• The site will be down for scheduled maintenance this Friday the 24th at 2AM PST / 5AM EST / 9AM UTC while we perform a software update. We expect this process to take up to 5 hours. Thank you for your understanding and patience. New features will be included.
  • Community Spotlight sign-ups are open once again for both Gaming and EtcetEra Hangout threads! If you want to shine a spotlight on your community, please register now.

Super Mario Maker 2: Switch Online requirements and multiplayer limitations

Oct 31, 2017
6,549
Greece
There's a difference between online multiplayer and download/upload of community content, I can't think of many games on any system that lock that behind a subscription.
Okay that I understand, but on the other hand, why wouldn't Nintendo go for a power move like that? Mario Maker would allow them to create a greater incentive for potential subscribers, and I would think further on stuff like Island sharing in Animal Crossing will also be behind a paywall to create further need to keep users subscribed. Is it slimy and disgenous? Sure. But hell, if Pokemon, Online Mario, and Animal Crossing aren't enough to keep people paying the subscription or sign up for it, I dunno what will.
 
Oct 27, 2017
461
Okay that I understand, but on the other hand, why wouldn't Nintendo go for a power move like that? Mario Maker would allow them to create a greater incentive for potential subscribers, and I would think further on stuff like Island sharing in Animal Crossing will also be behind a paywall to create further need to keep users subscribed. Is it slimy and disgenous? Sure. But hell, if Pokemon, Online Mario, and Animal Crossing aren't enough to keep people paying the subscription or sign up for it, I dunno what will.
If they can't come up with good enough multiplayer content that people are willing to subscribe for that's on them, resorting to putting community content behind a paywall is failure.

People should be and rightly are irked by it and shouldn't pay for it.
It's not the consumers job to clean up Nintendo's mess.
 
Jan 11, 2019
114
I have no problem paying $10 extra to get a 12-month subscription.. it's quite a good deal actually..

pre-ordering two $60 Nintendo first party games digitally for $100 with extra coins to spend makes the subscription a no-brainer to be honest
 
Oct 28, 2017
120
Might be a stupid question as I haven't really followed the development, are you able to queue up and download a bunch of user-created levels for offline play on a morning commute say the night before?
 
Oct 25, 2017
179
Netherlands
So I wanted to make this thread to clarify some details from the Direct as a lot of you are asking the same thing over and over in the other thread.
.
.
.
Edit: according to he eShop the game supports up to 4 players on a single system, but we know co-op editing is limited to 2 players, so maybe there could be single-console multiplayer at the end. It's currently unknown.
totally cleared the confusion :P

/sorry
 
Nov 1, 2017
2,110
Can we team up with friends in online coop or am I stuck with randoms?

Sounds like a silly question, but after Splatoon limited matchmaking with friends to specific modes and Aces wouldn’t let me play doubles with my mate online, it’s worth asking.
You can make rooms so I'm pretty sure you can invite friends, whether you're only 2 people or upt to 4.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,239
Not that simple, it's mostly arbitrary and varies by game. Bloodborne requires Plus to use every online feature, including chalice dungeon codes and messages on the ground. Dark Souls games also need Plus to see ground messages and shared events (e.g. bell ringing in your game when someone online rings it).
It is that simple. Person asked if anything on the ps4 or xb1 didn't require PS+, and it just so happens the games most like Mario Maker on the PS4 don't require it for level sharing. Other games requiring it doesn't change that and Nintendo should never have put in such a requirement into such a community focused game to begin with.

But of course, for some people on here, nintendo can do no wrong, so this will just not be made an issue of/there will be constant downplaying about it and dumb posts like "You don't have $10 or $20,, online is so cheap bro lol" (already happening in here) and everybody will be worse off for it.
 
Last edited:
Oct 25, 2017
1,924
It is that simple. Person asked if anything on the ps4 or xb1 didn't require PS+, and it just so happens the games most like Mario Maker on the PS4 don't require it for level sharing. Other games requiring it doesn't change that and Nintendo should never have put in such a requirement into such a community focused game to begin with.

But of course, for some people on here, nintendo can do no wrong, so this will just not be made an issue of/there will be constant downplaying about it and dumb posts like "You don't have $10 or $20,, online is so cheap bro lol" (already happening in here) and everybody will be worse off for it.
Console online access should not cost money in the first place, but people accepted it with the Xbox 360 back then and will accept it now that every console needs it. Games can arbitrarily paywall online features because these subscriptions exist. You're getting "online is cheap" people because online is triple the price on Xbox and Playstation. Reactions would be much more negative if the competing consoles didn't charge for online as well.
 
May 24, 2018
451
Canada
Hey everyone! I was worried about how well Mario Maker would work for me. Never played SMM1. But I'm interested in it! I'd like to clarify a few things:

Why are people surprised an online feature requires an online membership?

