Nintendo has delayed their online subscription, that was set to launch in Autumn 2017, to launch sometime in 2018, meaning users will get some more time experiencing online on the Switch for free! They also revealed the prices and the fact that people with a paid subscription will get access to older games with new online play support. The full details and prices can be seen below.

Online lobby and voice chat
Our new dedicated smart device app will connect to Nintendo Switch and let you invite friends to play online, set play appointments, and chat with friends during online matches in compatible games─all from your smart device.

A free, limited version of this app will be available for download in summer 2017.

Classic Game Selection*
Subscribers will get to download a compilation of classic titles with added online play, such as Super Mario Bros. 3, Balloon Fight and Dr. Mario.

Subscription prices:

1-Month Membership
$3.99 (USD)

3-Month Membership
$7.99 (USD)

12-Month Membership
$19.99 (USD)

Source

More information regarding the classic games collection:

Nintendo confirmed that this monthly plan has indeed changed, telling Kotaku: “Nintendo Switch Online subscribers will have ongoing access to a library of classic games with added online play. Users can play as many of the games as they want, as often as they like, as long as they have an active subscription.”

Source

 

[FAST6191]

Valve can pay for servers when PC gamers, on average, spend more than their console counterparts. Console gamers are more casual, buying one or two games for a year to play. As you know, in the UK, FIFA and COD are pretty big here and most people just play those games, Sony can't have a free online system with dedicated servers just for two games, it's just not cost effective, that's why they ask users for money.
Also, keep in mind this isnt a vacuum where there is only a switch, Nintendo needs to be able to pay for their servers when Sony and Microsoft are selling the same game. So when you see a game sell a few million, that doesn't go to one of the manufacturers but rather all three (if Nintendo actually got their support.) But if it were just ONE console? Then your argument would be a little more valid.
If you really want free to play online then you'll have to deal with p2p online which is all dependent on every users internet connection, and what is used in the Wii U and 3DS's online. The Switch, however, will use dedicated servers so I'd deem it unfair to judge based on old records of shitty online.

Do Valve run the servers for PC games then? A basic lobby service is not so bad (it is a glorified IM service), and from what I understand and can see everything else is either an extra service for the game dev or something the game devs themselves provide.

p2p is not so bad if your matchmaking is up to snuff. Not to mention relative bandwidth costs* and a virtualised server or three for a few years are not as bad as it once was. Looking at say their advertising budgets ( http://nintendoeverything.com/nintendo-spent-10-on-advertising-during-last-fiscal-year/ ) they could slice a portion of that off and throw down.

*sure if you look at something like battlefield with over 50 players, breakables, terrain deformation, ability for anybody to reach out and touch someone from the other side of the map... it all adds up. Most Nintendo games I see have not really gone past Quake 1 level of bandwidth that needs to be gobbled.

"Sony and Microsoft are selling the same game"
I don't actually know the state of net play there, while some are combined now I am not sure it is, and certainly not was, the default. Also so Nintendo make shitty hardware decisions which lead to them being unable to compete and I end up paying for it? Nice one that.

Equally "The Switch, however, will use dedicated servers "
So it is not even there yet on a console which has now been out in retail for three months and in a final/playable form since at least January? Is that supposed to speak to their level of competence? I mean it speaks volumes to me but probably not in the way they want.

I can't rule out it ultimately being good, stranger things have happened and I myself have quite literally launched services with a greater level of quality than anything I have seen from Nintendo with things almost touching the scale I imagine Nintendo would be operating at**, but I am not getting any indications it will be.

**scaling is not trivial but a just games quality of service is not the hardest to pull off.

 

[Reecey]

Totally agree! well done Nintendo I actually made a similar comment on another thread a while back about Nintendo setting there online subscription date back to give users a better chance online. They have obviously been reading my comments and took note!

Edit: Tbh 19.99 for 12 months I cant complain myself especially over Microsofts online prices.

 

[ATofix]

Older games with online features!? Awesome! Also not one at a time to! And not as expensive as I thought it would be either.....

 

[Jonna]

Surprised that the news about the Splatoon 2 headset wasn't rolled into this post.

...and Polygon's take on it - https://www.polygon.com/2017/6/1/15724070/nintendo-switch-headset-chat-voice-chat-hori

Also, I can't believe that no one else has realised that you will need to spend more than the reported subscription price for a service comparable to Nintendos rivals services.
For a start there's the above peripheral for voice chat. And the requirement of a mobile phone compatible with the app/service... which will require either constant wi-fi or will otherwise impact your 3g data useage.
So, presume you don't own a suitable mobile device - you could be looking at an initial outlay of several hundred £/$/€ to get the online Switch service, and (if you factor in mobile phone contracts, upgraded data allowance) potentially hundreds more to maintain it.

