Nintendo Online Discussion

super_furry

I mean €20 for a year isn't exactly going to break the bank but I wish they were sweetening the deal with bit more than a few scabby NES ROMS.

hiphophead2003

Nintendo just went full Nintendo, bloody bastards. Called cloud saves being with the online service months ago. Roll on the homebrew, hacker dudes.

So having read (and re-read) a lot of the information for Nintendo Switch Online, I can't help but feel that Nintendo are missing the mark somehow. I've alternated between "they've no idea what they're doing" and "they know exactly what they're doing". It's as if they looked at what MicroSoft and Sony are doing, and tried to pull out the bits that would make them the most money.

Case in point here is paying for game save backups... that's just ludicrous. I can't think of any other system in this generation or last generation that mandated paying to backup saves; there was always a free alternative. They really need to allow local/offline backups, charging for something so basic is just greedy. I realise that it's "just" €20, but save backups isn't something I should have to pay for at all. I hate to say it, but it almost feels like extortion. It almost feels like they're holding my save data to ransom.

The next thing is the NES games as part of the subscription. I think this is Nintendo's attempt at Xbox Game Pass or PlayStation PSNow, so their attempt at "games as a service". And I can't help but feel they missed the mark here also. It's neither the Virtual Console we're clamouring for, nor a subscription service to access more modern/recent games. It just feels like they're trying to shoehorn some value in there after charging me to backup my saves; it's the easiest (read: cheapest) path for them to take so they can say "look, we give you free games".

Even their approach to online gaming is confusing. Check this out from their own FAQ:

Which games require Nintendo Switch Online to access online play?

Nintendo Switch games such Splatoon™ 2, ARMS™, Mario Kart™ 8 Deluxe, Mario Tennis™ Aces, and Sushi Striker™: The Way of Sushido, will require a Nintendo Switch Online membership, but other games will vary.

So does that mean I need Nintendo Switch Online to play (for example) FIFA online? Either I need to pay for online gaming, or I don't. But don't confuse the situation with vagueness like this.

I could go on (I haven't even touched the ridiculous chat setup), but I'm tired. Overall, I am glad there is some kind of an online service; however in typical Nintendo fashion, they've bungled it a little. I think the service will mature, but right now Nintendo are providing the service they want to provide, instead of the service that consumers were looking for. I really think they've stumbled with their first step into Switch Online.

Mr Bloat

Deleted User wrote: »

Case in point here is paying for game save backups... that's just ludicrous. I can't think of any other system in this generation or last generation that mandated paying to backup saves; there was always a free alternative. They really need to allow local/offline backups, charging for something so basic is just greedy. I realise that it's "just" €20, but save backups isn't something I should have to pay for at all. I hate to say it, but it almost feels like extortion. It almost feels like they're holding my save data to ransom.

Paying for save backups is ludicrous, you're right but what makes it worse is that they know the Switch is used by many families or at least, shared amongst some brothers and sisters if the parents aren't using it. Nintendo are forcing these families into paying €35 for the family pass to back up some saves. Presumably, the €20 online pass will only back up the saves of the paying user?
I have four profiles on my Switch, me and the three kids. Each one of us values our saves but none of us play Switch games online. I have many (unused) emulators set up on different devices capable of playing the offered NES games. I don't want or need more NES games, I don't want or need to play online (well, until Dark Souls comes out and that may not even need the online pass) but I do want and need to have my saves backed up, as do my kids. Presumably also, this will force me to create online capable accounts for my three kids, so that they can avail of the cloud saves? This is another thing I don't need nor want to do at the moment.

This is poor form from Nintendo. I love my Switch but this is leaving a sour taste in my mouth.

Corholio

There are quite a few things they should be doing better with definitely. The silly, confusing app, the access to cloud saves etc. The one thing I would say about the 'vagueness' thing is it is months away from launching yet and with E3 and the likely information drop that always brings, certain things should/will be known closer to that time. It could be bad, there could be good things as yet unknown who knows, but September is a fair bit off yet.

