Nintendo Nintendo Switch Online + Expansion Pack OT

[crispy4000]

1 hour ago, Biggie said:

I’m a Nintendo fan boy but this is a rip off

What <$60 subscription isn’t?  That’s the part of the conversation that gets lost IMO.

 

I think PS+ qualifies, kinda.  But only if you own a PS5 and didn’t own a large PS4 library of exclusives.  Otherwise, it’s seeing diminishing returns after a generation of mediocre support.

 

I could see Nintendo’s library of 4 retro consoles being worth $50 annually to some people whereas Gold and PSN’s half-baked support isn’t.

Value is subjective anyways.  I’d say Epic consistently gives away more valuable games free than any of those services make you pay for.

[Biggie]

24 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

What <$60 subscription isn’t?  That’s the part of the conversation that gets lost IMO.

 

I think PS+ qualifies, kinda.  But only if you own a PS5 and didn’t own a large PS4 library of exclusives.  Otherwise, it’s seeing diminishing returns after a generation of mediocre support.

 

I could see Nintendo’s library of 4 retro consoles being worth $50 annually to some people whereas Gold and PSN’s half-baked support isn’t.

Value is subjective anyways.  I’d say Epic consistently gives away more valuable games free than any of those services make you pay for.

No voice chat. No messaging. No partying up type of system. Until they get that it’s a total rip off. 

[Keyser_Soze]

1 minute ago, Biggie said:

No voice chat. No messaging. No partying up type of system. Until they get that it’s a total rip off. 

 

They have that. You just have to use your phone. It's a great system!

[Paperclyp]

Yeah calling this out as a bad deal does not implicitly mean + or Live are (were? Is live even still a thing) good deals. 

[Chris-]

I’m a mark so I’ll buy it. You can all act like you aren’t but you know you are. 

[Keyser_Soze]

2 minutes ago, Paperclyp said:

(were? Is live even still a thing)

 

Yeah Live is still a thing. Remember they tried raising the price to get people to go to GPU and kill it off but people got mad.

Then they made free to play games not require live so all you fortniters and warzoners have no reason to use it now.

[Paperclyp]

1 minute ago, Keyser_Soze said:

 

Yeah Live is still a thing. Remember they tried raising the price to get people to go to GPU and kill it off but people got mad.

Then they made free to play games not require live so all you fortniters and warzoners have no reason to use it now.

I remember that hilarious attempt but couldn’t remember if live exists as it’s own thing or if it was tied in with gamepass. 

[Keyser_Soze]

3 minutes ago, Paperclyp said:

I remember that hilarious attempt but couldn’t remember if live exists as it’s own thing or if it was tied in with gamepass. 

 

It is it's own thing and also tied in with game pass.

[crispy4000]

2 hours ago, Biggie said:

No voice chat. No messaging. No partying up type of system. Until they get that it’s a total rip off. 

Paying any more than $0 for those things is a total rip off.  It should be free as online play itself should be.  Nintendo only proved that people will pony up regardless if a multiplayer paywall is put in place. 

[Brian]

You can get PSN for $30 easily and the games you get for free on PS+ has been pretty good. Live is bundled into Game Pass and GP is a great service. I have no issues paying for both. Plus there are games on both that I play online. 

[crispy4000]

29 minutes ago, ManUtdRedDevils said:

You can get PSN for $30 easily and the games you get for free on PS+ has been pretty good. Live is bundled into Game Pass and GP is a great service. I have no issues paying for both. Plus there are games on both that I play online. 

 

This has been one of the better years for PSN and I still feel like it's something I'd question paying for.  Especially with them making many multi-platform games PS5-only redeems now.

 

Live isn't bundled with Games Pass.  At standing pricing, it's bundled into Games Pass Ultimate for the same price it'd cost separately.

 

You shouldn't have to pay for Gold, PSN or Nintendo Online.  Fantastic online or flawed, they're ripping us off by not letting them just function as subscription libraries.  The Deck will perfectly illustrate that, but we already knew it.

 

 

If there's any positive to this news, it's that Nintendo might have to work a little harder for that extra $30 if they want it.  Because it's not tethered to the same bullshit.  It actually has to sell on its merits.

