Nintendo Online Discussion

Inviere

manual_man wrote: »

A virtual console (like in previous iterations) would have the effect of competing with indie titles. Indie devs would not be happy with this.

Again though, is there actual evidence of this or is it all just subjective opinion? I would have thought they were for very different markets?

blockfighter

manual_man wrote: »

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.

This.

blockfighter

Inviere wrote: »

Again though, is there actual evidence of this or is it all just subjective opinion? I would have thought they were for very different markets?

People only have so much money. You put 100 people in a room with €20 to spend on games this month. If there's new indie games out and an old SNES or NES game also released, at least one person is going to buy the SNES/NES game. Money that would otherwise have gone to an indie developer. My prediction would be there's quite a few more than 1 who would buy the SNES game. But no hard facts. Just an opinion

manual_man

Inviere wrote: »

Again though, is there actual evidence of this or is it all just subjective opinion? I would have thought they were for very different markets?

It's intuition on my part. If I'm an indie dev, I would definitely see virtual console titles as competition (and rightly so, I think). So many indie titles take direct inspiration (and are often styled similarly) to older 8 and 16 bit titles.

Inviere

blockfighter wrote: »

Just an opinion

I respect the opinion, I just don't recall ever hearing the VC posed a threat to Indie dev revenue before. The Switch has some wonderful indie stuff on it, but I can't bring myself to believe the existence of some nes & snes roms would jeopardize that.

blockfighter

Inviere wrote: »

I respect the opinion, I just don't recall ever hearing the VC posed a threat to Indie dev revenue before. The Switch has some wonderful indie stuff on it, but I can't bring myself to belies the existence of some nes & snes roms would jeopardize that.

Fair enough!

Inviere

blockfighter wrote: »

Fair enough!

Perhaps you're correct, though. Looking at the topic, you're certainly not alone in your theory. From Reddit:

My theory was Nintendo was delaying to give Indie developers a head start. Let's face it most of us would buy Super Metroid over a game released decades later mimicking the same concept. Indie support is important for a well rounded library. That being said it has been a year and GIMME THE CONSOLE NINTY PLS.

This was my theory too, gems like overcooked, stardew valley or Celeste wouldn't've done as well if we also had the option to play Mario 64 or Luigi's mansion instead. I think Nintendo made a deal with Indie developers to not roll out virtual console for the first 18-24 months

https://www.reddit.com/r/NintendoSwitch/comments/83ds1j/because_we_still_have_no_mention_of_a_virtual/

There are others who theorise that Ninty don't want to hurt sales of their 'Mini' line up. That I find harder to believe, as I feel those devices, while brilliant, are mere flash in the pan type things, where hype and consumers are concerned. Are there many people buying Mini's today? Are they even readily available at this stage? I know Ninty said they're coming back in the Summer, but they seem more of a seasonal thing as opposed to a constant source of revenue.

manual_man

Inviere wrote: »

I respect the opinion, I just don't recall ever hearing the VC posed a threat to Indie dev revenue before. The Switch has some wonderful indie stuff on it, but I can't bring myself to believe the existence of some nes & snes roms would jeopardize that.

The indie scene nowadays, both in influence and importance, is FAR different from how it was on previous Nintendo consoles. I'd go so far as to say that without the level of indie support that the Switch has had, it may have been the difference between the Switch being a mainstream success or not. I think Nintendo is very aware of this, and is strategizing with it very much in mind.

Inviere

manual_man wrote: »

The indie scene nowadays, both in influence and importance, is FAR different from how it was on previous Nintendo consoles. I'd go so far as to say that without the level of indie support that the Switch has had, it may have been the difference between the Switch being a mainstream success or not. I think Nintendo is very aware of this, and is strategizing with it very much in mind.

I wonder how different the landscape would be then, if VC roms were not commanding the same prices as modern Indie titles? It's all moot anyway really, until we see where Ninty are going with this.

blockfighter

Its the people who invested in VC on the Wii U I feel sorry for though. I know when Xbox announced backwards compatability my Xbox One immediately became populated with 360 titles I had bought years ago digitally. It nicely padded out my library.
I can see how Wii U owners might feel burned by this.

TitianGerm

blockfighter wrote: »

Its the people who invested in VC on the Wii U I feel sorry for though. I know when Xbox announced backwards compatability my Xbox One immediately became populated with 360 titles I had bought years ago digitally. It nicely padded out my library.
I can see how Wii U owners might feel burned by this.

