so online is gonna cost 17-26 a year on the switch

>>31626356
sauce?

>>31626386
https://mobile.twitter.com/serkantoto/status/826841955111890944

>>31626356
>paying for something that's been free forever

I'm not getting a switch if this true

>>31626404
phew, that's actually a huge relief, thought it would be $60/year minimum

t. poor eastern european

>>31626356
i cant tell if i wanna be happy that its cheaper then every other console, or be mad that nintendo decided to be jews and start doing this too...

>>31626356
>pokemon online will be fine
Of course. After all, Switch won't have Pokemon

>>31626485
its a small chance but its stupid to not put pokemon on a mobile console

>>31626356
Dude, just play on showdown lmao

>>31626501
>mobile console
kek

>>31626506
do you not know what the switch is?..

File: LqpbG.gif (419KB, 442x259px) Image search: [Google]

419KB, 442x259px

I'm actually shocked the price is reasonable given the cost of everything else.

now the question is will it have an option to pay yearly

>>31626517
They think that every game will be as intensive as BotW.

>>31626356
Based legendtendo. Poorfags need to fuck off and go back to emulating if they can't afford to evolve their Graveler.

>>31626521
You say that but Nintendo consoles as of late have been the cheapest consoles of the gen.

>>31626521
You're shocked they are charging you for something that used to be free?

>>31626546
He's shocked that it's the cheapest of the three.

>>31626356
>inb4 poorfag gtfo
if i buy a game can i just pay for a month or two while i'm playing it and then stop? i don't wanna pay for a year and then only use like a month of it

>>31626546
I'm not fine with it at all. Just shocked they seemingly priced it "right"

>>31626546
>30 dollars a year for online
>90 dollar controllers

>>31626585
A controller is included with the console.

>>31626546
i hate it too but that ship has already sailed

i'll likely won't buy it more than once when Pokemon/MonHun comes out, most of Nintendo's biggest hits are single player only after all

>>31626576
yes, they confirmed you'll be able to pick between yearly and monthly subs

File: 1443482385490.jpg (60KB, 509x720px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 509x720px

>>31626600
>i have no friends so don't need more then one

>>31626610
>he doesn't know

>>31626356
i hope this means bank will not require an extra fee from now on

>>31626709
>expecting bank to be free
>ever

AHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

>implying anyone wants the switch

>>31626404
>combined psn and Nintendo won´t run me 120 a year
Feels good, though I'd still pay 60 since that's what I'm used to

>paying $26 a year for something that used to be free is ok
Nintendrones, everyone.

>>31626456
yeah, me too

t. poor central juropean

>>31626434
It's been free but it has been dogshit. Moving to a paid structure implies further resources and intent to run a smoother service.

>>31626356
Any amount of money is too much for paid online. Paid online is bullshit and will always be bullshit. It could be $1 a month and that would be too much.

And before you ask, Pokebank is also bullshit.

>>31626480
It costs money to run online services. It has been free but it has also been shit.

>>31626868
You understand you are talking about Nintendo and TPC, right?

>>31626356
>The thing that was always free will now have to be paid for
Yeah alright, buddy

>>31626878
And these services should be designed, implemented, maintained, and updated for you for free?

>>31626894
Yes? They always have been. Always. Part of the cost of the console and the games goes toward that maintenance, that's how it has ALWAYS been.

>>31626887
Nintendo has been making moves, albeit slowly, since the Wii generation to improve on their online services and address the issues of a changing market. IMO this move points to furthering that.

>>31626912
How come PS4's online didn't improve compared to PS3 when they started charging to use it?

>>31626356
they are not going to put pokemon games on a 300 dollar console with a yearly sub

they had a meltdown over the 3DS pricing point and had to cut it within months

Switchcucks BTFO

>>31626912
>Pay for online
>As a reward you can borrow 1 NES or SNES game a month
>Nintendo's library is XBOXHUEG but the first game released will be the original Mario game
>The eShop will be as bad as the WiiU and 3DS
>Hope you like paying top dollar for ROMs on top of online services ^_________^

>>31626933
I want them to have a meltdown but people like OP are trying their damndest to let Nintendo get away with whatever they want and make it sound like everyone is okay with everything they do. OP is actively sabotaging the quality of the Switch. I bet he's a Sony fan in disguise.