CiDeRmAn

Definitely some mixed signals here.

A cheap online service is announced.
Cloud saves, specifically those, also announced which is what everyone wanted, and now it seems they would now prefer to put them to USB instead, or forget that you pay for the same cloud save service on other consoles.

And people are taking issue with the online component of certain games requiring a subscription, again forgetting that the same circumstance exists on other consoles where a plus or gold sub is needed for certain titles.
What, and there's more?
Why yes, because Nintendo haven't provided an exhaustive list of what will or will not require a sub for online play they are also a$$holes?

And, yes, they've announce 20 NES games for the new service too, but this is only the start, with the true extent of the games on offer yet to be declared, but somehow this is interpreted yet again as more a$$holery?

I'm unsure what your expectations were, did you really want to be blown away so much that anything less than the sublime is not enough?

Nintendo have pretty much ticked every box and the service is at least worth watching, to see if it offers value for money.
With the slim announcement as made, it's surely far too early to jump to the conclusion that this is a travesty.

madmoe

hiphophead2003 wrote: »

Nintendo just went full Nintendo, bloody bastards. Called cloud saves being with the online service months ago. Roll on the homebrew, hacker dudes.

Inviere

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

Definitely some mixed signals here.

A cheap online service is announced.
Cloud saves, specifically those, also announced which is what everyone wanted, and now it seems they would now prefer to put them to USB instead, or forget that you pay for the same cloud save service on other consoles.

To those objecting, it appears that to backup your saves (an important function it has to be said), it's now a premium feature. If you don't pay, in the absence of what should be a very simple sd card backup model, you risk losing everything. No matter what side of the debate your on, that's a pretty poor model. I don't think anyone is expecting to have cloud saves for free, that's an overhead we'd all be willing to concede it's fair to charge for. Whats poor, is its pay for the cloud or feck off.

And, yes, they've announce 20 NES games for the new service too, but this is only the start, with the true extent of the games on offer yet to be declared, but somehow this is interpreted yet again as more a$$holery?

As I understand it, they're offering multiplayer functionality with these NES roms. In that light, I can understand why it's a fairly minimal offering - it takes time to build and implement features like that. More will come, it's all good.

I'm unsure what your expectations were, did you really want to be blown away so much that anything less than the sublime is not enough?

Blown away? No. Impressed? Yes. Here's what I think should have happened:

• VC announced. Everyone can access it, however those who subscribe get the multiplayer features that have been announced on the relevant games.
• Firmware update to add offline backing up of userdata/saves to usb/sd.
• A non joke of a chat system being implemented.

The above would be nice sway for €20.

Mr Bloat

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

Definitely some mixed signals here.

A cheap online service is announced.
Cloud saves, specifically those, also announced which is what everyone wanted, and now it seems they would now prefer to put them to USB instead, or forget that you pay for the same cloud save service on other consoles.

And people are taking issue with the online component of certain games requiring a subscription, again forgetting that the same circumstance exists on other consoles where a plus or gold sub is needed for certain titles.
What, and there's more?
Why yes, because Nintendo haven't provided an exhaustive list of what will or will not require a sub for online play they are also a$$holes?

And, yes, they've announce 20 NES games for the new service too, but this is only the start, with the true extent of the games on offer yet to be declared, but somehow this is interpreted yet again as more a$$holery?

I'm unsure what your expectations were, did you really want to be blown away so much that anything less than the sublime is not enough?

Nintendo have pretty much ticked every box and the service is at least worth watching, to see if it offers value for money.
With the slim announcement as made, it's surely far too early to jump to the conclusion that this is a travesty.

Isn't it also too early to jump to the conclusion that Nintendo will improve this service and give more value for money?

