Topic: Nintendo Switch --OT--

@KratosMD @Ralizah I think right now, the switch is doing well and for our family it's a great companion console. It will have a small selection of the big retail games to dip into every now and then. So the online bit, isn't that important to us. I don't want the added £20 to have a quick online game of contra, seriously whos asking for that?

They should keep it free. Why rock the boat just because Microsoft and Sony have these services. What Nintendo should do is a proper full on £40 a year service, with 3 games a month being pushed out akin to igc. One nes game, one snes game and one other. Now that's a service I would get behind. But keep the Internet free!

@themcnoisy Online services are 'relative' to the individual. You can argue that both PS+ and Gold are 'unnecessary' and 'expensive' considering PC gamer's don't have to pay. We are being 'blackmailed' essentially to pay-up or miss out on games/content. Both MS and Sony though do offer 'something' back in the form of 'free' games - OK they may have some stipulations - like you can only play the games for as long as you are subscribed but the 'RRP value' of these exceeds the cost of the Subscription. You can also get some 'extra' discounts on games in their store too but you can also buy games in sales regardless of subscription status and its not like these are always 'cheapest' but those 'extra' savings may add up over time.

The 'value' of those games though will depend more on the individual and their preferences and circumstances. Its entirely possible that you could go a whole year and not download any game - either because you own it or don't like it. PS+ value also may depend on whether you own 'just' a console or multiple consoles PS3, Vita and/or PS4 and the frequency in which you play these. To a degree Gold is similar but if you own an XB1, you can download and play all games.

Access to online is again relative. That maybe a priority for people and the games, sale discounts are bonuses. Others may subscribe primarily for the games and discounts and see online as a 'bonus'

When it comes to Nintendo, some may see that as 'great' value if it enables them to play online regardless of whether they are at home or not, regardless of whether they are in the same 'room/area' as another Switch owner. Any additional extras - whether its access to old games for a limited time before they are replaced by other old games as a bonus.

If any of the above services are not 'important', ie you don't play online, don't buy digital games or 'enough' to make it financially beneficial, don't like or want any of the 'free' games regardless of any restrictions - like time or subscription status, its not going to entice you to buy.

In my case, Gold offers me the 'best' value for money because of the 'bonuses' are more frequently of interest. If I was forced to choose between cancelling PS+ or Gold, PS+ would go. Its not coming to that but that's how I feel because PS+ gives me 'little' back for my money compared to Gold at the moment.

In a year, you (and your family) may find that the £20 a year for the Nintendo Online is 'essential' to your enjoyment of certain games. Maybe you want to play Mario Kart, Splatoon or whatever MP games are available with 'random' players anywhere you may be rather than having to wait for all family members to be in a room together and wanting to play. It maybe easier than trying to find 'other' Switch owners that you can link up with and play together too. Maybe the 'bonuses' may appeal more then too as well...

@BAMozzy As a companion console the service is fine right now. It's just £20 for what we have right now, so I can't see any value in it at all.

I'm noticing this system is having a hard time doing anything right.

@themcnoisy I am not arguing with your reasoning at all. The value of it though is very much a personal thing. PS+ at £40 a year may not seem 'great' value to someone who has no interest in online gaming on their PS4, no interest in the IGC games and/or the extra discount in the store.

With around 50% of PS4 owners also subscribers, this indicates that 50% don't see PS+ as offering 'value' to them yet I personally wouldn't want to be without it because I want to game online. I am sure you probably get more value from your PS+ subscription than I do as I don't buy games online (generally) and don't often have any IGC games of interest to me yet you also have a Vita so have more reason to subscribe and can keep that 'fed' with games without ever needing to buy a game at all - especially as 'new' games seem few and far between - is it still getting releases??

For Switch owners, that £20 'could' provide enough incentive to subscribe - not just the online but maybe the access to a few games a month - even if they are rotated rather than kept - is enough for less than £2 a month.

@BAMozzy yes obviously value is relative.

I would like to see a rollback in the 'paying for online' it's free outside of the console space and its annoying that with the 3 consoles they have all followed this approach. Costing £100 a year between them. But hey its the modern world. I won't be buying it, having the switch offline will do.

@themcnoisy I'm glad I enjoy single player games more than multi player games (or is it because I rarely play mp games due to the paid service?).

