Goodbye NX, hello Switch

[cmdrdredd]

Seems like this is the Virtual Console replacement for sure now as well. While not ideal, I think I'm ok with it. I mean, what, 5 years until their next console more than likely? So $100 to download and play every game they choose to release on it for the next 5 years (hoping that's how it works). The collector in me has reservations, but that seems like a fair price.

If you have lots of time for gaming sure. For me where I am at now I am lucky to get 3-4 hours a night in. Used to be I could marathon 8 or 12 hours. So I am picky with the games I spend my time on anymore. I used to buy nearly everything, no longer.

 

[purbeast0]

If I wanted to play old NES games, I could do it very easily right now. Just keep giving me new games and I'll be happy.

 

[JujuFish]

I absolutely despise console companies charging for online access.

 

[cmdrdredd]

I absolutely despise console companies charging for online access.

There is value added things for their online services like the game perks. It's also not cheap to maintain the networks anymore. Games and gamers are demanding more and more. If say Steam mirrored XBL and gave me a couple free games a month I might pay for that service too.

 

[JujuFish]

There is value added things for their online services like the game perks. It's also not cheap to maintain the networks anymore. Games and gamers are demanding more and more. If say Steam mirrored XBL and gave me a couple free games a month I might pay for that service too.

If they want to charge $20/year for the rest of it, that's one thing. Locking internet access behind a pay wall is inexcusable.

 

[cmdrdredd]

If they want to charge $20/year for the rest of it, that's one thing. Locking internet access behind a pay wall is inexcusable.

To be honest you're lucky Nintendo has online gaming at all lol. Seriously though, paying for online gaming access on consoles has been a thing for so long now it shouldn't even be an issue. When it comes down to it, what is $20 a year for someone who wants to play games online with their friends? It's super cheap in the grand scheme of things. If $20 is a problem for you then gaming shouldn't even be on the table.

 

[JujuFish]

To be honest you're lucky Nintendo has online gaming at all lol. Seriously though, paying for online gaming access on consoles has been a thing for so long now it shouldn't even be an issue. When it comes down to it, what is $20 a year for someone who wants to play games online with their friends? It's super cheap in the grand scheme of things. If $20 is a problem for you then gaming shouldn't even be on the table.

Care to make a valid point? Nintendo has never charged for access before, and Sony didn't start it until the PS4. I stopped subscribing to PS+ when they did.

$20 isn't a problem because of the price point. That's such an absurd argument that you have to be trolling. It could be $0.01 and I would hold the same feeling. If you can't see that, then perhaps gaming shouldn't even be on the table for you.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Care to make a valid point? Nintendo has never charged for access before, and Sony didn't start it until the PS4. I stopped subscribing to PS+ when they did.

$20 isn't a problem because of the price point. That's such an absurd argument that you have to be trolling. It could be $0.01 and I would hold the same feeling. If you can't see that, then perhaps gaming shouldn't even be on the table for you.

Just move on. Don’t want it? Don’t buy it...it’s that simple. Why does it have to be a personal vendetta? It’s absurd to me

 

[JujuFish]

Just move on. Don’t want it? Don’t buy it...it’s that simple. Why does it have to be a personal vendetta? It’s absurd to me

Because it's a putrid, greedy policy. Like microtransactions, it should cease to exist.

 

[Red Hawk]

Because it's a putrid, greedy policy. Like microtransactions, it should cease to exist.

Greedy? Ok, sure, it's greedy. Selling you devices that cost $300, $400, or $500, and selling you games for $60 a pop, is also "greedy". We wouldn't have gaming at all if it weren't for people wanting to make a profit, and making that profit by selling customers consoles and games in exchange for money.

The problem with microtransactions isn't greed, either. Well, not just greed. The problem is that developers take microtransactions and integrate them into a game's development in a way that makes the game worse for players who don't want to spend that additional money. Slowing down progression, gating things behind a pay wall that wouldn't have been before the rise of microtransactions, that sort of thing. So the problem isn't necessarily the greed itself, but they way they went about pursuing that greed. It damaged the experience, and that merits criticism.