Nobody is saying that this is a wholly terrible offer. If you are the type of person that will take advantage of this by being the only user of the console, enjoying the NES games on offer, playing online with others and putting your saves in the cloud then €20 is a good price, especially when compared to the annual cost of PS+ or XBL. However, neither Sony nor Microsoft have an element to their subscription system that almost makes it compulsory to purchase it. If you don't want to play online on either of those consoles and if their monthly games don't interest you, you can happily ignore the service while still using an alternative method to back up your game saves. Nintendo don't offer this.

As I said above in another post, I'm not interested in NES games or online play on the Switch. I am interested in backing up my save games as I do on my other consoles. Backing up saves is even more important on a portable console than a stationary one but Nintendo are making it harder to do it!

If Nintendo had come out yesterday and said that they are sticking to their guns and not allowing USB backups but would allow backups to Dropbox (for example) for those who weren't interested in their subscription service, then that would probably have placated a lot of people but they didn't. Instead, they are saying that if I don't pay them €35 and I lose, break or have my console stolen (all easy things to happen to a portable console), then TS. Why is that right?

blockfighter

I think it's great they're getting rid of virtual console. The Switch has turned into a great console for indie titles which probably wouldn't have gotten a look in if Nintendo was dropping old snes titles every week or two. People would buy those instead and these smaller companies would die off.
We've literally seen cases where the great sales of companies games on Switch has saved that company from collapse.

CiDeRmAn

Mr Bloat wrote: »

Isn't it also too early to jump to the conclusion that Nintendo will improve this service and give more value for money?

Of course it isn't.
In fact, that the full details of the service have yet to revealed is the very point of an announcement.

Nobody is saying that this is a wholly terrible offer.

Not everyone is saying that, but an awful lot of comments here seem to be thinking that Nintendo are thieves, idiots or fools, and some all of the above, because of the contents of the announcement, which is hyperbole by any stretch of the imagination.

If you are the type of person that will take advantage of this by being the only user of the console, enjoying the NES games on offer, playing online with others and putting your saves in the cloud then €20 is a good price, especially when compared to the annual cost of PS+ or XBL. However, neither Sony nor Microsoft have an element to their subscription system that almost makes it compulsory to purchase it. If you don't want to play online on either of those consoles and if their monthly games don't interest you, you can happily ignore the service while still using an alternative method to back up your game saves. Nintendo don't offer this.

If I want to play most of the games on my XB1 or PS4 I need to pay for a subscription.
If I want cloud saves on my PS4 I need a subscription.

I'd say, with the current ruckus over CFW on the Switch Nintendo may well be cautious at adding a USB game save loader, given all of the exploits that start that way.

As I said above in another post, I'm not interested in NES games or online play on the Switch. I am interested in backing up my save games as I do on my other consoles. Backing up saves is even more important on a portable console than a stationary one but Nintendo are making it harder to do it!

They haven't provided a USB solution but now there will be a cloud solution for a nominal sum.

If Nintendo had come out yesterday and said that they are sticking to their guns and not allowing USB backups but would allow backups to Dropbox (for example) for those who weren't interested in their subscription service, then that would probably have placated a lot of people but they didn't. Instead, they are saying that if I don't pay them €35 and I lose, break or have my console stolen (all easy things to happen to a portable console), then TS. Why is that right?

Well, of the Nintendo portable systems that have existed up the this point and sold to millions of users, which ones provided the service that now appears to have become essential?

I don't really think Dropbox or even USB saves would have placated anyone, tbh.

But look, as the service develops and matures certainly the game range will expand, the online functionality of the games out there will be clear and perhaps Nintendo will be able to offer an exploit-free off line save option.

Inviere

blockfighter wrote: »

I think it's great they're getting rid of virtual console.

I don't mean to be rude, but that's complete nonsense.

Banjo

I don't own any other consoles. I don't care how it's done on other consoles.

Forcing me to pay as the *only* means of backing up my saves, and on a sub basis rather than one off, and only on a subset of games leaving others uncertain/in limbo is crap, objectively and in isolation. And if a 3rd party method using a paperclip is released, this is pushing me towards it.

