Switch Online Services & Voice Chat
CGamor7 last edited by
@Art that actually makes more sense then this lol.
Guest last edited by Guest
They love making things obtuse, it's been like that since the game link cables from the days of yore. To me it's nothing new, they've been avoiding any real multiplayer community integration that they're already over a decade behind on as much as possible.
Now it feels like they did this to say they tried and when people don't use it (Cause...I mean really let's be real here, most won't) they'll simply stop supporting it.
What I hate, is they also still think people are gonna pay for their multiplayer service later this year and having....well virtually no reason to.
EDIT- And of course right after I say that the post comes out about what the pricing structure looks like, which honestly isn't that big a deal. I pay $90 a year for amazon prime, so $20 for a year is pocket change.
But still, Nintendo needs to wise up and get with the times.
Hey, look: Actual information.
So the lobby system and voice chat app seem to be launching summer this year, and will be free (or won't be available, depending on your perspective) until '2018.' The free NES game a month thing has changed to 'Classic Game Selection.' According to NoA's Twitter "Nintendo Switch Online includes ongoing access to a library of classic games you can take anywhere!" That sounds to me more like Playstation Plus during the PS3 era — a library that didn't rotate out every month — just for older Nintendo games (only NES shown so far).
It's also $20 a year ($4 for individual months), which is $5-10 less than the price converted from yen. Paying for online and the whole headphone set up is a little troublesome, but I don't see a great deal of cause for internet outrage. If you want to play ARMS, Splatoon, Mario Kart, and Monster Hunter (one presumes) online, pay for it. If you don't, don't. It's not like they aren't giving ample lead time to try out the service.
Jamicov last edited by
To me, the classic games system sounds more like current PS Plus, with a couple games a month that keep adding on.
Overall, the new online info has me more optimistic about it than when the Switch was initially revealed, especially with the prices. PS Plus for a year in comparison is $60. The value of Nintendo's service may end up proportionate to Playstation, but I still like the direction it's taking.
As for the whole voice chat thing, the anger, for me at least, comes from the idea that it should be much, much simpler than it is now. I think I could excuse that Wii Speak peripheral from years ago, but two consoles later, I think it's pretty inexcusable to have it as complicated as it is. It probably won't end up being a huge issue for me, since I only voice chat with friends and I'll just use Skype or Discord or something, but it's still frustrating to see the disconnect from Nintendo on that front.
@Jamicov I'm not big on the whole 'Nintendo are old thinkers' narrative when everyone else is dead-set on killing local multiplayer.
PS3-era PS+ is what I want really. It's not like there are any new NES games for them to rotate into. And if it's just a static library SNES, N64, and GCN added in blocks over time then there's no incentive to stay subscribed beyond the cheaper bulk pricing, and we can just drop it at a whim whenever there aren't any new multiplayer games or we aren't interested in playing online. If you do that on PS+ you lose everything you have downloaded or purchased for potentially years.
Jamicov last edited by Jamicov
Oh, I wasn't trying to push that narrative, I was speaking more specifically to the frustration of the whole voice chat peripheral stuff.
I actually think that the Switch itself and the new online info fights the "old thinkers" schtick you're talking about. The original language of the Classic Games stuff said that we would be playing those old game for only one month before the selection changed and we wouldn't have access again. Now, they listened and have adapted it closer to the PS Plus. I just think that's really cool to see, even if it is kind of a small change in the grand scheme of things.
I get what you mean in terms of how they're rolling out the games, I never had a PS3 so I've only dealt with PS4-era PS Plus. I just saw that Kotaku got more info on that front. Looks like it'll be just NES at launch, which is a little disappointing, but I'm willing to reserve total judgement until we hear more and the Virtual Console itself is talked about more.
Feel kinda bad since I strayed away from the original topic, but I think that despite the weird voice chat stuff, everything else in context points to Nintendo straying away from "incompetence".
Axel last edited by
Maybe we should rename the topic to "Nintendo Switch Online service" or something since we're not just talking about voice chat at this point?
Can't complain about the price, $20 a year is very reasonable, especially if their Virtual Console service ends up being a Netflix-like library of games. From their wording that's what it sounds like, and it almost seems too good to be true.
Although this probably means that VC is not shadow-dropping at E3 which I was strongly expecting. Still no Mother 3!
CGamor7 last edited by CGamor7
@Axel yeah the topic really had nothing to do with online services. The $20 actually sounds like it could be a good deal for unlimited classic games. The issue being around voice chat and whether it in itself shows incompetence or maybe the possibility that it really will work.
SabotageTheTruth last edited by SabotageTheTruth
To slightly steer the conversation back on track, there's just a lot of assumptions made here by Nintendo as far as voice chat is concerned. They're assuming that you own a smartphone, that you play with it by your side, and that your phone will be impervious and live forever. I realize they're probably saving money using this solution and that savings is passed down to the consumer (most likely why everyone is bringing up the cost of online service) so I can't really justify this as being incompetent. I also don't see other consoles adopting this model though, because they already have infrastructures that can handle voice chat fairly well - so I wouldn't give it the distinction of being revolutionary either.