Well there's not a whole lot of Wii U owners in fairness

Mr E

Ah yeah but he means retrospectively. I had about 10 VC games on my Wii U, tied to the account that I currently use on my Switch. It would be nice to see those titles pop up on my Switch.

Star Lord

The saves backup thing baffles me, people are seeming to get apoplectic over the lack of an offline save backup option.

The existence of an online save backup does not mean that a future firmware update won't bring a backup-to-usb option!

I think it should, and hope that the chance that it does bring that option is high.
But who in their right mind would think that they'd announce such an option when announcing the bare bones of the details of their forthcoming online service???

Inviere

Star Lord wrote: »

But who in their right mind would think that they'd announce such an option when announcing the bare bones of the details of their forthcoming online service???

I think being cloud based, it's hugely convenient, hassle free, automatic, and streamlined. Compared to manually doing it via USB/SD, I think the €20 says all the right things.

Star Lord

I agree, it is all those things. Announcing a manual way of doing so as part of the announcement of the online service would be nonsensical though. If they do make it possible to backup to USB/SD, (and they should!) that should be announced as part of a firmware update, not the online service!

Inviere

Star Lord wrote: »

I agree, it is all those things. Announcing a manual way of doing so as part of the announcement of the online service would be nonsensical though. If they do make it possible to backup to USB/SD, (and they should!) that should be announced as part of a firmware update, not the online service!

I'd agree to a point. In doing so however, they've created a kind of backlash against what should be a positive affair. Pre-empting this by mentioning a firmware update for offline backups would have shut this whole debate down

Pac1Man

Don't think I have ever backed up a save!

Inviere

Pac1Man wrote: »

Don't think I have ever backed up a save!

This person probably wished they had (or could!)

sligeach

Pac1Man wrote: »

Don't think I have ever backed up a save!

I used to back up my Gamecube memory cards as they would corrupt easily sometimes. The first party were nowhere near as bad but a lot more expensive especially the 2 larger sizes.

Mr E

Mr E wrote: »

Ah yeah but he means retrospectively. I had about 10 VC games on my Wii U, tied to the account that I currently use on my Switch. It would be nice to see those titles pop up on my Switch.

Way off topic, but somehow my mind read "titles" as "titties" in that sentence. :eek:

Riesen_Meal

Pac1Man wrote: »

Don't think I have ever backed up a save!

It be nice to have the option, not much doing it for me on Switch at the moment, half tempted to flog it if I'm honest but I'd like a back up save of 200 hours I've put into Zelda...

Part of the reason I didn't want to send my switch off for repair was because of the fear of what would happen my Zelda save...

I sent them a letter with mine and the new switch I got a month or so later had all my data intact...

So yeah, I'd like to back up my saves...

geotrig

sligeach wrote: »

I used to back up my Gamecube memory cards as they would corrupt easily sometimes. The first party were nowhere near as bad but a lot more expensive especially the 2 larger sizes.

dont think i ever had any issues with my gamecube memeroy cards and still have all the same old save files on them ...

I also never new it was a thing to back them up

CiDeRmAn

On the subject of GC mem cards, one "interesting" feature was that when you went from a Japanese console to European you needed a separate memory card or the thing would be formatted on you and you'd lose the saves already on it.
This I discovered when I went from an imported launch GC to a local one.

sligeach

I think it was static shock that the Gamecube memory cards were prone to, don't take that as fact, I can't remember exactly why it was that they would corrupt. It wasn't that they were broken, it just meant that you'd have to start the games from scratch again and resave. I used to store some of them in plastic cases.

Mr Bloat

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

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.

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 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.

You're being quite selective in your argument there, you don't mention Xbox cloud saves can be done without a sub or PS4 saves can be backed up to USB. Both free solutions for those who don't need to pay for the subscription service.

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 someone else argued, is Nintendo software and hardware so full of bugs that they think it's that easy to hack it? Also, stable door, horse bolted and all that.

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

How can you defend this like that? A nominal sum? Why is there any price on something that other providers are giving for free?

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?

This is a new console in 2018 that is directly competing against Sony and Microsoft's latest console offerings. Comparing what Nintendo did with consoles in the past isn't a decent argument, especially when the technology to provide an easy way to backup saves wasn't available.