Now, as far as putting online multiplayer behind a pay wall -- well yeah, if you're used to online multiplayer not being behind a pay wall, that hurts the experience. If you hate that enough that you resolve to never pay for online multiplayer? Ok, whatever works for you. Me, I figure that the servers aren't free. It's a service, not an alteration to a finished project, so the providers of that service are entitled to charge or not charge for that service however they please. Moreover, I just don't play enough online multiplayer to really care.

 

[sze5003]

I'm not a big fan of all the retro or old school games at least not many. I'd rather have them make new games instead. But compared to $60 that psn + costs, $20 is considered a bargain. I do play online with friends on the ps4 so I pay it. But the switch I got mainly to play on my own and to experience the games I've missed out on in the past years.

 

[purbeast0]

I'm not a big fan of all the retro or old school games at least not many. I'd rather have them make new games instead. But compared to $60 that psn + costs, $20 is considered a bargain. I do play online with friends on the ps4 so I pay it. But the switch I got mainly to play on my own and to experience the games I've missed out on in the past years.

I'm with you on this. I never understood the huge appeal to all of these old games coming out on new platforms. I mean if you really wanted to play the games, you could so very easily do it right now without having to wait for a virtual console. I have the same feelings towards backwards compatibility too, I couldn't care less. Although I can see the appeal of playing them on the go with the Switch, which is something you can't really do legally right now.

Gimmie new games instead.

/me goes to play DKC on Switch even though it was out on Wii-U...

(although that's different because it's not a retro game and I never had a Wii-U, and I got it to play on flights!)

 

[Aikouka]

Eh, honestly... I don't see how Nintendo is providing $20 worth of value to the consumer. From what I've seen, here are the features that you get...

1. Online Matchmaking: There are two issues that I tend to have with forcing people to pay for online play. First, if the game uses peer-to-peer networking for gameplay, the server load is incredibly minimal given it only handles matchmaking. I don't know how Nintendo's games work. Second, the payment is required regardless of who handles the servers. For example, why do I have to pay Nintendo to play a Capcom game online if Capcom is handling the servers? (To be clear, these issues aren't limited to just Nintendo's online service.)
2. Free NES Games: I don't mind "free games", but offering low-cost Nintendo games isn't exactly a huge draw compared to how Sony and Microsoft offer games for all platforms. I think the only advantage for Nintendo is that they are offering you a library, and you can just play whatever. For Microsoft and Sony, you have to "buy" the game during its freebie month. Although, we don't know how the library will change over time (add titles, swap titles, more consoles, etc.).
3. Save Uploading: This is probably the one good feature, but then again... to put it in rather simplistic terms, it's Dropbox for the Switch that doesn't even work on every game.

I'd be much more lenient toward paying for online services if it always guaranteed dedicated servers for #1. It's also hard to really put a lot of value in #1 and #3, because PC gaming has had these for free for years through Steam. (Albeit, not all games support Steam Cloud -- the save upload service -- either.) So, the only real cost-plus benefit that you get on all three platform is the free games.

I'm not a big fan of all the retro or old school games at least not many. I'd rather have them make new games instead. But compared to $60 that psn + costs, $20 is considered a bargain. I do play online with friends on the ps4 so I pay it. But the switch I got mainly to play on my own and to experience the games I've missed out on in the past years.

I usually only pay $40-45 for PS+. I think I'm good until 2020 at this point.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Isn’t cloud saving included with Xbox live even if you aren’t a gold subscriber? Not sure about psn

 

[SteveGrabowski]

I absolutely despise console companies charging for online access.

I can live with it in Sony and Microsoft's case, since after you factor in the retailer's 20% cut of the sale price Sony and MS are probably taking a loss on a lot of the consoles sold. If Steam subsidized the cost of my PC I would understand them charging too.

 

[Red Hawk]

Isn’t cloud saving included with Xbox live even if you aren’t a gold subscriber? Not sure about psn

Pretty sure it is. Making you pay for cloud saves is pretty lame.