[Paperclyp]

1 hour ago, crispy4000 said:

Paying any more than $0 for those things is a total rip off.  It should be free as online play itself should be.  Nintendo only proved that people will pony up regardless if a multiplayer paywall is put in place. 

Yeah so imagine a service that makes you pay and doesn’t even include them. 

[crispy4000]

1 hour ago, Paperclyp said:

Yeah so imagine a service that makes you pay and doesn’t even include them. 

 

Imagine thinking that they needed a subscription to afford to do it right.  They could take away the paywall tomorrow and it'd still be no excuse.

 

They could even charge $60 a year for online play like their competition and probably still get away with it.  Let's be real, no one playing online on the Switch is comparison shopping.

[Paperclyp]

2 hours ago, crispy4000 said:

 

Imagine thinking that they needed a subscription to afford to do it right.  

I keep saying they don’t / those other services are not a good deal. My reaction to threads about those services is not to say well they’re all bad so what’s the big deal.

[Keyser_Soze]

Imagine paying $50 a year to play Winback

[crispy4000]

3 hours ago, Paperclyp said:

I keep saying they don’t / those other services are not a good deal. My reaction to threads about those services is not to say well they’re all bad so what’s the big deal.

To clarify, I’m not saying they’re bad in totality.  It’s just the value of them as subscription libraries aren’t that great.  Microsoft and Sony both have other services to upsell you on.  Nintendo making this a $30 upgrade to a plan that’s still cheaper than Gold/PSN is not all that bad in relativity.  Mileage will vary, of course.

 

And really we should be looking at them as such, for the libraries and that appeal.  Not from the angle of how they’re a ‘service’ that makes you pay for would-be standard features, but do it oh so well.  So when people say “yeah but Nintendo’s online sucks,” it’s true.  But it doesn’t somehow make the other paywalls appropriate by comparison.  It’s the same scheme with a few more fucks given.

 

I’d say the same about early releases for games if you have particular subscription.  It’s not additive.  It’s detractive for everyone else.  You can’t convince me that’s ‘value.’

[Paperclyp]

12 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

To clarify, I’m not saying they’re bad in totality.  It’s just the value of them as subscription libraries aren’t that great.  Microsoft and Sony both have other services to upsell you on.  Nintendo making this a $30 upgrade to a plan that’s still cheaper than Gold/PSN is not all that bad in relativity.  Mileage will vary, of course.

 

And really we should be looking at them as such, for the libraries and that appeal.  Not from the angle of how they’re a ‘service’ that makes you pay for would-be standard features, but do it oh so well.  So when people say “yeah but Nintendo’s online sucks,” it’s true.  But it doesn’t somehow make the other paywalls appropriate by comparison.  It’s the same scheme.

 

I’d say the same about early releases for games if you have particular subscription.  It’s not additive.  It’s detractive for everyone else.  You can’t convince me that’s ‘value.’

 

If your main point is that everyone will value things their own way, I don't get the push back against people saying I don't think this is near worth my money 

 

Also, it's *sort of* the same scheme. But you're making it more and more obtuse. YES the online features like chat and parties SHOULD be free and standard. It is bad that Sony and MS make you pay for them. But you can't separate it out from Nintendo's service and say that since they should be free and standard it doesn't factor in to the value of what you're getting. 

It matters, it makes Nintendo's fee absolutely worse off. 

[crispy4000]

20 minutes ago, Paperclyp said:

 

If your main point is that everyone will value things their own way, I don't get the push back against people saying I don't think this is near worth my money 

Probably a reaction to others saying Nintendo is overcharging them.

 

I’ll just say if you want a great subscription service, you gotta pay a good bit more than what they’re asking.  On consoles at least.

[Chris-]

31 minutes ago, Keyser_Soze said:

Imagine paying $50 a year to play Winback

Don’t have to imagine I’m all in

[Kal-El814]

1 hour ago, Keyser_Soze said:

Imagine paying $50 a year to play Winback

 

That's good content.

