the netcode algorithm chosen for Smash. Not to mention even if Nintendo provided servers as part of their paid online system, that would be a terrible idea for a fighting game as P2P is actually idea, so it wouldn't be a factor anyway.To the people saying paying for online doesn't mean it will improve the functionality or that we are paying for things like cloud save etc, why lock online play behind it then?
And regardless of whether it's paid or not, shouldn't there be an expectation of functional/relatively smooth online play in 2019?
I mean, I just got my switch with the Facebook deal and I am not sure exactly how the 8 player local multiplayer works, but shouldn't it work better than this?
Nintendo can, and should do better.
This. Gamers should have resisted it across the board. It was never going to make the games any better. Its just a hurdle.I'm not sure what either of these things have to do with one another. I feel like there's some fundamental misunderstanding with a lot of people on here who think paying for an online service has remotely anything to do with which modes are available in an online game that uses it
People think there's some magic netcode algorithm that will allow smooth 8-player 60fps (at whatever tick rate needed for online) play on devices that primarily use wifi. You guys complain about it not being there, but would complain if they added it and, as expected, it's laggy
Maybe if it wasn't a first party title, but it is. If the platform holder is putting out one of its flagship titles and the first big title requiring their new new online service to play, they should have their developers work on making it a good showing for network play.You guys realize Nintendo isn't mandating Sakurai to add/remove online modes, right? Sora LTD is an independent contracted company with Bandai-Namco as the developers as has been the case since Brawl. Very little of the decisions in the game are "Nintendo" decisions
Nintendo's online system has nothing whatsoever to do with the netcode algorithm chosen for Smash. Not to mention even if Nintendo provided servers as part of their paid online system, that would be a terrible idea for a fighting game as P2P is actually idea, so it wouldn't be a factor anyway.
I have no idea what you guys are even talking about anymore
Lol can you imagine...
This was my biggest beef with Smash for Wii U. I wouldn't have thought time in years or extra money coming in would alleviate this type of nintendo situation, but still fucking sucks.
Which game are you referring to??Switch online is already pretty mediocre, so not surprising. Debatably the biggest multiplayer game on the console won't even be supported in just a few months, so doesn't surprise me that they've made other asinine decisions when it comes to online. It's like they're stuck in the mid 2000s in a lot of ways. But I guess you get what you pay for.
Doesn't matter if it's free...the online should work smoothly