Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Nintendo Online Discussion

13567…12

Comments

  • #102
    CiDeRmAn
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 34,633 CMod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #103
    Inviere
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,756 ✭✭✭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.

    Retro Computers/Consoles Repair/Restoration List



  • #104
    Banjo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,485 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #105
    CiDeRmAn
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 34,633 CMod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #106
    blockfighter
    Registered Users Posts: 1,225 ✭✭✭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.


  • #107
    Banjo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,485 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #108
    sligeach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,119 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #109
    Inviere
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,756 ✭✭✭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?

    Retro Computers/Consoles Repair/Restoration List



  • #110
    CiDeRmAn
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 34,633 CMod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #111
    CiDeRmAn
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 34,633 CMod ✭✭✭✭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!


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    Inviere
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,756 ✭✭✭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.

    Retro Computers/Consoles Repair/Restoration List



  • #113
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.)


  • #114
    CiDeRmAn
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 34,633 CMod ✭✭✭✭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!


  • #115
    CiDeRmAn
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 34,633 CMod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #116
    Inviere
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,756 ✭✭✭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.

    Retro Computers/Consoles Repair/Restoration List



  • #117
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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


  • #118
    Rhyme
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,561 ✭✭✭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.


  • #119
    Mr E
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 55,535 ✭✭✭✭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).


  • #120
    manual_man
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,264 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    blockfighter
    Registered Users Posts: 1,225 ✭✭✭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.


  • #122
    Inviere
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,756 ✭✭✭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?

    Retro Computers/Consoles Repair/Restoration List



  • #123
    blockfighter
    Registered Users Posts: 1,225 ✭✭✭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.


  • #124
    blockfighter
    Registered Users Posts: 1,225 ✭✭✭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


  • #125
    manual_man
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,264 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #126
    Inviere
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,756 ✭✭✭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.

    Retro Computers/Consoles Repair/Restoration List



  • Advertisement
  • #127
    blockfighter
    Registered Users Posts: 1,225 ✭✭✭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!


  • #128
    Inviere
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,756 ✭✭✭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.

    Retro Computers/Consoles Repair/Restoration List



  • #129
    manual_man
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,264 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #130
    Inviere
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,756 ✭✭✭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.

    Retro Computers/Consoles Repair/Restoration List



  • #131
    blockfighter
    Registered Users Posts: 1,225 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    TitianGerm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,354 ✭✭✭✭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 ;)


  • #133
    Mr E
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 55,535 ✭✭✭✭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. :)


  • #134
    Star Lord
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,123 ✭✭✭✭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???


  • #135
    Inviere
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,756 ✭✭✭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.

    Retro Computers/Consoles Repair/Restoration List



  • #136
    Star Lord
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,123 ✭✭✭✭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!


  • #137
    Inviere
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,756 ✭✭✭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

    Retro Computers/Consoles Repair/Restoration List



  • #138
    Pac1Man
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,394 ✭✭✭Pac1Man


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


  • #139
    Inviere
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,756 ✭✭✭Inviere


    Pac1Man wrote: »
    Don't think I have ever backed up a save!

    This person probably wished they had (or could!)

    Retro Computers/Consoles Repair/Restoration List



  • #140
    sligeach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,119 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #141
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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:


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    Riesen_Meal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,580 ✭✭✭✭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...


  • #143
    geotrig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,835 ✭✭✭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


  • #144
    CiDeRmAn
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 34,633 CMod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #145
    sligeach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,119 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #146
    Mr Bloat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,234 ✭✭✭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.


  • #147
    CiDeRmAn
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 34,633 CMod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #148
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    CiDeRmAn wrote: »
    I've ducked out of the debate for this very reason.

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


  • #149
    kevin2me
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 697 ✭✭✭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.


  • #150
    TitianGerm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,354 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    kevin2me
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 697 ✭✭✭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


Advertisement