A few reasons. Not only did SMM1 not require this on the old system, but games like Super Mario Odyssey have the option to upload and download content for online features for free. I expect a paywall for things like the (surprise!) online multiplayer. And I understood 'it's the industry' when the Direct said you need a subscription to upload. But I kind of thought downloading might still be free. Little Big Planet allows user generated content to be freely downloaded.

Honestly, without user generated levels, the value of the game diminishes a lot for me. Even though there is 'plenty' of 'content.'

But, isn't there enough content with over 100 levels and DIY?

Not for everyone. Probably not. The 100+ crafted levels in Story Mode are meant as tutorial levels that show you how to interact with (and thus use) different SMM2 features. I don't expect these games to scratch the same itch as a well-designed fun platformer. Though I'm sure they are great and fun, they probably aren't worth the asking price for the game alone. But a great value add.

The DIY is definitely good. But without being able to see what other people are doing, it's not good enough. There is a lot of features and content to justify the game. But until I see what kind of levels are included that I can play it's not worth it for me for the few DIY levels I'd up up making. The DIY is the core of the game, but not just enough. The Story Mode is a great value add, but may not scratch that itch. Getting real levels helps it all add up.

But for others it will definitely be good enough. It depends on how you think you will play the game. And it depends on the nature of the levels that come packaged with the game. Maybe there are a bunch of great levels besides the tutorial levels about sliding down a hill.

Will I Get It?
I wasn't sure before this Direct, but assumed I would. I need to know if I could download courses to use them offline. With NSO you can, but it would be nice if it would download a variety of courses rather than you having to do it yourself to prepare for your daily commute or time away from WiFi.

However, I'm now leaning away from it. 100+ tutorial levels doesn't sounds like fun. Not being able to be inspired by playing other people's levels make the DIY feel like I won't be able to use it enough to enjoy myself.

I wanted to play Super Mario Maker 1 when it came out. I'm not sure if it's my thing. I'd love to try it. Full price is a bit expensive for me. But if there aren't great full levels to scratch the Mario itch, I'll probably pass for now. And I'm even less inclined to spend an extra 10 dollars on it to make it useful to me.

Just let me download a few levels every week. That's all I need.


Nintendo has made a great game packed with features, I think. It's almost the game for me and I want to play it. But without actual content, why would I pay full price + 10 or whatever they charge here in Canada? But for some of you it's a obvious buy. For some of you it works since you have NSO. And I'm very happy for you. I will be watching a little disappointed and a little jealous. I just don't think I'd get the play value out of it.

I have a backlog anyway.
 
Oct 27, 2017
4,400
The term “industry standard” is so fucking annoying, especially when it comes to online pay. There are only 3 subscription services and they have changed dramatically over time. There hasn’t been one standard, the rules change, the price changes, the features change. And if you broaden it to any online games, you’d then include mobile and PC games which don’t even charge for online play.

“Industry standard” is just nonsense to narrowly define something so you can say, “but Sony does X!” I get people are disappointed, but Nintendo has already charged for user created content on NSO and we’ve already had this thread about Mario Maker. Be disappointed if you want, but trying to convince people that it’s “standard” when there is no such consensus is frankly annoying. Argue on the merits of why it should be free, but saying “Sony does it” when Sony also charges much more for their online on an already pricier system isn’t a particularly great argument.
 
Nov 17, 2017
5,161
I think the reason you need online multiplayer is because for all multiplayer options, co-op and versus, the levels are randomly selected, and they are not freely picked manually.

It makes sense how for local multiplayer, you need separate Switches, because of the technical limitations of NSO.

The thing is, do you require only 1 Switch to be NSO subscribed, or all 4 must be subscribed?

I'm thinking the former is the correct answer.
 
Oct 25, 2017
11,597
To be fair, that is unrealistic in this day and age.
Boggles my mind, but ok.
There are games out there that restrict you to not being able to play online multiplayer while still allowing you to use other network functions, since nobody actually expected an actual online multiplayer game mode in the game, it's not that hard to see why people thought level sharing would not require the NSO, but personally i realized this would be the case when they announced the bundle some weeks ago.
 
Oct 28, 2017
6,688
That‘s true. But it is still really confusing.
For a game like this you would need to have local split screen or restrict it to levels you made or Nintendo made so you all stay visible on the screen NSMBU style. For user generated levels it doesnt work with how random they can be.
 
Oct 27, 2017
3,410
Is level sharing and downloading free of an online subscription in games like Little Big Planet 3 on PS4? What about playing them before downloading
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,343
I'll most likely just get the $70 version with the NSO subscription, but it is pretty fucked up that you need a subscription just to download levels.
 
Oct 29, 2017
2,326
There are games out there that restrict you to not being able to play online multiplayer while still allowing you to use other network functions, since nobody actually expected an actual online multiplayer game mode in the game, it's not that hard to see why people thought level sharing would not require the NSO, but personally i realized this would be the case when they announced the bundle some weeks ago.
I think that's pretty naive to believe in 2019, once the game was revealed in february it felt obvious that a game thriving on the online community would be a game to push NSO as well.