First party online : again, I don't care what's happening on other consoles. There are 2 red flags waving in my face here : that it's up to 3rd parties whether or not they charge you separately for online. And one of those 3rd parties is EA... And that a game like Splatoon, which cannot be described as playable offline in any meaningful way still gets sold for further price.

Tell you what though, this is a great opportunity to launch an online only port of Wiiu Smash for free, as a modern game that requires the sub, with backend revenue through dlc. Almost all the work is already done. Costs them little, drives the sub adoption.

CiDeRmAn

As to other consoles, you have to accept the industry standard, or that there is such a thing for a baseline, to judge Nintendo efforts in an online service.

Otherwise, why complain about no usb saves, when you only own and care about Nintendo products which you happen to own.

Same with 3rd party online, that's how it works across the industry, there are games that require a Gold or Plus subscription, you can't criticise Nintendo for their service without comparing it to the elements you want to see, elements you might or might not see on other platforms.

But you are dead right, some sort of inexpensive way to bring subs in, with a good solid existing game like SSB, but watch the complaints come in regardless, because some people will always seek out fault and weakness.

blockfighter

Inviere wrote: »

I don't mean to be rude, but that's complete nonsense.

Not rude at all. You're entitled to your opinion. As am I. Obviously it's great having as many games as possible on a system but by helping smaller companies prosper we will get more new games in the future instead of just replaying all the old stuff most people have played before.
That's the only point I'm making. But i can see your point of view too.

Banjo

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

you have to accept the industry standard

No you don't.
If the industry standard is unacceptable, and is not accepted, the industry changes its standard. Otherwise you would not be able to read this mail, you'd be too busy beating the child who got soot all over your living room when they coughed in your chimney (not a euphemism).

Secondly, a big part of the Switch's appeal seems to be that it eschews the industry standards of "It's either a home console or a portable" and "Power = Better".

And thirdly, I'm a contrary bastard and you can't tell me what to do! :mad:

As for comparison :
I am comparing what will cost me €20 in September to what I currently have for free and still think is ****!
Bearing in mind I have a NES and SNES classic, which sours the pot a little, but then that has been as I said before something of a modus operandi for the Switch. Pretend like we've never sold these people a product before.

sligeach

This $h1t of, "but the competition does it", as if that somehow makes it alright for Nintendo to do it as well. If they jumped off a bridge, would Nintendo follow suit? How come Nintendo managed to have a free service for nearly the past 2 decades? It's the same reason amiibo exist, they seen the competition making a shedload of money and said we'll copy that. What next, will they charge us for the use and maintenance of the eShop?

They had Miiverse, TVii(though it wasn't available in Europe) and free online on Wii U. Free online, Weather channel, News channel, Everybody Votes channel and more besides on Wii. Are the overheads so extreme now that they've to charge? Of course, they'll have to charge for the games, as they've got to make revenue for the games. Which is why it was bizarre that yesterday they said that the NES games are "free".

In many ways they're thinking of themselves, not the consumer with some of their decisions, Cloud backup saves only, a hatchet job voice chat app and starting off with NES titles, that's not what people want. Hackers are doing more than Nintendo it would appear to get Gamecube games running on Switch.

And that's just talking about their Online Service, they weren't thinking of the consumer with other decisions, 32 GB internal storage, no apps, no browser, etc. Remember this Service is only going to be operational with barebone games 18 months into the Switch' life cycle.

I think it will get better in time, but it will also get more expensive. Like if they do add more systems in September next year, e.g. Gamecube, will they really keep the price at €20? I doubt it. I definitely think there will be some sort of Miiverse replacement, sure it was flawed but also did a lot of good. Then we may see Super Mario Maker again. Someone mentioned yesterday about overwhelmed or underwhelmed by what was announced. I don't see how anyone could have been overwhelmed, I personally was underwhelmed.

Inviere

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

Otherwise, why complain about no usb saves, when you only own and care about Nintendo products which you happen to own.

