Can we agree that the problem with Nintendo Switch Online isn't the concept of a subscription based virtual console...

Can we agree that the problem with Nintendo Switch Online isn't the concept of a subscription based virtual console, it's the extremely slow progress on it? If Nintendo actually stuck all of their stuff on this (NES, SNES, GB, GBA, N64, GC, WII, DS, 3DS) no one would be complaining except the most salty haters. The problem with it is that most of their stuff is still missing. They're only now getting to N64 and still have like 6 consoles to go, which at this rate wont happen until 2028. But a subscription model on a basic level is better than a virtual console because no one wants to pay $10 a game for fucking SNES games.

Attached: NSO.jpg (737x432, 57.57K)

The problem is the actual online fucking sucks. I fucking teabag in smash bros ultimate while trying to go through a fucking platform because the online input delay and general lag makes it fucking impossible to do basic shit like that. It's the same shit in all their other online games too. The problem is that it's shit AND they charge you to use their fucking shit service.

Their glacial pace is pretty damn confusing.
Haven't they already done the hard part by making functional emulators? What's stopping them from churning out at least 1 game per week?
It must have something to do with the pricing model.

It's slow progress and them adding nothing but absolutely trash shovelware.

The problem with it is that you're renting. It's STUPID cheap, but as soon as you stop paying or if the service goes under, it's all gone. Even if they put all the games there, it would be an incredible value, but the foundation is built on quicksand.

I'd rather rent 100+ games than buy 5 for the same price. But that's just me.

The problem of Switch Online is shit network capabilities of the hardware, lack of community features like lobbies and text chat and the expensive prices of games that use the service.

All console "subscriptions" are fucking cancer

Agreed. The upside here is that they're supposedly finally playing the long game abd won't scrap everything for the next system, so it's probably here to stay permanently. Which means it will eventually be worth it anyway.
Then again, them being Nintendo, I could see them charging extra if you want to transfer some shit like saves onto your next system. Or locking access to most of your shit if you don't do some one-time payment again. It sounds retarded and egregious, but they've done worse and people are it up. They could also start doing timed games like Xbox Pass does. It would work well for devs who don't want to put games on NSO because they wanna sell their own collections (Castlevania, MegaMan), so Nintendo would give them a bit of an extra "incentive" and a chance to promote their own shit.

Why can't they let people do both subscriptions AND buying individually?
Hell, people buying a few a year will still be more than the yearly subscription, so I really can't understand why they don't have a normal VC option

Tease shit out over time to maximise people potentially renewing next time around.

Back when the Wii's virtual console was announced people already were asking for it to be the "Netflix of games". I'm the kind of person who buys physical, keeps it, and already knows and plays everything I'm interested in. I don't need the virtual console. You are correct though. If they had their full back catalog they'd rake in money. The problem is that they'd need a better infrastructure and a beefier system. We all know that's antithetical to Nintendo. They just have no interest in doing that.

If they added everything at once people would bitch no new content was ever added. You need constant updates so people stay engaged and feel like they're getting value and have something to look forward to but once they burn through the 100 or so Nintendo titles on the NES-N64 including handhelds the only other option would be to buy/lease royalties which cost a ton. Rumor is that the expansion is so expensive due to Rare and Sega leasing royalties. Which is dumb because everyone would rather have cheaper cost and GB games.

>Can we agree that the problem with Nintendo Switch Online isn't the concept of a subscription based virtual console
A subscription based console service is a problem. I'd rather Nintendo release collection packs that you buy physically or on the eshop. Not this pay $50 a year to subscribe to run roms shit.

Deep down everyone knows that paying to play online is a scam, so from the beginning Microsoft and Sony tried to create a kind of VIP service where the player pays to become a special consumer who gets extra benefits and some free games every now and then.
Nintendo understood this from the beginning, but holy shit, their idea of VIP is pathetic. You basically pay to play ROMs on bad emulators. That's it.

the problem is even if you WERE able to buy nintendo retro games outright, you wont even be able to fucking transfer them to the next system. meanwhile on xbox, games I downloaded in 2006 are easily available to download on my series x, 16 years later. If nintendo isnt even going to let you keep your own purchases, then whats the difference from how it is now with switch online? If you had to rebuy all the games you bought on the wii and wii u, would people seriously think thats better than how it is now with the subscription?

Remember how many third party consoles the original virtual console covered? Why have they never done that again?

>Remember how many third party consoles the original virtual console covered? Why have they never done that again?
Third party consoles are expensive in this case because they have to pay licensing fees. They'll probably add the other Sega consoles though.

Wasn't there a Q&A that Nintendo had where the President said that they're still going with the subscription service, but then that particular part got erased later on?