They did put in quite a bit single player content though so if people still hate on NSO they should definately get their value from the SP experience as well... though clearly people are going to missing out on the best stuff..
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,369
London, UK
So you can't play this game locally with multiple players on the same console? How can Nintendo be so fucking inept?
Come on, you’re not being reasonable.

Did you play Super Mario Maker 1??

Did you play any of the “Kaizo” style or “automatic conveyor belt” style levels that people created?? How are any of those styles of levels gonna work properly with 4 players in the same level at the same time??

People can decide to create a level with only one power power up/platform/conveyor belt/etc. If a level has only been designed with one player in mind, then how can 4 people play it at the same time?

Besides, did you watch the Direct? Because when it showed Super Mario 3D World courses, there were definitely 4 players on screen at once.
 
Nov 17, 2017
5,161
I'll most likely just get the $70 version with the NSO subscription, but it is pretty fucked up that you need a subscription just to download levels.
Nintendo is doubling down on this, so there is no way you can change this fact. At least you have single-player story mode and a $10 discount off.
 
Nov 6, 2018
26
Ha ha. Look again.
The make room option is directly inside Global Play I just checked. Don't worry.

I'm 100% sure it's possible.
I have looked and unless I'm missing something the "Make a room" button is directly below "Nearby play", while "Global play" has Multiplayer co-op and versus.

 

Dreavus

The Fallen
Jan 12, 2018
352
I think the network play and "everyone has their own screen" races are going to be great. I feel like we got a taste of that way back in the 2p races of Super Mario Bros Deluxe on GBC, and they were really fun.

I still think there's got to be a local-MP-on-one-system in there somewhere. This game is appealing to the Mario/platformer audience who are coming off of NSMBU:Deluxe. It would be super weird to have no option there. Damn that screenshot seems damning though... Unless there's another menu outside of "network" for same system play.
 

MP!

Member
Oct 30, 2017
2,226
Las Vegas
The closer I get to game development the more I see that some features are just not plausible ... and likely decisions are made based on logical reasons...

For example it looks like the camera doesn't wait for all the characters on screen in multiplayer mode... which was the worst part about NSMB multiplayer anyway. Not being able to leave people behind and run independently really made that game less enjoyable... Anyway they had the chance to fix it in NSMB2 on 3DS since each person had their own screen and YET... they did not. Those games were built around keeping everyone in view.

Here however the gameplay is designed around leaving people behind and being the fastest in a level... and frequently demonstrated that characters go off screen... meaning your camera only follows you AND the camera does not freeze whenever anyone dies... A truly independent experience. Being that the game was designed around this type of play, couch co-op is just not an option. It just wasn't designed (programmed) around that type of experience.

...As demonstrated in the video:






Only using joycons for co-op level building is crap though. I hope they patch that
 
Last edited:
Dec 10, 2017
4,388
Come on, you’re not being reasonable.

Did you play Super Mario Maker 1??

Did you play any of the “Kaizo” style or “automatic conveyor belt” style levels that people created?? How are any of those styles of levels gonna work properly with 4 players in the same level at the same time??

People can decide to create a level with only one power power up/platform/conveyor belt/etc. If a level has only been designed with one player in mind, then how can 4 people play it at the same time?

Besides, did you watch the Direct? Because when it showed Super Mario 3D World courses, there were definitely 4 players on screen at once.
People severely underestimate the multiplayer 2D Mario games. The developers have to make each level playable with multiplied people along with being a single-playing experience. Trying to play multi-player in a level designed for one person isn't a fun experience.
 
Oct 28, 2017
1,562
Come on, you’re not being reasonable.

Did you play Super Mario Maker 1??

Did you play any of the “Kaizo” style or “automatic conveyor belt” style levels that people created?? How are any of those styles of levels gonna work properly with 4 players in the same level at the same time??

People can decide to create a level with only one power power up/platform/conveyor belt/etc. If a level has only been designed with one player in mind, then how can 4 people play it at the same time?

Besides, did you watch the Direct? Because when it showed Super Mario 3D World courses, there were definitely 4 players on screen at once.
Did you read his post? He's upset that there's no same-console multiplayer. Your response doesn't seem related at all.

Here however the gameplay is designed around leaving people behind and being the fastest in a level... and frequently demonstrated that characters go off screen... meaning your camera only follows you AND the camera does not freeze whenever anyone dies... A truly independent experience. Being that the game was designed around this type of play, couch co-op is just not an option. It just wasn't designed (programmed) around that type of experience.
Like roughly a dozen people pointed out before me, Sonic Mania handles this just fine:



I mean, Sega figured out how to do this in 1992. Sonic 2 VS struggled when it came to performance, but it's not like the Switch isn't considerably more capable than the Genesis.