Because the model they've chosen is wholly anti-consumer. You either pay to back up your saves, or you don't and risk the consequences. You're being forced to pay for something that all of Nintendo's competitors offer for free (an offline way to protect your save games). It's got very little to do with the Online service, paying for cloud storage is completely acceptable and understandable. Having no other alternative to pay though, is not.

blockfighter wrote: »

Not rude at all. You're entitled to your opinion. As am I. Obviously it's great having as many games as possible on a system but by helping smaller companies prosper we will get more new games in the future instead of just replaying all the old stuff most people have played before.
That's the only point I'm making. But i can see your point of view too.

Have you any hard evidence that indicates the existence of the VC in any way affects the purchasing of small Indie titles?

CiDeRmAn

blockfighter wrote: »

Not rude at all. You're entitled to your opinion. As am I. Obviously it's great having as many games as possible on a system but by helping smaller companies prosper we will get more new games in the future instead of just replaying all the old stuff most people have played before.
That's the only point I'm making. But i can see your point of view too.

I think what is meant is that only the Virtual Console brand is being shelved.
Nintendo will continue to market their existing software library for their current generation systems, meaning the Switch, just as Sony and MS have been doing.
Perhaps it'll be like Netflix, with a large amount of titles to play from a curated and rotating collection.
Perhaps we'll be able to simply buy and download the games we want as we go, similar to the Neogeo titles we see in the eshop at present.

More new, worthwhile games is something we all want to see on the Switch, both from AAA devs as well as Indies, but I also want the Metroid Prime Trilogy and Super Mario Sunshine in HD running on my Switch and I don't care if the folder label is "Virtual Console" or "Princess Consuela Banana-hammock" as long as the games are there.

CiDeRmAn

Inviere wrote: »

Because the model they've chosen is wholly anti-consumer. You either pay to back up your saves, or you don't and risk the consequences. You're being forced to pay for something that all of Nintendo's competitors offer for free (an offline way to protect your save games). It's got very little to do with the Online service, paying for cloud storage is completely acceptable and understandable. Having no other alternative to pay though, is not.

I have a niggling feeling that the lack of offline game saves is protection against exploits.
I'd say there's a few blackhats out there, chomping at the bit to find a "legit" way of loading from a USB stick and a game save exploit is exactly that.
I still have a Gamecube Memory Card with a SD slot!

Inviere

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

I have a niggling feeling that the lack of offline game saves is protection against exploits.
I'd say there's a few blackhats out there, chomping at the bit to find a "legit" way of loading from a USB stick and a game save exploit is exactly that.
I still have a Gamecube Memory Card with a SD slot!

I had exactly the same thought. However, with the resources, budget, and time that Nintendo have had since March 2017, it's a feeble enough excuse. If true, the OS must be literally full of exploitable holes that they're afraid of.

CiDeRmAn

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

If I want cloud saves on my PS4 I need a subscription.
They haven't provided a USB solution but now there will be a cloud solution for a nominal sum.

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

Otherwise, why complain about no usb saves, when you only own and care about Nintendo products which you happen to own.

To me, the problem isn't the nominal sum, it's that there's a sum at all; both of the other consoles allow some form of save backups that isn't behind a paywall. The problem I have isn't that I need to pay for cloud saves, it's that I need to pay to backup my saves; I shouldn't be railroaded into spending money to backup my own data.

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

Well, of the Nintendo portable systems that have existed up the this point and sold to millions of users, which ones provided the service that now appears to have become essential?

Look, I'm as big a Nintendoid as anyone else here, but Nintendo are continually behind the curve when it comes online services. Thinking all the way back to the Wii... they've had three console generations to get a handle on online services, and it seems they still can't seem to get it quite right. I didn't expected to be blown away by Nintendo Switch Online, but I didn't expect to be so underwhelmed either. I mean, I look at what Sony and Microsft are doing, and while I'm not 100% happy with either of their services, they are light years ahead of Nintendo. Granted they have had far more experience than Nintendo, but Nintendo's online services have always been sub-par.