I don't know any one who doesn't have a phone with data already. Also, data isn't an issue, because if you're playing online on the Switch without wifi outside your home, you're obviously prepared enough to use data anyways. Otherwise, you might as well have used this argument way back when Mario Kart DS rolled out online play on a handheld.

 

[PrincessLillie]

Yay, more free time with Switch! That's good because I still don't have one.
Also, Virtual Console hype! You're telling me I can play Dr. Mario and rekt noobs halfway across the globe? New e-sport incoming.
$20 for a year of Switch Online? I know which service I'm switching to. Goodbye, Xbox Live!

 

[Subtle Demise]

I don't know any one who doesn't have a phone with data already. Also, data isn't an issue, because if you're playing online on the Switch without wifi outside your home, you're obviously prepared enough to use data anyways. Otherwise, you might as well have used this argument way back when Mario Kart DS rolled out online play on a handheld.

Problem is, Nintendo have a history of only supporting a select few makes and models of phones. Not to mention timed exclusives with Apple devices, so expect to find workarounds if you don't have a Samsung Galaxy or iPhone.

 

[BlastedGuy9905]

View attachment 88770​

Nintendo has delayed their online subscription, that was set to launch in Autumn 2017, to launch sometime in 2018, meaning users will get some more time experiencing online on the Switch for free! They also revealed the prices and the fact that people with a paid subscription will get access to older games with new online play support. The full details and prices can be seen below.

Subscription prices:

1-Month Membership
$3.99 (USD)

3-Month Membership
$7.99 (USD)

12-Month Membership
$19.99 (USD)

Source

More information regarding the classic games collection:


Source

That's pretty cheap!

 

[Social_Outlaw]

Nintendo Switch = Early Access console but it's fine by me lol.

 

[Steena]

*
How does the service not exist? They give you access to the right of playing online, plus netplay VC&Co.

Online play is P2P, thus costs nothing to a company. Those other services like "free" games should be optional and offered in a second plan. Imagine if your only internet plan was to pay five times the current amount in exhange of also getting sent some random products home. Have you ever asked yourself why they always tie games and services with playing online without giving you a secondary plan choice? Because playing online doesn't cost them anything, they need the excuse to charge you for the really core feature everyone needs, but unfortunately happens to be already covered by everyone's home internet plan. Then they attach the actual goods to show you how generous they are. They aren't giving the games as a bonus. That's the only product they are legitimately selling, while holding online play hostage.

Like industry analyst Pachter said: companies now charge for online because they got away with it.

The hivemind decided it was okay to pay for nothing so companies will gladly scam you out of your money if you're willing. I suggest against paying for random shit without asking if it even provides anything in the first place, doesn't seem like a healthy lifestyle and it's very open to exploitation. Just like having to pay for peer2peer online, for example.

 

[duwen]

Otherwise, you might as well have used this argument way back when Mario Kart DS rolled out online play on a handheld.

Wtf are you talking about? How's that even comparable?
The DS only required a wireless access point for online play - no wifi, no online play. There was no paid online service, no requirement for additional devices (unless you needed one of their dedicated wifi dongles, which cost next to nothing)... and this is the model for online play that Nintendo has maintained on all subsequent systems until now.

So, you believe that all the under 10's that have a shiny new Switch have unlimited data allowance on their brand new iPhones?

 

[TheDarkGreninja]

Do Valve run the servers for PC games then? A basic lobby service is not so bad (it is a glorified IM service), and from what I understand and can see everything else is either an extra service for the game dev or something the game devs themselves provide.

p2p is not so bad if your matchmaking is up to snuff. Not to mention relative bandwidth costs* and a virtualised server or three for a few years are not as bad as it once was. Looking at say their advertising budgets ( http://nintendoeverything.com/nintendo-spent-10-on-advertising-during-last-fiscal-year/ ) they could slice a portion of that off and throw down.

*sure if you look at something like battlefield with over 50 players, breakables, terrain deformation, ability for anybody to reach out and touch someone from the other side of the map... it all adds up. Most Nintendo games I see have not really gone past Quake 1 level of bandwidth that needs to be gobbled.