Some people use the argument that the free games make up for the price, and while that could be true, I have no interest in those ''free'' games. I usually buy my games when they come out, and if I don't buy a game myself, I probably didn't have much interest in the game anyway. I'd like to see a stripped down version of those services as an option. Remove the free games, just the online play. You know what would be even better than that? Allowing users to host their own servers, and bypass the subscription altogether.

I don't really play PS4 online, other than Destiny, which I havn't played in a while, but I'm bound to get back on it once D2 launches.

I don't really play the free monthly games.

But I keep my subscription for the odd times I do want to play multiplayer, and for the store discounts, which I expect make up for the majority of my subscription fee.

Maybe Nintendo will give store discounts for members too.

@KratosMD My Nintendo. Yeah... Got an e-mail the other day with a birthday gift from Nintendo, a whopping 30% off a game of choice (well, from a limited selection). Turns out, I already own those games, and I don't have a 3DS, so those discounts were pretty pointless...

@Octane 'Allowing users to host their own servers, and bypass the subscription altogether.'

Yup I like this idea.

@kyleforrester87 PSplus is fine, you get the triple benefit of stable online, a variety of games and (recently very good) discounts and Its been available from the PS4 release. The Nintendo offering is no bells online with a moon old game that, lets be honest, anyones passed caring about.

It's more the case of the Nintendo service coming way after the switch release, I'm happy with the here and now don't change it!

@KratosMD your example is bad business all over. Nintendo are great at making games, but I don't trust them to do right by the consumers due to their usually backward business strategy.

I'm not a big online player, though I do it occasionally with friends. With PS Plus, I maintain that mainly for the choice but largely for the discounts and the 'free' games. With a Vita and a PS4, I do tend to play at least 3-4 Plus games a year, as well as swelling out my library so for me, it is worth it.

I don't think the $20 a year for Nintendo is extortionate but to be honest, the MP aspect interests me even less then my PS4 so without added fringe benefits, I probably won't bother. I would echo the sentiments that Nintendo do go out of their way to make things challenging for their consumers.

Super hyped for Metroid Prime 4 and the new Pokemon RPG!

Nintendo's E3 is going so much better than I expected.

@Ralizah You got any trailers for those games? I'd like to see them

Those northern English accents in Xenoblade Chronicles were pretty funny

@Octane It's not like people don't know what Pokemon and Metroid Prime entail. They're coming. That's enough for now.

I am kinda underwhelmed by Nintendo's Spotlight...it might be that we come from 2 days of eye-melting stuff but it all seems so dated. I am really hyped for the new 2d meteoroid though! And Prime 4 but all we got is a screenshot...that was so lame! And also : "Pokemon team is working on a Pokemon game for switch!" ...oh, you don't say! Here is another bomb: gran turismo 7 will have cars!

The more of SMO I see, the more I love it. This Mario game is so weird and creative!

Seems safe, conservative Nintendo is safely in the rear view mirror.

I love how weird it looks too.

To those saying they didnt show much of substance that we wont see for years, I direct you to the much lauded Sony 2015 where we got the Last Guardian, brief CG for FFVII, and the launch of a funding campaign for Shenmue 3.

Here, we got announcement that Pokemon was funded and in development, about one year out, Metroid Prime 4 is funded and in active development, and Super Mario Odyssey is in October.

And whats sad? Prime 4 will still land before FFVII. And that one of the highlights wasnt asking for funding.

This was the holy trinity for Nintendo just as Sony had theirs.

@BLP_Software
All true. Nintendo wins E3 this year, hands down. MS didn't impress nearly as much as I thought it would considering the Xbox One X was being shown off and I think the reason it failed to impress is because in the end, it's still an Xbox One just like the PS4 Pro is still a PS4 and it's going to be held back by the base model because the company is tethered to that userbase. MS signed some big third party marketing deals but Sony has some to counter that and none of the games these companies throw money at are exclusive anyway. Since MS didn't impress that much, I think it's obvious Sony decided to play it safe and basically recycled what we saw at their 2016 shows. Nintendo, despite having the shortest 'conference' actually had new, interesting announcements. If somebody isn't to Nintendo games, sure, it won't appeal but as somebody who just likes great games, Nintendo takes first in my book. It's not an A+ showing but it's a strong B, maybe even B+. Sony and MS were C, C- at best.