Though Nintendo's online service is launching soon, full information is sparse. One piece of knowledge has been revealed recently, likely accidentally due to the delayed direct, however, in regards to cloud saves. If you pay for Nintendo Switch Online, which gives you cloud save support, you might want to know that not all of your games will be compatible. Certain listings for games on Nintendo's site specify that they will not work with Save Data Cloud backup. These listings include Pokemon Let's Go, Splatoon 2, Dark Souls Remastered, Dead Cells, FIFA 19, NBA 2K19, and NBA Playgrounds.

For the above games that are multiplatform, they do indeed support cloud save support on other consoles with PlayStation Plus and Xbox Live Gold.

Nintendo Switch Online membership (sold separately) and Nintendo Account required for online play. This game does not support Save Data Cloud backup.

Source: Nintendo Official Site

 

[Jayro]

You have clearly never explored the world to a massive extent. A standard vanilla world that has had a 4k x 4k area completely generated is about 750MB. While this may seem excessive, multiplayer makes this happen extremely quickly. Though this is the java version and some test worlds that I've generated in the past, I don't expect it to be much different for the other ported versions of the game. These are also only the actual world folder which is the regional and player data. If you were to back up the entire version, you can reach a gigabyte before even generating a world.

Mods make everything more exaggerated too, especially when you need to store those. That also includes things like custom models, which are apparently really big on console versions of minecraft. I'll just leave it at I have a 40GB minecraft folder, with all my saves from back in 1.2.1 beta days. Minecraft will eat a significant amount of space if you let it.

I used to play on a pre-generated 50K x 50K map online, and my saves never got that big that I remember...

 

[HaloEliteLegend]

Haha, I just have no words, ha, aha ha wow
Splatoon 2 is my most played game on Switch, and now you mean to tell me I have no way of backing up my save so I don't lose a hundred hours of progress? Even after paying for a useless online subscription? Even though Splatoon is a, y'know, ONLINE game and every online game for the past two decades has saved your data online?

What a joke. What a complete fucking joke.
-Pissed Nintendo Customer

 

[Viri]

Well, I guess someone who wants to clone Pokemon will just have to trade locally with a hacked Switch.

Play legit on legit Switch -> trade Pokemon to hacked Switch -> clone Pokemon, do stat mega leveling, IV shit, etc on hacked Switch -> trade Pokemon back
There, no risk of ban on your legit Switch, and can still battle online on your legit Switch!

 

[RattletraPM]

-snip-

The main problem there isn't that some titles aren't first party exclusive. Is that literally almost two thirds of all the titles in that list are ports. I'm not here to spread memes and say "lol portendo xD", it's that this is a real dealbreaker for people like me who are still undecided about getting a Switch but have other means of playing such games.

Just for stats' sake, here are the results of that list.
Of all the titles you posted:

8 of them are released exclusives. (12 if you also count the ones in @epickid37 's post)
5 of them are unreleased exclusives
31 of them are either ports or remasters of already existing games (33 if you also count the ones in @epickid37 's post)

If you add an already underwhelming paid online service to the mix you can see why the Switch becomes even more unappealing.

 

[Paulsar99]

And they're expecting people to pay for this? Lol!

 

[tbb043]

Yea but that’s still pretty small compared to the other consoles. I know the switch is a year old but still it should have way more 1st party games.

yeah, and some like

• BOTW

• Mk8d

are just full priced ports of Wii U games with some minor stuff tacked on

 

[AbyssalMonkey]

I used to play on a pre-generated 50K x 50K map online, and my saves never got that big that I remember...

Because you never had to host the world, you played on someone else's server. You never had to hold that world file on your computer, you simply got the config that the server sent you, which was then stored in ram.

And they're expecting people to pay for this? Lol!

I don't see how you can complain "pay for this? No way! LOL!"
While it's not an amazing showing, sure, and is definitely lacking certain aspects it should, it's Nintendo at least stepping in the right direction. Supporting them here will mean it is more likely they will add the infrastructure to expand it into what it should have been later. By not buying it, but supporting the idea, all the message you are sending to Nintendo is that the service wasn't worth implementing in the first place, so why would they sink any more resources into it. Buy it, bitch about it for 3 months, and then stop. Nintendo will see the influx, and immediate disappointment. If they have any market analysts at all, they will realize it had potential but didn't meet the expectations of the consumer.

The only way to fix this issue is if you buy it and then complain loudly enough that it doesn't have the features you demand, and if they still do nothing, you drop it. By showing no support off the bat, the program will be doomed from before it began. Carrot and Stick. Show them the potential for future revenue then hold it hostage.