CiDeRmAn wrote:

Nintendo have pretty much ticked every box and the service is at least worth watching, to see if it offers value for money.
With the slim announcement as made, it's surely far too early to jump to the conclusion that this is a travesty.

Point taken. As I've said, I'm delighted that there is something there, and I am optimistic that it will get better as the service matures. But right now, I'll look at the information I'm given and base my decision off that; I can't see the service as it stands being worth the price of entry, even as cheap as that price is.

(Aside : My post from last night... what can I say, I was tired and narky when I wrote that, so I was probably overly critical and I apologise if it came across a little "raw". However, I still stand by what I said.)

CiDeRmAn

sligeach wrote: »

This $h1t of, "but the competition does it", as if that somehow makes it alright for Nintendo to do it as well. If they jumped off a bridge, would Nintendo follow suit? How come Nintendo managed to have a free service for nearly the past 2 decades? It's the same reason amiibo exist, they seen the competition making a shedload of money and said we'll copy that. What next, will they charge us for the use and maintenance of the eShop?

If people develop a wishlist of what on online service should provide they have to be basing it on industry examples and the only examples are those used by other consoles.
So, not $hit.
But ten points for bringing you pet hate of Amiibo into the conversation.

They had Miiverse, TVii(though it wasn't available in Europe) and free online on Wii U. Free online, Weather channel, News channel, Everybody Votes channel and more besides on Wii. Are the overheads so extreme now that they've to charge?

They were the only ones not to charge at the time, so it makes perfect sense that some charge should apply now.
Both the PS and MS services have free options too, but they limit your online activities.

Of course, they'll have to charge for the games, as they've got to make revenue for the games. Which is why it was bizarre that yesterday they said that the NES games are "free".

This is just the same old recycled tripe that we heard with the PS+ sub and the Xbox equivalent.
Eye's wide open, no one is suggesting that these games are permanently a persons outside of the subscription period, they are free to play with the subscription service.
This is just lazy criticism.

In many ways they're thinking of themselves, not the consumer with some of their decisions, Cloud backup saves only, a hatchet job voice chat app and starting off with NES titles, that's not what people want. Hackers are doing more than Nintendo it would appear to get Gamecube games running on Switch.

The voice app is a disaster, I've no idea why they've structured it like that and, while I don't use it on any of my consoles at home I can see it's a major omission. Sort it out Nintendo!

But I wouldn't go putting too much faith in "hackers" as they ultimately ony hurt the format by denying developers revenue with the inevitable theft of gaming revenue by pirates.

And that's just talking about their Online Service, they weren't thinking of the consumer with other decisions, 32 GB internal storage, no apps, no browser, etc. Remember this Service is only going to be operational with barebone games 18 months into the Switch' life cycle.

I would agree they should have had the online service running much earlier than this, but they were thinking of their intended consumer with the games they've released so far and the embrace of the indie developers out there.
The 32Gb is a problem though, really in this day and age they should be thinking in terms of a 250Gb drive in there somewhere.

I think it will get better in time, but it will also get more expensive. Like if they do add more systems in September next year, e.g. Gamecube, will they really keep the price at €20? I doubt it. I definitely think there will be some sort of Miiverse replacement, sure it was flawed but also did a lot of good. Then we may see Super Mario Maker again. Someone mentioned yesterday about overwhelmed or underwhelmed by what was announced. I don't see how anyone could have been overwhelmed, I personally was underwhelmed.

Don't really know anything for certain except that it will get better, no online service has become more restrictive over time.
Super Mario Maker is probably waiting for the online service before it can be properly implemented, hopefully with more slopes and fewer autorunners!

CiDeRmAn

I'm going to duck out of the debate as it is.
I seem to be fairly alone here in terms of not hating the online service announcement.
I don't want to be flagged as a Ninty apologist, though it may be too late!
But my few points stand, I really hope Nintendo don't make a mess of it.