[Keyser_Soze]

3 minutes ago, Kal-El814 said:

That's good content.

 

PS2 version is superior.

[crispy4000]

10 hours ago, Paperclyp said:

Also, it's *sort of* the same scheme. But you're making it more and more obtuse. YES the online features like chat and parties SHOULD be free and standard. It is bad that Sony and MS make you pay for them. But you can't separate it out from Nintendo's service and say that since they should be free and standard it doesn't factor in to the value of what you're getting. 

It matters, it makes Nintendo's fee absolutely worse off. 

 

Saw that you edited this in…

 

No, I don’t believe it should factor into how we value these subscriptions.  Instead, it should factor into buying their hardware to begin with, and what games you do.  Because it’s a platform level problem.  The need for a fix goes beyond the value of a subscription service.  That’s as true for Nintendo’s online ineptitude as it is for the paywalls across the big three manufacturers.

 

I don’t feel it’s weird to evaluate online services on the value and merits they add, instead of what ground-level features they block out for others.  Most of us already made a decision on accepting or rejecting the latter.  But with a good enough subscription library, hold-outs can be swayed regardless.  That’s the difference.

Again, I’m glad Valve is stepping into the ring.  They won’t just make Nintendo look bad. 

[Jason]

12 hours ago, Chris- said:

I’m a mark so I’ll buy it. You can all act like you aren’t but you know you are. 

 

Since you can get it without the $30 add-on and it's a standard blueetooth controller I'll buy the N64 controller once it's back in stock and get an N64 emulator...and the 3D All-Stars version of Mario 64, since I'm enough of a mark to have bought that.

[Paperclyp]

7 hours ago, crispy4000 said:

 

Saw that you edited this in…

 

No, I don’t believe it should factor into how we value these subscriptions.  Instead, it should factor into buying their hardware to begin with, and what games you do.  Because it’s a platform level problem.  The need for a fix goes beyond the value of a subscription service.  That’s as true for Nintendo’s online ineptitude as it is for the paywalls across the big three manufacturers.

 

I don’t feel it’s weird to evaluate online services on the value and merits they add, instead of what ground-level features they block out for others.  Most of us already made a decision on accepting or rejecting the latter.  But with a good enough subscription library, hold-outs can be swayed regardless.  That’s the difference.

Again, I’m glad Valve is stepping into the ring.  They won’t just make Nintendo look bad. 

Sorry for the sneak edit. I get what you’re saying, I just respectfully disagree. That said I hope anyone who pays the extra $30 enjoys it. I have no nostalgia for Kart 64, it just didn’t do it for me, but I did freaking love the OG Mario Tennis.

[Zaku3]

10 hours ago, Keyser_Soze said:

 

PS2 version is superior.

 

Naw man. Dat 4 player mp was a sleeper hit.

[Ghost_MH]

A lot of going back and forth, but Nintendo Online is still only $20/yr. Nothing in the expansion has anything to do with their online offerings. It's literally just $30/yr for N64 and Genesis games along with the Animal Crossing DLC. I'm more curious to know if there's any more DLC that Nintendo is planning to including in the office for the expansion. Right now, it's only worth it for me because of the included DLC. I already pay for the family plan for mine, my wife's, and son's Switches. We were already going to spend $50 on Animal Crossing DLC, so spending an extra $10 to get my son N64 games is worth it to me. Now, if Nintendo does release more interesting DLC content free on the expansion within the next year then I'll be fine with paying for another year.

[Vanillalite]

My son and I agreed we wish they just had extra consoles as ala cart expansions ie just pay $5 or $10 per system. So if you want N64 games, but you don't want Genesis games you can just pick the N64 expansion. Then they can add say GB games for an extra idk $5, but GBA games would be an extra $10. So you could charge more for certain in demand systems. 

 

As it stands I'm not paying $80 for the expansion for my fam, and they all agreed.