 

[AutumnWolf]

The main problem there isn't that some titles aren't first party exclusive. Is that literally almost two thirds of all the titles in that list are ports. I'm not here to spread memes and say "lol portendo xD", it's that this is a real dealbreaker for people like me who are still undecided about getting a Switch but have other means of playing such games.

Just for stats' sake, here are the results of that list.
Of all the titles you posted:

8 of them are released exclusives. (12 if you also count the ones in @epickid37 's post)
5 of them are unreleased exclusives
31 of them are either ports or remasters of already existing games (33 if you also count the ones in @epickid37 's post)

If you add an already underwhelming paid online service to the mix you can see why the Switch becomes even more unappealing.

I see no problem with Nintendo getting ports, the Switch is far from been unappealing and sells show its doing well

Only problem for me is paid online + so-so cloud saves support + no local save backups support

Now those are real problems

 

[mariogamer]

I will certainly stop using checkpoint then. /s
That was like my only reason to use non-rcm homebrew up until now and it might stay like that (or not, depends on the uses or other stuff)

And even there idk if I want this online thing at this point. Tho I got sold out with smash but still... pay online for only smash and MAYBE another game like mk8d (that, for some reason, I payed twice for on wiiu. I certainly don't want to buy it again) or splatoon?

Very good job Nintendo. Especially on this tilte specific restriction (tho I can't tell if implementing it on said title is reallly that difficult? I don't think so)

 

[DuoForce]

Fucking sad seeing all the fanboys defending this. Wake the fuck up

 

[KingVamp]

I don't see how you can complain "pay for this? No way! LOL!"
While it's not an amazing showing, sure, and is definitely lacking certain aspects it should, it's Nintendo at least stepping in the right direction. Supporting them here will mean it is more likely they will add the infrastructure to expand it into what it should have been later. By not buying it, but supporting the idea, all the message you are sending to Nintendo is that the service wasn't worth implementing in the first place, so why would they sink any more resources into it. Buy it, bitch about it for 3 months, and then stop. Nintendo will see the influx, and immediate disappointment. If they have any market analysts at all, they will realize it had potential but didn't meet the expectations of the consumer.

The only way to fix this issue is if you buy it and then complain loudly enough that it doesn't have the features you demand, and if they still do nothing, you drop it. By showing no support off the bat, the program will be doomed from before it began. Carrot and Stick. Show them the potential for future revenue then hold it hostage.

Or don't buy it at all because online should be free.

 

[AbyssalMonkey]

Or don't buy it at all because online should be free.

This is a sentiment that is two sided. Nintendo is running servers for their games and are acting, at the very least in name, as the guarantors of the safety and moderation of those services. To say you won't pay for them is to be entitled into believing that any online service must be free. Nintendo is supplying the hardware, software, electricity, and support for maintaining this infrastructure. Regardless of if you think that the price is too high, to say you won't pay for such a service and demand it be free is showing how petulant you actually are.

That isn't to say that Nintendo and other developers aren't at fault for the situation here either. By not allowing third party servers to host these games, they are effectively taking ransom over the services that you would otherwise be able to host yourself.

In any case, simply stating "online should be free" is an incredibly narrow and self entitled view. This won't solve the problem, it just makes you the problem instead.

 

[KingVamp]

This is a sentiment that is two sided. Nintendo is running servers for their games and are acting, at the very least in name, as the guarantors of the safety and moderation of those services. To say you won't pay for them is to be entitled into believing that any online service must be free. Nintendo is supplying the hardware, software, electricity, and support for maintaining this infrastructure. Regardless of if you think that the price is too high, to say you won't pay for such a service and demand it be free is showing how petulant you actually are.

That isn't to say that Nintendo and other developers aren't at fault for the situation here either. By not allowing third party servers to host these games, they are effectively taking ransom over the services that you would otherwise be able to host yourself.

In any case, simply stating "online should be free" is an incredibly narrow and self entitled view. This won't solve the problem, it just makes you the problem instead.

Yes, because Nintendo suddenly needs you to pay for online, when they have been giving free online this whole time. PC seems to be doing just fine.

 

[vincentx77]

I think cloud saves are an important feature to add for any console like this, especially if they're going to ask us to pay for online play. There's no reason any game should be excluded from it. They knew they were going to offer this service when they launched the Switch, so every game should've had safeguards against save file abuse. If I'm giving them $20 a year for this, they should be storing my digital shit, especially since Steam does it for free.

FWIW, I'm glad Sony does this. My PS4's hdd corrupted itself a couple of weeks ago. If I hadn't had plus, I would've lost everything.

 

[AbyssalMonkey]

Yes, because Nintendo suddenly needs you to pay for online, when they have been giving free online this whole time. PC seems to be doing just fine.