 

[sze5003]

Psn cloud saves are there but I've run out of room on it I'm sure. I remember at one point it was telling me it failed to upload stuff to the cloud save service.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Psn cloud saves are there but I've run out of room on it I'm sure. I remember at one point it was telling me it failed to upload stuff to the cloud save service.

I think with psn it’s free but you get more space as a plus member

 

[zerocool84]

PC games? Copy paste to anywhere, with anything.

Sega CD? Buy multiple RAM carts.

PlayStation? Duplicate your memory card.

Saturn? Backup memory cart.

Dreamcast? Use extra VMUs or memory cards!

PS2? See PS1

GCN? Memory cards baby!

Xbox? Memory card it!

Wii? Grab an SD Card!

Xbox 360? Use a flash stick, memory card, or hard disk.

PS3: Use a USB flash stick.

Even The Wii U: Use a USB 2.0 Mass Storage Device.

PS4: Use a flash drive.

Xbox One: FREELY USE THE CLOUD

Nintendo Switch: NOPE!

https://kotaku.com/nintendo-fans-campaign-for-switch-backup-saves-1825896806

 

[Tweak155]

Care to make a valid point? Nintendo has never charged for access before, and Sony didn't start it until the PS4. I stopped subscribing to PS+ when they did.

$20 isn't a problem because of the price point. That's such an absurd argument that you have to be trolling. It could be $0.01 and I would hold the same feeling. If you can't see that, then perhaps gaming shouldn't even be on the table for you.

I think if you remember, though, the quality of PS3's free online gaming experience paled in comparison to Xbox Live on Xbox 360 (if you ever tried both, I think you'd be hard pressed to argue)... you want to run a quality service, that takes money.

It's your right not to pay to play since clearly you don't see the value, but I was glad when I heard Sony announced a yearly sub, it gave me the impression they were going to try harder this time around. This $20 / year for Nintendo has me concerned simply due to the low price point, but ultimately I don't see me buying a Nintendo based system again... it could happen though.

 

[sze5003]

Target had Mario + Rabbids kingdom battle for $29 so I went and got it. Think I'm good for now haha.

 

[JujuFish]

I think if you remember, though, the quality of PS3's free online gaming experience paled in comparison to Xbox Live on Xbox 360 (if you ever tried both, I think you'd be hard pressed to argue)... you want to run a quality service, that takes money.

It's your right not to pay to play since clearly you don't see the value, but I was glad when I heard Sony announced a yearly sub, it gave me the impression they were going to try harder this time around. This $20 / year for Nintendo has me concerned simply due to the low price point, but ultimately I don't see me buying a Nintendo based system again... it could happen though.

And yet it's free on PC.

 

[nurturedhate]

And yet it's free on PC.

I've ran plenty of servers for plenty of games, they are definitely not free.

 

[Tweak155]

And yet it's free on PC.

I actually typed a response to this, but clearly you're just bitter. It's alright man, you don't have to pay for it if you don't want to. There are some things I refuse to pay for (cable TV for example) that millions of others just shell out for. Either you see and appreciate the value or you don't. Only you can make that call for yourself. In this example though, I really think you get a lot of value for what they charge if you take advantage of it.

 

[JujuFish]

I actually typed a response to this, but clearly you're just bitter. It's alright man, you don't have to pay for it if you don't want to. There are some things I refuse to pay for (cable TV for example) that millions of others just shell out for. Either you see and appreciate the value or you don't. Only you can make that call for yourself. In this example though, I really think you get a lot of value for what they charge if you take advantage of it.

I don't play many multiplayer games anyway, so that doesn't help my opinion, of course. The only Switch game I am currently planning to get this year that I might want to play online occasionally is the new Smash game. I explicitly didn't get MK8D because I don't like being charged for internet access.

That said, it has nothing to do with being bitter. I simply have issue with console companies being unnecessarily greedy, and you are perfectly fine with it. Two different opinions.