"Sony and Microsoft are selling the same game"
I don't actually know the state of net play there, while some are combined now I am not sure it is, and certainly not was, the default. Also so Nintendo make shitty hardware decisions which lead to them being unable to compete and I end up paying for it? Nice one that.

Equally "The Switch, however, will use dedicated servers "
So it is not even there yet on a console which has now been out in retail for three months and in a final/playable form since at least January? Is that supposed to speak to their level of competence? I mean it speaks volumes to me but probably not in the way they want.

I can't rule out it ultimately being good, stranger things have happened and I myself have quite literally launched services with a greater level of quality than anything I have seen from Nintendo with things almost touching the scale I imagine Nintendo would be operating at**, but I am not getting any indications it will be.

**scaling is not trivial but a just games quality of service is not the hardest to pull off.

I don't think you and I will ever agree on anything.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Wtf are you talking about? How's that even comparable?
The DS only required a wireless access point for online play - no wifi, no online play. There was no paid online service, no requirement for additional devices (unless you needed one of their dedicated wifi dongles, which cost next to nothing)... and this is the model for online play that Nintendo has maintained on all subsequent systems until now.

So, you believe that all the under 10's that have a shiny new Switch have unlimited data allowance on their brand new iPhones?

Yeah and that model meant that we had shitty online on previous consoles, just try to play sm4sh on wii u with strangers.

"So, you believe that all the under 10's that have a shiny new Switch have unlimited data allowance on their brand new iPhones?"
This has always been the case for online play on a handheld, the way the switch does it isnt anything new, also online on it uses very little data.

 

[duwen]

This has always been the case for online play on a handheld, the way the switch does it isnt anything new, also online on it uses very little data.

Tell that to the parents of all the pre-teens that will be begging their parents for £300 mobile devices just so they can have 'enhanced features' on their online play on the device that's already cost their parents £300!

 

[TheDarkGreninja]

Online play is P2P, thus costs nothing to a company. Those other services like "free" games should be optional and offered in a second plan. Imagine if your only internet plan was to pay five times the current amount in exhange of also getting sent some random products home. Have you ever asked yourself why they always tie games and services with playing online without giving you a secondary plan choice? Because playing online doesn't cost them anything, they need the excuse to charge you for the really core feature everyone needs, but unfortunately happens to be already covered by everyone's home internet plan. Then they attach the actual goods to show you how generous they are. They aren't giving the games as a bonus. That's the only product they are legitimately selling, while holding online play hostage.

Like industry analyst Pachter said: companies now charge for online because they got away with it.

The hivemind decided it was okay to pay for nothing so companies will gladly scam you out of your money if you're willing. I suggest against paying for random shit without asking if it even provides anything in the first place, doesn't seem like a healthy lifestyle and it's very open to exploitation. Just like having to pay for peer2peer online, for example.

That's a load of crap, online play isn't always p2p and on the Xbox and Sony sides of things it's never p2p. They make you pay because they need to run dedicated servers. So they're making you pay for it. If anything Nintendo is asking for the bare minimum of their users to play online whereas you could argue th other two are asking for more.

• Just to exemplify the lies at display, Battlefield 1 would never work on a p2p scheme. Just try to run a game with 50 players and active physics on non-dedicated servers. Try to do that with Destiny and GTA 5 too while you're at it.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Tell that to the parents of all the pre-teens that will be begging their parents for £300 mobile devices just so they can have 'enhanced features' on their online play on the device that's already cost their parents £300!

Damn, you must not understand tech. Ever heard of "wifi"? I know, it's a pretty crazy concept that launched about 18 years ago. Yeah, I know crazy stuff.
Those enhanced features can be accessed on shitty £30 phones, users dont need to spend that much money and anyway, most users are adults not kids so please stop trying to make an issue out of one that doesnt exist.
You clearly are just salty because you dont want to give £15 to play online. Seeing as how you dont need a phone to freaking play online. You also act like the majority of kids in the UK dont already have a phone, I can assure you that my 14-year-old niece has one.

 

[linkenski]

You know what would make me pay for this? If they told me every single NES game to be officially released via Virtual Console was available for free to all subscribers for their subscription period. I remember reading about Wii in a magazine back in 2005 showing a list of 100+ games ranging from NES to N64 to be released for it. Little did I know it would take 5 years before all the classics would be available and the cycle repeating itself with Wii U, 3DS and now Switch again is bullshit considering it's all ROMs that are emulated anyway.

 

[Yil]

Cheaper and better than expected. Switch has everything coming.