>>31626910
>ALWAYS

For roughly 10 years, most of which the company provided laughably bad online services because they were paying out of pocket for the entire process. Before the Wii/DS era, this was not a cost that had to be considered. So now instead of losing money to create better services, or increasing the cost of games and consoles, they're doing what almost every single company in a position like this does and has to do from a business perspective.

>>31626951
>has to do
They didn't have to do it during the Wii U era and got by fine. They don't have to do this, and are ONLY doing it because people like you will defend them. They're only getting away with this bullshit because you are letting them.

>>31626925
It did improve in uptime, frequency of updates, and provided new benefits to subscribers. It is impossible to maintain the type of service they provide at that level for free without digging relatively deeply into their own pockets.

File: condescending goku.jpg (87KB, 720x540px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 720x540px

>>31626969
>It did improve in uptime

>>31626815
Lesser of two evils son.
Or in this case three.

It's still the cheapest online service yet.

>>31626963
>They didn't have to do it during the Wii U era and got by fine.

The Wii U has dogshit online, and that is WITH a historically low install base. Why do you feel you are owed online services for free? Because the company provided (terrible) service for free in the past? Should they always be bound by that precedent in your eyes?

>>31626986
I can still play online for free on PC. It's not the lesser of evils.

>>31626978
It did, believe it or not.

>>31626987
Yes. They should. I am not buying a Switch unless they provide free online, and if they never provide free online I will never buy a Switch.

I'm so fucking done with video games, we need another market crash to stop shit like this from being considered okay.

>>31627000
And yet it's just as bad as it was on the PS3.

>>31626992
PC has it's own cancers in the form of Steam and friends as well as the horrendously bad communities and lack of worthwhile games.

>>31627002
Luckily most consumers are such crybabies, or nothing would advance. You cannot hold a company to providing you a service as a courtesy for their entire existence just because they did it for a period. There are such things as increasing costs to the company, especially when they are expanding on said service.

That said, no one will miss you.

Are not such crybabies*

>>31627021
Steam is shit but no community is as bad as a community that defends everything the company does, like the Nintendo community is doing right now.

>>31627029
Would you defend Nintendo if they tried making the Switch an Always Online console like Microsoft initially planned to do with the XBone? It would stop piracy in its tracks, surely you would think that was worth it, right? If you don't you're holding back video games, aren't you?

Why don't we just let Nintendo do whatever the fuck they want? Why not let them charge $120 for each game? It would imply the games get larger budgets, doesn't it?

Holy fucking shit anon I hate you.

>>31627054
>Steam is shit but no community is as bad as a community that defends everything the company does, like the Nintendo community is doing right now.
You do realise that no one is defending this right?
What is happening is that people are coming to terms with the fact that everyone is adopting this kind of service and if they want to keep on playing video games online they will have to either pay something or put up with the cancerous PC fanbase and the scraps for games they get.
It just so happens that Nintendo has now put out the cheapest service of the three.

Are you starting to understand now?

>>31627108
>You do realise that no one is defending this right?
Any time someone goes "durr hurr you're just poor for not wanting to eat shit" they're defending it.

If people didn't want to defend it they would boycott it. It worked for the XBone's forced online, it would work here. By not boycotting it, you are defending this.

>>31627054
>Why don't we just let Nintendo do whatever the fuck they want? Why not let them charge $120 for each game? It would imply the games get larger budgets, doesn't it?

Except what they are actually proposing is reasonable. They can charge for online and people will still pay for it because it's not a very steep cost in the slightest, and reasonable people understand those services cost money to run.