Inviere

Deleted User wrote: »

I look at what Sony and Microsft are doing, and while I'm not 100% happy with either of their services, they are light years ahead of Nintendo.

If you go back two generations, Sony were tinkering with the network adapter on the PS2, & MS were only beginning to get the foundations right with XBL 1.0. In the time since then, both companies have taken online services to all time high.

If you go back two generations in terms of Nintendo, you're looking at the Wii. The Wii had the Virtual Console, WiiWare, the Wii Shop Channel, Internet Browser, Youtube, Netflix, Wii Channels, and a plethora of other little features. In the time since, Nintendo have gone so far backwards, it's like they have no experience at all with online features. They're a truly brilliant, yet utterly infuriating company at the same time.

Inviere

Inviere wrote: »

If you go back two generations, Sony were tinkering with the network adapter on the PS2, & MS were only beginning to get the foundations right with XBL 1.0. In the time since then, both companies have taken online services to all time high.

If you go back two generations in terms of Nintendo, you're looking at the Wii. The Wii had the Virtual Console, WiiWare, the Wii Shop Channel, Internet Browser, Youtube, Netflix, Wii Channels, and a plethora of other little features. In the time since, Nintendo have gone so far backwards, it's like they have no experience at all with online features. They're a truly brilliant, yet utterly infuriating company at the same time.

Let's go even further. Sega started it all with the Dreamcast. :P

Rhyme

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

I'm going to duck out of the debate as it is.
I seem to be fairly alone here in terms of not hating the online service announcement.
I don't want to be flagged as a Ninty apologist, though it may be too late!
But my few points stand, I really hope Nintendo don't make a mess of it.

I think it's grand as well. I'm getting everything I want from the announcement. I don't have an Xbox or a PS4 so I have no concrete comparison. I don't get the 'holding up two things you don't use and putting more shit on one than the other' business, it's just a whinge.

Mr E

Yeah I'm fine with it too. People are griping over 20 bloody euro, you'd swear they were being forced to pay it.

I spend €20 a week in the cinema (at least) for a 2 hour experience. This is for a year (with benefits).

manual_man

Inviere wrote: »

I don't mean to be rude, but that's complete nonsense.

Nintendo has to be clever here. I agree with blockfighter on this. Indies are helping massively with the Switch's success. Maintaining good relations with 3rd party devs is paramount. A virtual console (like in previous iterations) would have the effect of competing with indie titles. Indie devs would not be happy with this. I get where you're coming from too, but I believe what's most important is up and coming new releases for Switch, and having a strategy in place that fosters new game development on Switch - maybe even resulting in some Switch exclusives or timed exclusivity at least... I know where you're coming from in thinking the more choice the better, but I don't think that correlates well with Nintendo's bigger goal of fostering better 3rd party relations and ultimately getting better NEW content on the Switch and beyond. As for these 20 NES titles I'm actually curious to see how it works and if some titles could be fun - personally I missed out alot on the NES era (SNES was my first console) so it gives me an excuse to try them out and possibly enjoy them alongside other people. One thing I agree on is that it should be possible to backup saves offline, so that's unfortunate. But I'd say there's a very high chance I'm paying 20 quid come September. Not perfect (never is!), but at just 20 quid a year (possibly less, depending on how this family thing shapes up) I'm looking forward to giving it a proper try.

blockfighter

Inviere wrote: »

Because the model they've chosen is wholly anti-consumer. You either pay to back up your saves, or you don't and risk the consequences. You're being forced to pay for something that all of Nintendo's competitors offer for free (an offline way to protect your save games). It's got very little to do with the Online service, paying for cloud storage is completely acceptable and understandable. Having no other alternative to pay though, is not.



Have you any hard evidence that indicates the existence of the VC in any way affects the purchasing of small Indie titles?

No hard evidence. Just an opinion. That's all. This is a place for opinions and said I'd give mine. I like what was announced. You don't. Neither of us is going to convince the other otherwise.