 

[Saiyan Lusitano]

That's pretty cheap!

Cheap but depends on how many games will actually make use of online play, there'll at least be the popular three - Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, ARMS and Splatoon 2 but what else? Maybe a new CoD?

The monthly free games needs to be like on XBL/PSN otherwise Nintendo can fuck off.

Cheaper and better than expected. Switch has everything coming.

"Everything"

 

[duwen]

please stop trying to make an issue out of one that doesnt exist.

Please stop trying to defend Nintendo's piss-poor implementation of online features.
I'm not trying to make an issue out of anything - all I'm doing is countering everyone who's wowed by how cheap the service is by highlighting the not so hidden costs.
If you've got a compatible mobile device then good for you... also want the headset for voice chat? Then you've got to fork out for the device and have this monstrosity of wires in your lap...

As far as value for money with the online services provided by Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo...
Sony has the best business model, Microsoft actually has the best online experience, Nintendo's current free services are quite acceptable - the extra cost for the little extra the paid service brings is not very good value for money imo.

 

[Saiyan Lusitano]

Please stop trying to defend Nintendo's piss-poor implementation of online features.
I'm not trying to make an issue out of anything - all I'm doing is countering everyone who's wowed by how cheap the service is by highlighting the not so hidden costs.
If you've got a compatible mobile device then good for you... also want the headset for voice chat? Then you've got to fork out for the device and have this monstrosity of wires in your lap...

As far as value for money with the online services provided by Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo...
Sony has the best business model, Microsoft actually has the best online experience, Nintendo's current free services are quite acceptable - the extra cost for the little extra the paid service brings is not very good value for money imo.

That's a complete mess and Nintendo will ultimately have to make a video about how one needs to connect it properly.

 

[TheDarkGreninja]

Please stop trying to defend Nintendo's piss-poor implementation of online features.
I'm not trying to make an issue out of anything - all I'm doing is countering everyone who's wowed by how cheap the service is by highlighting the not so hidden costs.
If you've got a compatible mobile device then good for you... also want the headset for voice chat? Then you've got to fork out for the device and have this monstrosity of wires in your lap...

As far as value for money with the online services provided by Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo...
Sony has the best business model, Microsoft actually has the best online experience, Nintendo's current free services are quite acceptable - the extra cost for the little extra the paid service brings is not very good value for money imo.

1. That's not nintendo's implementation, it's Hori's and seeing as how there is very little information on it, I'd consider it a weak argument to be made.
2. What hidden costs? Its £15 a month.
3. You do know there are many different kinds of devices that run android and ios, right? You could use a PC with bluestacks if you dont even have a phone.
So to suggest having a phone is hard is to suggest how stuck in the past you are.

That's ludicrous reasoning, "acceptable" isnt good enough, users should have an exceptional experience online and you're not going to get that by playing games on a p2p network.
The paid service's extras are there as a bonus, the real reason they want you to pay is because they don't want to pay for the servers that you'll use. They've already gotten your money for the game, so it would cost them a pretty big loss to pay for online for you too.
And you know why online on Switch is good right now? Because they know that users will have to pay for itsoon enough thats why its better than wii u and 3ds.

 

[duwen]

1. That's not nintendo's implementation, it's Hori's and seeing as how there is very little information on it, I'd consider it a weak argument to be made.
2. What hidden costs? Its £15 a month.
3. You do know there are many different kinds of devices that run android and ios, right? You could use a PC with bluestacks if you dont even have a phone.
So to suggest having a phone is hard is to suggest how stuck in the past you are.

That's ludicrous reasoning, "acceptable" isnt good enough, users should have an exceptional experience online and you're not going to get that by playing games on a p2p network.
The paid service's extras are there as a bonus, the real reason they want you to pay is because they don't want to pay for the servers that you'll use. They've already gotten your money for the game, so it would cost them a pretty big loss to pay for online for you too.
And you know why online on Switch is good right now? Because they know that users will have to pay for itsoon enough thats why its better than wii u and 3ds.

Jeez, stop fanboying so hard.
1. Yes, it's a co-development with Hori AND Nintendo - hence the Squidboy wearing the exact same design headset in-game.
2. The hidden costs of extra devices and any ongoing bills associated with those devices.
3. Nintendo's apps don't work with everything that supports Android or iOS... I'd like to see someone implement that headset setup with bluestacks!

'Acceptable' is (unsurprisingly) acceptable - bearly better than acceptable for a fee is not acceptable.