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.

For someone who constantly gives out to Sligeach for being overly negative, I think you are being overly positive here. Nintendo have never given anything for free when they could charge well for it and this is another example. Now, because loads of people are going to sign up for this online service (many because they feel forced to), Nintendo will look at the numbers signing up, assume the service is popular and because of that, they won't have an incentive to offer improvements.

Look, I'm no internet keyboard warrior, I'm not the type that jumps on Twitter or Boards giving out about every little thing (just look at my post count for evidence of this! ). I'm a regular dad with kids. I don't have infinite resources to pay Nintendo for stuff I shouldn't have to. I'm not destitute either but I do need to pick and choose my gaming purchases. I'd much rather put the €35 that I'll have to pay for this service towards a new Switch game or a Pro controller.
If you're right and Nintendo come along in a few months with an alternative solution, I'll find a way to buy you a beer. I think that I'll be putting that beer money into Nintendo's online service instead though, unfortunately.

CiDeRmAn

I've ducked out of the debate for this very reason.
But you make great points.
I just think it's worth making an opposing view point.
Yes, I choose to take a positive outlook and wait to be disappointed.
Others take a negative outlook and seem to be only delighted to be disappointed... not everyone but some.

Either way, only time will tell if the service offers good value or not, it is impossible to say at this distance but, given that this forum represents the group of people that should be the most easily swayed to Nintendo's side of things, they have misjudged the content of the reveal of the online service completely.

It had been my hope that the delay in bringing the service to market, and it really should have been in place from day one, should have given Nintendo time to properly assess what the market was looking for and then fulfill that demand.
Instead we hear frustration and disappointment, in complete contrast to this time last year, with BotW and SMO, when Nintendo appeared to be delivering the goods.

CiDeRmAn

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

I've ducked out of the debate for this very reason.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPw-3e_pzqU

kevin2me

I dont mind paying 20 bucks for the online play. For me 60e a year on X1 Sub been a waste mostly due lack of time actually get online.
But 20e easy enough to get it and forget or use as much as I can without guilt if I dont use it enuf.

My problem with it is how quite they've been a full year on.
Still nothing concrete on SNES N64 GC etc. that is annoying. As Switch is perfect fit more than anything else b4 it to enjoy old classics.
Just inform us as opposed to unnecessary secrecy.

Hoping by this time next year after N64 mini had many months on market. They finally commit to full Online roster and Indies will have had 2 full years of no competition with Nintebdo retro games.

I think sold like 5 million SNES classics so far so its probably a reason they dont feel need to rush it for Switch Online.

Either way bring on E3 maybe it will announce some more info.

All ai want really is FZeroX And Mario Sunshine remake to come to eshop or eventually this new online subscription service.

TitianGerm

kevin2me wrote: »

I dont mind paying 20 bucks for the online play. For me 60e a year on X1 Sub been a waste mostly due lack of time actually get online.
But 20e easy enough to get it and forget or use as much as I can without guilt if I dont use it enuf.

My problem with it is how quite they've been a full year on.
Still nothing concrete on SNES N64 GC etc. that is annoying. As Switch is perfect fit more than anything else b4 it to enjoy old classics.
Just inform us as opposed to unnecessary secrecy.

Hoping by this time next year after N64 mini had many months on market. They finally commit to full Online roster and Indies will have had 2 full years of no competition with Nintebdo retro games.

I think sold like 5 million SNES classics so far so its probably a reason they dont feel need to rush it for Switch Online.

Either way bring on E3 maybe it will announce some more info.

All ai want really is FZeroX And Mario Sunshine remake to come to eshop or eventually this new online subscription service.

Why are you paying €60 for Live? It can be got for as little as €30ish on sale with the likes of CD Keys.

kevin2me

TitianGerm wrote: »

Why are you paying €60 for Live? It can be got for as little as €30ish on sale with the likes of CD Keys.

Good point. Never tried CDjeys yet.
First few times I got it was I dunno around 60e.
But hit a few 12 +2 free month subs in the great Tesco Sale few years ago for 10e each. So happy days.

Either way I think 20e ie a bargain.
And maybe folks like CD keys will have it for less or nintendo do sales ur include it cheaper in bundles too. But us be happy 20e as long as SNES N64 comes soon not more 12 months away