Nintendo's Online Service Pricing
Billy last edited by Billy
President Kimishima held a brief interview with a Japanese publication, and in it, he revealed their plans for the Japanese pricing of the Nintendo Switch's online services. Here is a quote from the Game Informer article:
"Nintendo president Tatsumi Kimishima tells the Nikkei that the online game services will come at an annual cost of 2,000 to 3,000 yen, or approximately $17.60 to $26.40."
Now remember, these are early plans and only the projected prices for Japan. However, it's enough to make me optimistic. I figured they would attempt to price-match Sony or Microsoft's services.
On a different note, he also mentioned that they had 50 developers working on 80 titles for the Switch at the time of the January 13th presentation. Now, that number has increased to 70 devs and 100 games. Even if many of those are smaller or niche titles, it's exciting to see more folks coming on board. I imagine the removal of region-locking will be a large boon going forward.
edsortiz last edited by
I imagined the pricing to be something like that, from $20 to $30 annually. I don't mind paying that for a better Nintendo online service.
Haru17 last edited by
Yeah, it might be around $30 /year for the US and other western countries — and more if you pay monthly — but I have no problems with that price point. I'd gladly pay ~$100~ to play Monster Hunter 5 on Switch, when that comes out.
Billy last edited by
@Haru17 Especially if the money goes towards improving the online experience, which I suppose is the point.
logic__error last edited by
I think $20-30 for a year is pretty reasonable and about where I hoped/figured they would land on pricing. I think it will still depend on all the details of their online functionality, and any perks that come with it, but it certainly makes me more optimistic.
FF7Cloud last edited by
yea 20-30 dollars is a good spot we'll see what there services are
thenerdtheword last edited by
If that price translates over to relative UK pricing and the added extras like the SNES games are appealing x then I'm onboard
kohelhunter last edited by kohelhunter
That sounds reasonable. The first reasonably priced thing to come out of the switch.
Guest last edited by
It'd be easier to swallow if they had a positive experience with online functionality in the past, but in my experience across DS till now.....it's not real great.
Certain games where the servers aren't handled by nintendo like Monster Hunter are generally alrighty, spotty at times but alright. But given that all of their systems prioritize and make Wi-Fi the basic connectivity throws a big shade of doubt on this, it'll be just like the Wii and Wii-U, people will assume that since it wasn't designed with an ethernet port you must not need one, and/or never look into the extra attachments or feel they're worth buying.
Which is how the recent smash game was a nightmare to play online.
Seeing as how that's the direction we're headed in again I'm not really inspired to trust them to make good on anything...there's only so much you can do with Wi-Fi and high demanding network games, and there's many things like fighting games and shooters where it's practically a sin to use anything other than a cable even under the best conditions and optimal placement of routers/extenders/boosters/etc.
Luckily for me it's rare to ever play any of nintendo's games online anyway, but if monster hunter for example were to end up on switch I'd obviously have no choice, but until then...I'm gonna wait for proof that it's not a complete mess.
TokyoSlim last edited by
It's fun hearing all the Nintendo fans hopeful that the money they're going to be paying for online is going to be used to "improve" the online infrastructure. Historically speaking - that's not likely :)
Good luck to you tho.
Nintendo have a lot of catching up to do, but since they're so far behind they can see all the good and bad things Sony /Microsoft have done and plan accordingly to avoid making a shitty online service.
But I'm not holding my breath.
Churchy last edited by
The strange thing is: why the hell didn't they say this during the initial reveal. This is what puzzles me; Nintendo seem intent on drip-feeding the information about the Switch and making it like a jigsaw puzzle to collate together.
I really want to be positive about the Switch but it's bloody hard sometimes. I'm going to do what I did with the 360. Wait a few months and see when everything's actually coming out and get one when things have teethed a little bit.
@TokyoSlim Well since Nintendo has never done this, your historical examples do more to discredit the competitors' online service than how the Switch's online service will pan out.
I'm more excited for Nintendo to finally have paid online, because that forces them to finally put online in games they've avoided putting online for ages to sell the service itself. It's ridiculous no Mario Party games have had online yet, and that's finally something you can just about guarantee now with the next one since Nintendo has to find ways to incentivize people to pay for and keep paying for the online service. So even if the online service itself sticks around the level it was during the Wii U, which I never had much trouble with, as long as the money goes towards funding more Nintendo games to include online multiplayer, I'm fine with it since that's what I've wanted for ages anyways. Nintendo has had the biggest stick up it's butt for the longest time about promoting local coop over online, but needing to sell a paid online service will force them to stop feeding us excuses and get with the times.
Why would anyone pay a yearly fee for Mario Party when recent titles have been 7/10 at best?
El Shmiablo Banned last edited by
If Nintendo keeps the same level of service they did for the WiiU, I will straight up not be getting a Switch. The WiiU's online connectivity was fucking clown shoes.
@Art Just an example of a series that should've had online a long time ago but hasn't cause Nintendo. You're not going to be paying for that alone.
@El-Shmiablo You'll need to elaborate, because I played tons of MK8 and Splatoon online and never had any issue whatsoever. The worst thing I ran into was people with third world internet dropping or creating lag during matches, and there's no real way around that no matter what kind of online structure you use unless you regulate who can play with each other and force all the laggers onto their own horrible tier with each other. I'm not sure what kinds of connectivity you expect. They can't perform miracles.
Exist 2 Inspire last edited by
It's still way too much for twelve 25-30 year old games and a shitty mobile app imo. For my 60 bucks for PS+ i get like what ~60 games a year and they are not old as dirt, lol!
@Exist-2-Inspire Too bad lots of those ~60 games are kinda trash too. People usually download them and never come back to them, much like how people treat Steam libraries often. Lots of times they don't even download them, because one look at it and you know you'll never play it. More realistically you're probably getting about 24 decent old games a year (2 goodies a month) versus Nintendo offering 12 old games a year with added online they never had before (1 goodie a month), which still sounds bad until you realize it's going to cost half to a third of the price.
The really messed up part of Nintendo's plan is still that the games are loaners for the month instead of getting to keep them. They're really going to have to justify that going forward. I know some people have talked about them trying to build active communities around the game of the month, so you can get lots of matches with it and everyone is talking about the same thing at the same time, but there's inevitably going to be months with stuff people don't care about which sours the whole plan. If they just let people keep past month's game or opt out of the new month one to get to keep playing one of the older month ones I'd feel better about it. Hopefully there's yet more Nintendo hasn't revealed yet.
Tragosaurus last edited by
@Mbun I tried playing some Smash online and it was straight horrid 60% of the time. Granted I fall into the category of people who didn't buy an ethernet adapter but I shouldn't have to. I paid for great internet speeds and the router was within 5 feet of the console so it wasn't interference or distance. I've played Xbox360 and PS4 online before using wifi when I can't direct connect and they would work fine. The Switch dock should just have an ethernet port on it, but I don't claim to know the reasons for why they decided against it.
I, like @TokyoSlim, don't Nintendo is sitting around thinking, well once everyone pays us $X for online we will have $Y to invest in making the service that much better. Their online service is going to need to be that much better out of the gate when its free to convince people its worth spending money on. I don't know anything about the costs for setting up an online service are but PC doesn't charge anything so it seems more like a cash grab, plus here are some free games, than anything else.
The really messed up part of Nintendo's plan is still that the games are loaners for the month instead of getting to keep them. They're really going to have to justify that going forward.
There is no justifying it. Nintendo wants you to rebuy the same games over and over and over again with each new console iteration instead of having it all tied to one account.
All they're doing is making piracy more appealing.