Just because they finally started charging doesn't mean it had any value.

>Can we agree
No. Not ever.

I'd still be complaining about the price, I would like the option between buying games stand alone and the subscription service

There is nothing stopping those third parties putting their games on eshop. Shit, outside of I think Echo, all those Sega games in the pass are already purchasable in eShop

>$50 a year to play games you bought decades ago
Ah, yes. What a steal!

I thought you're supposed to hold down to go down platforms instead of double tapping

It's the same games that have already been available everywhere for free for decades

The problem is you're paying to use your own internet.
They can make whatever retarded subscription services they want, just keep basic online functionality out of it.

>guys *smacks lips* can we agree that subscriptions are less than optimal?
Yes

Paid online in general is complete wank but yes, it would be a lot easier to swallow if it was a good deal. Funny how the Virtual Console already solved this problem, but now that Nintendo is on top and the Switch is printing money there needs to be a paid subscription that is updated with new (old) games at an absolutely glacial pace. And not only that, but now you need to pay even more for additional systems? It's a bad deal any way you slice it.

I never owned a N64 or any Nintendo console before that

Fuck that, I want to buy the games
Compare this to tv/movie streaming services, they still allow you to buy their shit even if it's on their service

You didn't miss out on much. The Switch is the only good Nintendo console.

I prefer to buy 5 games because I will need several months to enjoy them, and I don't want to keep paying monthly fees for a service that I won't use all this time.
But of course, this is worth it to me because I only buy games that I really have interest in and know I will play can tens or hundreds of hours, always coming back to them in the near and distant future. For people who just want to casually play some game for a few hours and then forget about it, renting is better.
In fact, that's how the gaming world always worked before digital stores. People rented "normal" games that they played casually and bought only the ones they really liked.

VC opened eyes as to how alive the retro market still is. Every company realised they can make more money selling their own repackaged classic titles rather than license them to nintendo. VC is a flash in the pan success that can never be replicated again.

Wouldn't Nintendo make more money in the long run by going back to the virtual console model? Sure people don't care about auto-renewing their subscriptions, but most fans will gladly re-buy whatever roms they already paid for on Wii and Wii U.

You pretty much missed out in the entire 5th gen if you didn't have N64

>GAME PASS IS TERRIBLE BECAUSE MICROSOFT *MIGHT* TURN IT INTO GAAS IN FUTURE AND ENSURE THAT YOU DON'T OWN YOUR GAMES
>See the problem with Switch Online isn't the roms I don't actually own but rather the fact that they're not being put up for me to not own fast enough
Nintendo are doing this shit right fucking now and you cucks are complaining that they're not fucking you up the arse fast enough.
This fucking board.

Attached: 831.png (791x447, 185.09K)

Without rentals I wouldn't have played shit like Mario 3on3 or whatever it was and several great GC titles

I owned a wii and gameboy

That's a joke, considering the Saturn has the best library that ever existed.

3rd parties would have to be willing to license their IPs. They won't because they can easily just host their own subscription services or repackaged classics collections.

PS+ was originally a subscription of games which they then hid paid online behind once the PS4 came out and Microsoft committed PR suicide.

No we can't. I want to buy a rom for a fair price and have it tied to my account so I can keep playing it on future consoles without needing to connect to the internet.
>inb4 well uh nintendo won't do that sweaty
not the point. that's what i want. i won't pay for anything less than that. until they offer that, i emulate.

>589055291
>segautist
Never mind. Have the last reply. I'm out.

>People rented "normal" games that they played casually and bought only the ones they really liked.
I do think this is the best use case for GamePass/NSO and if you could rent the NSO expansion monthly I would think it's a better service than it is, but the expansion can only be bought yearly.

>until it's convenient I will commit theft

>Wasn't there a Q&A that Nintendo had where the President said that they're still going with the subscription service, but then that particular part got erased later on?
I don't remember that but in their investor briefing they put out this image that implies they're just gonna keep adding more shit forever.

Attached: NVAS.png (625x336, 82.49K)

"The easiest way to stop piracy is not by putting antipiracy technology to work. It’s by giving those people a service that’s better than what they’re receiving from the pirates." Gabe Newell
Take the movie/tv business, before the rise of Netflix piracy was rampant and now that stuff isn't centralized and each studio wants people to pay a monthly fee people are returning to it again

>le Gaben man

Nintendo doesn't care about piracy. If they did they would just shut down all the ROM websites. But they only do that when they start getting too big or start charging people money. I honestly think Nintendo *likes* emulation, as long as it doesn't get too big, because it gets more people playing and talking about their games. The vast majority of their audience is too casual to know how to emulate anything anyway.