nintendo switch Nintendo Switch Online Service costs money

[Wilhelm_Andre]

Nintendo switch's Online service will cost money from September 2018.

 

https://www.geek.com/games/nintendo-switch-now-has-a-virtual-console-sort-of-1691743/

https://www.nintendo.com/switch/online-service/

 

So i have had the Nintendo switch for 6 months now and i love to play splatoon but if they gonna start asking for money from me to play online and use the crappy app i think that many players will stop playing. I will not pay to play online even tho its not that expensive it still adds up to what i paid for the game.

If i pay 39$ for a game and need to pay 19,99$ for 12 moths of online service (Prices gotten form nintendo's website) that will be 58,99$ for the game with online feature.

The payment gives me Access to: The app, The online service and 20 NES games. Why couldn't only the nes games be paid service and not take away online part from me.

 

Let me hear what you think of this. I don't like it at all but maybe some of you got some more information on it.

 

From

(Norwegian dyslexic person)

 

[adm0n]

Every Console manufacturer charges money for their online experience. Servers cost money to maintain and they like to have an amount they can work with every month.

 

I think both microsoft and playstation offerings a 3 times as expensive.
Also it isn't payed yet, it was supposed to start last year, so one can hope ...

[Tribalinius]

For less than 2$ /month? It's a no-brainer to me honestly. If they add Cloud saves on top of that eventually, it'll be a really good offering. I agree that they need to work on their outdated online platform but it's kind of usable now and it's clearly better than it was before.

[SupremeGOAT]

hah i have seen the error of my ways... hail pc gaming!! for the consoles wish to ROB us of our souls!

Let me guess you still have to use that phone app for voice chat online too huh?

[spartaman64]

so just like xbox live and psn

[The Benjamins]

It really only sucks for people that play occasionally. But for people that play even weekly $20 a year is nothing.

[BlueChinchillaEatingDorito]

13 minutes ago, adm0n said:

I think both microsoft and playstation offerings a 3 times as expensive.

They are. It's like 69.99 CAD for a 12 month subscription. Though you can argue it's not too bad if you consider that PS Plus offers 2 free games for each supported platform per month. You can still get free games for the PS3 and Vita via PS Plus as if those consoles aren't dead. 

 

And I'm sure the servers PS and Xbox uses are far more advanced than Nintendo will ever need based on the sheer number of users that will be playing online. 

[YamiYukiSenpai]

20 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

so just like xbox live and psn

This is a steal in comparison to those 2.  Even the family plan is cheaper compared to PS Plus or Xbox Live Gold in the same time frame.

Quote

Though you can argue it's not too bad if you consider that PS Plus offers 2 free games for each supported platform per month

Same for Xbox Live Gold

[Commodus]

It's not great to get a free service only to find out that you have to pay for it, but at the same time... it's $20.  And we act as if the money is going nowhere when it's likely being rolled into Nintendo's own multiplayer efforts.  This is the company that has struggled with online play for years (friend codes, anyone?), so I'd be happy to pay $20 per year if it led to tangible improvements in the experience.

[BuckGup]

The wii was free online. Dolphin has free multiplayer. Nah I’m good

[Fasterthannothing]

How is this a big deal $20 is a bargain compared to Xbox Live and PSN

[Demonking]

1 hour ago, adm0n said:

Every Console manufacturer charges money for their online experience. Servers cost money to maintain and they like to have an amount they can work with every month.

 

I think both microsoft and playstation offerings a 3 times as expensive.
Also it isn't payed yet, it was supposed to start last year, so one can hope ...

That's Bullshit, they don't even handle the servers the 3rd parties do you only paying them cause they force you too. 

 

[Demonking]

1 hour ago, Tribalinius said:

For less than 2$ /month? It's a no-brainer to me honestly. If they add Cloud saves on top of that eventually, it'll be a really good offering. I agree that they need to work on their outdated online platform but it's kind of usable now and it's clearly better than it was before.

Steam and Xbox  offers cloud saves free.

[Demonking]

1 hour ago, The Benjamins said:

It really only sucks for people that play occasionally. But for people that play even weekly $20 a year is nothing.

Its the principle you shouldn't have to pay to get access to half your cart that you paid $59.99 for. 

1 hour ago, BlueChinchillaEatingDorito said:

They are. It's like 69.99 CAD for a 12 month subscription. Though you can argue it's not too bad if you consider that PS Plus offers 2 free games for each supported platform per month. You can still get free games for the PS3 and Vita via PS Plus as if those consoles aren't dead. 

 

And I'm sure the servers PS and Xbox uses are far more advanced than Nintendo will ever need based on the sheer number of users that will be playing online. 

as i said above its the principle. 

31 minutes ago, Commodus said:

It's not great to get a free service only to find out that you have to pay for it, but at the same time... it's $20.  And we act as if the money is going nowhere when it's likely being rolled into Nintendo's own multiplayer efforts.  This is the company that has struggled with online play for years (friend codes, anyone?), so I'd be happy to pay $20 per year if it led to tangible improvements in the experience.