Ultimately, yes, Nintendo can do whatever they want. Most people, myself included, would stop being customers if they did something as ludicrous as you're suggesting. I don't think that even warranted a confirmation, desu.

But you seem to only want to throw a temper tantrum and add unrealistic, non-existant, senseless scenarios to attempt to make a point, so it stands to reason your base argument doesn't stand well enough on its own.

File: 1445377683271.png (39KB, 298x300px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 298x300px

>>31627118
>Any time someone goes "durr hurr you're just poor for not wanting to eat shit" they're defending it.
Congrats, you fell for the oldest falseflag in the book.

>>31627118
So basically what you're saying is that you don't care that they're paying for online.
After all you're not doing anything about it, you're not "rasing awareness" or starting anything. You're just sitting there complaining at an imaginary crowd of people.

>>31627130
>I don't think that even warranted a confirmation, desu.
I think it does, I don't know if there's anything some people won't defend anymore.

>>31627136
There are actual known Nintendrones like Serebii defending this, though. It's not just falseflags.

>>31627118
>If people didn't want to defend it they would boycott it.
Because boycotts work when Nintendo's main market is a bunch of old ladies buying consoles for their children with literal zero knowledge of it?

>>31627165
>After all you're not doing anything about it
Do you expect me to shoot up Nintendo HQ or something? I'm vocal about this everywhere I go. I'd send direct feedback to Nintendo if they had an official channel to do so. The only real thing I can do is complain and try to get people on my side, and not give them my money.

>>31627182
>I'd send direct feedback to Nintendo if they had an official channel to do so.
They have several and you have yet to do a thing but sit there and complain. So clearly you're defending their actions by doing absolutely nothing to try and stop it.

>>31627208
The only things I've seen on their websites is giving feedback about the websites themselves.

>>31627182
>The only real thing I can do is complain and try to get people on my side
And you think doing that on and imageboard where no one gives a shit about you is the best way of going about that? Are you fucking retarded?

>>31626356
Yeah but I'm still not paying for shitty onlice service. $5 a yeae is alright, no problem, but I have zero interest in whatever Nintendo is cooking up with their online.

>>31627166
>I think it does, I don't know if there's anything some people won't defend anymore.

This only demonstrates how far removed from reality you are when it comes to this issue.

The truth in this situation is that sometimes companies will charge you for things that you think may be unwarranted, but throwing a hissy fit every time it happens is all on you.

Costs increase in just about every industry, in every company. If THIS is worth you dropping this particular brand of entertainment over, that's your choice obviously, but the people who are still on board likely heard about the charge and said "Darn, guess it costs money now."

That doesn't mean those same people would defend every single decision Nintendo could ever make. It's just a less critical reaction to something that you should understand by now as a consumer.

Such is life.

>>31627231
If enough people think it's unwarranted, they won't continue the charge because they'd be losing too many customers over it, much like Microsoft had to change, as I've brought up before.

>>31627246
>If enough people think it's unwarranted, they won't continue the charge because they'd be losing too many customers over it, much like Microsoft had to change, as I've brought up before.

That change was completely ludicrous and lead to things like privacy concerns. This is Nintendo doing a normal thing that companies do when they provide online services. You're in the minority with your boycott is what I'm saying. Maybe you should take that as a hint and re-evaluate your expectations.

>>31627246
>If enough people think it's unwarranted,
But that's the problem, they don't because it's seen as a necessary cost for advancement. In fact that's the reason why it was so accepted when Sony started doing it with the PS4.

Meanwhile with Microsoft's always online deal it would essentially make the machine useless if it weren't online.

File: the end.jpg (41KB, 736x429px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 736x429px

>>31627229
>year*
>shit opinions from the worst name/trip fag
I'm not even surprised at this point , also 2

well it might weed out the nuisance and poorfags

That's a perfectly reasonable price, assuming it actually results in a modernized service. If it's not an improvement over the WiiU's service, any cost, at any price, will be tough to swallow.