[stepee]

1 hour ago, Ghost_MH said:

A lot of going back and forth, but Nintendo Online is still only $20/yr. Nothing in the expansion has anything to do with their online offerings. It's literally just $30/yr for N64 and Genesis games along with the Animal Crossing DLC. I'm more curious to know if there's any more DLC that Nintendo is planning to including in the office for the expansion. Right now, it's only worth it for me because of the included DLC. I already pay for the family plan for mine, my wife's, and son's Switches. We were already going to spend $50 on Animal Crossing DLC, so spending an extra $10 to get my son N64 games is worth it to me. Now, if Nintendo does release more interesting DLC content free on the expansion within the next year then I'll be fine with paying for another year.

 

 This is where I’m at basically. The Animal Crossing dlc looks legit awesome and like something they would have charged $30-$40 for as it’s own handheld game back in the day. Going back to Animal Crossing with the 2.0 update and this dlc together is going to make it feel fresh again. And for an extra $5, sure I’ll try the service and get the N64 games for a year.

 

But if in a year this is still all the service is then I’ll at least say that I’m not going to subscribe any longer as I secretly forget to unsubscribe for the rest of my life.

[Ghost_MH]

1 minute ago, stepee said:

 

 This is where I’m at basically. The Animal Crossing dlc looks legit awesome and like something they would have charged $30-$40 for as it’s own handheld game back in the day. Going back to Animal Crossing with the 2.0 update and this dlc together is going to make it feel fresh again. And for an extra $5, sure I’ll try the service and get the N64 games for a year.

 

But if in a year this is still all the service is then I’ll at least say that I’m not going to subscribe any longer as I secretly forget to unsubscribe for the rest of my life.

 

At least Nintendo has said that anything you unlock from the DLC on your main island will still be available to you if you actually do remember to unsubscribe. Apparently, it's just access to the archipelago that you lose without the DLC.

[Xbob42]

Nintendo revealing this bullshit:

 

Hardcore Nintendo fans coming to explain why it's exactly the same as the other shitty online services and doing extreme mental gymnastics as to why paying double the price for some half-assed ported ROMs you can literally get for free by typing "Donkey Kong 64 rom" into Google right this second is actually a pretty good deal if your brain doesn't work:

 

[Chris-]

Just now, Xbob42 said:

Nintendo revealing this bullshit:

 

Hardcore Nintendo fans coming to explain why it's exactly the same as the other shitty online services and doing extreme mental gymnastics as to why paying double the price for some half-assed ported ROMs you can literally get for free by typing "Donkey Kong 64 rom" into Google right this second is actually a pretty good deal if your brain doesn't work:

 

 

Quite the contrary: I recognize the bullshit and can acknowledge my clown ass is powerless and will just give in. No mental gymnastics here, just the peace of mind that comes with acute clarity of one's self.

[Ghost_MH]

9 minutes ago, Xbob42 said:

Nintendo revealing this bullshit:

 

Hardcore Nintendo fans coming to explain why it's exactly the same as the other shitty online services and doing extreme mental gymnastics as to why paying double the price for some half-assed ported ROMs you can literally get for free by typing "Donkey Kong 64 rom" into Google right this second is actually a pretty good deal if your brain doesn't work:

 

 

The N64 and Genesis games aren't worth $30/year. Switch Online is fine for $20/yr compared PSN+ and Xbox Live. The only thing that makes the bundle worthwhile is the Animal Crossing DLC. It'll stop being worthwhile if they don't give away more DLC or anything else new and valued at ~$25. New is the keyword there because old free games included with a subscription aren't worth much when Epic is giving away old free games in exchange for your email address.

[Chris-]

'Free' first party DLC would be an interesting value proposition.

[Xbob42]

If you keep the DLC obtained through the expansion pass forever (instead of it making your game or content inaccessible if your subscription lapses) then that would indeed be an interesting proposition. If it's basically an extended rental period then it would be cheaper and less of a headache to just outright buy the damn thing. Nintendo's game output (of things I'm interested in, at least) isn't really high enough to where I think they could let me "rent" enough DLC to be worth it over just buying it, but permanently keeping it? That would be interesting. Like a publisher-wide season pass. That would be innovative, provide consumer value, provide incentive to buy more games to get more out of your sub, and generate a ton of interest.

 

So it's 100% not that.

[Keyser_Soze]