Steam is free and offers the same and more than nintendo do.

7 minutes ago, Shorty88jr said:

How is this a big deal $20 is a bargain compared to Xbox Live and PSN

same here as i said above its the principle should be free.

[Tech Enthusiast]

People are so used to seeing the "free" sticker all over the place.

Honestly, just pay for the stuff you use. It costs money. It costs peoples time. You use it,... just pay up.

That is how the world has worked since we started trading stones and chickens.

 

Thinking you deserve something for free, or any company should offer their work for free is just silly.

It may be short-term marketing, but take that as a nice gift and be happy about it. Don't bash them, when they start taking money again.

 

Nothing more to say really.

[Demonking]

It's sad to see so many on here accepting this anti consumer bullshit, This is not ok steam, GOG, origin, and even the trash uplay offers free online.

[Commodus]

12 minutes ago, Demonking said:

Steam is free and offers the same and more than nintendo do.

Valve also doesn't make console hardware.  Pretty easy to offer things for free when your running costs are much lower.

[Teddy07]

Subscriptions are a ripped off in my eyes. Please should add up all their subscription and be surprised. $3 here, $9 there, $5 .... crazy!

[spartaman64]

10 minutes ago, Commodus said:

Valve also doesn't make console hardware.  Pretty easy to offer things for free when your running costs are much lower.

except the hardware is paid for when you buy the console. this would be like microsoft not letting you access the internet on your computer unless you pay for a subscription because you have windows

36 minutes ago, Rattenmann said:

People are so used to seeing the "free" sticker all over the place.

Honestly, just pay for the stuff you use. It costs money. It costs peoples time. You use it,... just pay up.

That is how the world has worked since we started trading stones and chickens.

 

Thinking you deserve something for free, or any company should offer their work for free is just silly.

It may be short-term marketing, but take that as a nice gift and be happy about it. Don't bash them, when they start taking money again.

 

Nothing more to say really.

i think instead what they should do is limit access to their app store instead of disabling a hardware function of the device. 

[Bigbootyjudy]

At least it doesn't cost $10 a month like psn. Geez it gets expensive, especially for a doofus like me who is too lazy to buy the annual subscription

[SteveGrabowski0]

2 hours ago, BlueChinchillaEatingDorito said:

They are. It's like 69.99 CAD for a 12 month subscription. Though you can argue it's not too bad if you consider that PS Plus offers 2 free games for each supported platform per month. You can still get free games for the PS3 and Vita via PS Plus as if those consoles aren't dead. 

 

And I'm sure the servers PS and Xbox uses are far more advanced than Nintendo will ever need based on the sheer number of users that will be playing online. 

Isn't Sony dropping Vita from the PS Plus subscription games this year?

[PlayStation 2]

People always argue that Steam is free, but they tend to miss a big part of why it's free. Where Valve gets you is that they take a cut of every game sale, and if it's a Valve game they take 100% of that, basically, and use it towards their company. Steam's servers are maintained through Valve's cut of the purchase they get from every game sale.

Now, the difference between Steam and, say, Xbox Live, is that not everyone buys digital games on Xbox Live, while almost everyone buys digitally on Steam. They gotta charge otherwise they can't competently keep the servers running.

[SteveGrabowski0]

11 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

except the hardware is paid for when you buy the console. this would be like microsoft not letting you access the internet on your computer unless you pay for a subscription because you have windows

The consoles are often sold at losses when you figure in the retailer's cut of the sale.

[adm0n]

53 minutes ago, Demonking said:

Steam and Xbox  offers cloud saves free.

It is not to say that others can't do things differently. It is a free market and you are allowed to choose what you want to spend your money on.

I'm not all that much into that whole discussion, but I've heard that F2P games like fortnite will not require a switch online subscription.

 

I'm not really a PC gamer anymore (or any gamer ... growing up and not having time is harsh), but last time I checked the servers were provided by the game companies and if not enough people are playing the game, the servers will just be shut down. So you are paying for the servers while paying for the game. Console providers want the whole thing to be a bit more controllable, so they can enforce their quality standards.
I personally think that it is reasonable to pay for their online subscription. There are real servers behind it. I also would like it to be free, but if that'd mean that it will be way worse, I'd probably rather choose to pay. 

 

2 minutes ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

Now, the difference between Steam and, say, Xbox Live, is that not everyone buys digital games on Xbox Live, while almost everyone buys digitally on Steam. They gotta charge otherwise they can't competently keep the servers running.

I'm pretty sure they get a cut of physical games too. The difference here is the volume. Steam is HUGEE. And they only have to provide the infrastructure. They make a lot of money of steam. And I don't even really know if they are seriously developing games anymore :c so they don't have expense like other console manufacturers, who even used to sell at a loss. 

[spartaman64]

2 minutes ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

The consoles are often sold at losses when you figure in the retailer's cut of the sale.

not anymore and even in the past they know they are going to recover that though game sales if the person buys one game