Considering a lot of Nintendo titles aren't online multi-player focused, I'd say the solution makes sense. Is it one I'd personally like to use? Not really. In the end, Nintendo is helping to add to the available options for people to play together online, so I can't condemn them for that even if it's not something that appeals to me.
Jamicov last edited by
@CGamor7 Well I think the voice chat kind of inherently is tied to online services. I didn't even think about it until now, but you can only use the voice chat if you pay for online in the first place, which is a bit weird.
Now, can we tell if that weird voice chat dongle is necessary to use voice chat through their app in the first place or is that just for Splatoon? I was under the impression before that it would be essentially be like a Nintendo Skype app that doesn't have to be connected to the Switch itself, but that image says otherwise.
CGamor7 last edited by CGamor7
@Jamicov Yeah, its not entirely weird i guess for chat to be tied into the online services because most would only use it for multiplayer which is tied to online services anyways.
The voice chat hardware kind of makes sense. Because you would want the game audio from the switch itself and the chat audio from the app on your cell phone. Im not sure how else you can do that, unless you don't mind having audio coming from two difference sources which i would personally find annoying. Having chat and game audio combined makes more sense.
@SabotageTheTruth Its definitely not ideal. I would really like to understand Nintendo rationale for this. because, when i want to sit back, whether on the TV or portable mode, I dont want to have my phone attached to me. Its cumbersome. Its one thing to have your phone on a coffee table by you or in your pocket, but to have your phone connected to a head set beside me or the phone connected to the headset and the switch is just crazy to me lol. but I mean at the end of the day if I want to play with friends and have audio ill be forced to accept the craziness that Nintendo has made. At the same time maybe it will all make more sense later.
El Shmiablo Banned last edited by El Shmiablo
@Haru17 Not having these features built into the console just means that there is an arbitrary limit to the consoles features that will make it difficult for certain games to be played on the Switch, which means less developers will want to develop for the Switch, which means less games on the Switch.
Like, how would a game like Rainbow Six Seige even be playable? You NEED to communicate in that game, and making the method of communication purposely obtuse means it is unlikely we will see games like that, or any game with a highly competitive skew on the Switch.
Then again, the fuck was I expecting from a platform that doesn't even have an ethernet port.
@Jamicov You don't need the headset at all. It's just there for people who want a headset and not even confirmed for the west yet. People are getting mixed messages from this thing's existence. The voice chat system exists to eliminate the need to carry around a headset to begin with. You just need your smartphone which will probably be on you anyways and your Switch.
I sympathize with any of you who might not own a smartphone.
Roberto Figueroa CGZ last edited by
Want to hear more from Nintendo but I am sure it will be something bad like Hori's
El Shmiablo Banned last edited by
@Mbun I have a smartphone, and I have it on me all the time. This does not make this method of voice communication any less obtuse or inconvenient.
How will voice be handled? Will all game sound be sent through the phone? Most of my headphones with mics are closed, in-ear, or noise cancelling. Will I need to use my speakers if I want to use the voice chat app?
It is dumb, and the "can't fault Nintendo for trying" mentality is dumb too. I expect more from a console released in this day and age. Nintendo need to try harder, especially after 2 straight gens of complete consumer apathy.
Art Banned last edited by
If there's one thing the competition pioneered it's online gaming and communication in general. Thanks Xbox! You're basically the modern day msn messenger.
Will all game sound be sent through the phone?
No, that's stupid. That's why the headphones have two ins, one for game audio, one for phone audio (the voicechat).
Will I need to use my speakers if I want to use the voice chat app?
Speakers or buy a new headset made for it.
It is dumb, and the "can't fault Nintendo for trying" mentality is dumb too.
I guess you enjoy carrying your headsets around everywhere. ¯_(ツ)_/¯
El Shmiablo Banned last edited by
I don't think I need to elaborate as to why this is a horrible monstrosity and dumb as fuck.
Go home Nintendo you're drunk.
@El-Shmiablo Cause it has one more cord than headsets you're used to?
@El-Shmiablo I'm sick of the Wii stigma purported by so-called core gamers. They made a $250 console with motion controls, less graphics and online, and a mediocre Zelda game at the end. So what? They also released a sick Mario 3D platformer, a next gen Monster Hunter (with sick online), and the most innovative FPS adventure game to date. That's hardly 'apathy' just 'cause the Wii U came after it.
This thread looks to be turning into a flame war — which I do in some sense appreciate. And while I don't think not having online lobbies for 3-4 months after launch when third parties aren't launching multiplayer games anyway is a big deal, the headset thing is a little more cumbersome than @Mbun suggests. I'm hardly ever going to be using voice chat while I'm playing online in bed, but I am not the kind of person to just play game audio and chat audio ambiently. Both living in a home with other people and knowing the kind of chatter that comes from online gaming chat means that, if I'm playing Monster Hunter online, I'm plugging in the headset so I can have relative privacy.