"Free"? You are paying for what is effectively two years worth of server overhead in your game on purchase. There's nothing that is free; there are more reasons other than to push you onto the newest update of a game that servers shut down after two years. Some games that don't sell well get even less than that for support.

Stop thinking about the old guarded "things used to be free!" idea and look at the economics behind some of the decisions being made. Matchmaking has gotten more advanced, games are requiring more powerful servers, and data storage costs money too. All these features are increased running costs that have gotten more expensive over time. The days of free servers for one-time-buy games are disappearing, either you pay for their service, or you host it yourself if they let you. If your prerogative is to not pay for their services, don't buy games that don't come with local servers, buy the ones that do and run them. Simply whinging about not getting your free ever increasing in price service is not going to solve anything.

 

[the_randomizer]

People are actually defending a feature that should be free? Paywall saves, yay!

 

[Jackson Ferrell]

They never said hat they couldn't be locally saved, or maybe it's just there until the online service comes out. Don't dog it until it comes out

 

[Delerious]

I mean, what do you expect when the service it's only 4 bucks a month? And yeah, it is Nintendo, who have been pulling a lot of BS lately, between their stupid content creators thing and their war against emulation.

Yes, because Nintendo suddenly needs you to pay for online, when they have been giving free online this whole time. PC seems to be doing just fine.

I think the difference here is that the Switch is racking up new users left and right, so naturally they are going to want to strengthen their online infrastructure to make the experience more reliable. Hell, why do you think some MMOs have monthly subscription fees? Thousands of users being connected at once costs money, both in terms of actual servers, and the cost of bandwidth. With the Wii U, they probably didn't have to worry about that, because - well - the Wii U speaks for itself. Another factor here is Nintendo's recent record of financial losses. They've only just recently been making financial gains, so this whole thing is probably to make up for some of that loss. What I see here ultimately is that this whole thing seems to be their way of bringing back a sort of "Club Nintendo" thing, but with online play baked in so they can get more subscribers.

All said though, hopefully it does mean better server infrastructure. Though this whole limitation on cloud saves seems to demonstrate otherwise as far as most are concerned. One can only hope that they add support for these titles down the road. As @Scarlet mentioned, it could very well be to prevent exploits in those titles, to which I would say they'd best figure something out, especially for Splatoon 2, considering that's going to be the most widely-played game on their online service. Nintendo's recent reputation may very well be its downfall if they don't get their shit together, even if they do sell Switches like hotcakes.

 

[KingVamp]

"Free"? You are paying for what is effectively two years worth of server overhead in your game on purchase. There's nothing that is free; there are more reasons other than to push you onto the newest update of a game that servers shut down after two years. Some games that don't sell well get even less than that for support.

Stop thinking about the old guarded "things used to be free!" idea and look at the economics behind some of the decisions being made. Matchmaking has gotten more advanced, games are requiring more powerful servers, and data storage costs money too. All these features are increased running costs that have gotten more expensive over time. The days of free servers for one-time-buy games are disappearing, either you pay for their service, or you host it yourself if they let you. If your prerogative is to not pay for their services, don't buy games that don't come with local servers, buy the ones that do and run them. Simply whinging about not getting your free ever increasing in price service is not going to solve anything.

The economics of people paying against their own interest.

A lot of this is just excuses and not even good excuses. Once again, since you seem to skip right over it, PC seems to be doing just fine.

As for not paying for games that has paid online (which is looking to be most of them, if not all), that I planned to play online heavily, I already planned not to buy them now. That doesn't mean I'm going stop saying how nonsensical this all is. It was nonsense back then and it is still nonsense now.

 

[Paulsar99]

Because you never had to host the world, you played on someone else's server. You never had to hold that world file on your computer, you simply got the config that the server sent you, which was then stored in ram.

I don't see how you can complain "pay for this? No way! LOL!"
While it's not an amazing showing, sure, and is definitely lacking certain aspects it should, it's Nintendo at least stepping in the right direction. Supporting them here will mean it is more likely they will add the infrastructure to expand it into what it should have been later. By not buying it, but supporting the idea, all the message you are sending to Nintendo is that the service wasn't worth implementing in the first place, so why would they sink any more resources into it. Buy it, bitch about it for 3 months, and then stop. Nintendo will see the influx, and immediate disappointment. If they have any market analysts at all, they will realize it had potential but didn't meet the expectations of the consumer.

The only way to fix this issue is if you buy it and then complain loudly enough that it doesn't have the features you demand, and if they still do nothing, you drop it. By showing no support off the bat, the program will be doomed from before it began. Carrot and Stick. Show them the potential for future revenue then hold it hostage.

So you're happy paying for half assed stuffs? Look what happens when people became vocal with the xone during its first year, it forced Ms to listen and it gave us a better product and its services now is way even better than sony or nintendo could offer.