You're only paying $50 a year (per year, not month). In some cases only $20 per year if you don't want Gamecube and N64 or whatever. Are we really going to complain about input lag now?

I could be paying $0 for the same effect

>>712759226
Nobody is doing free online. Microsoft, PlayStation and Nintendo are all paid. Nintendo is the cheapest option by far, so you need to expect that things might not be the same as paying for Xbox's online service or PlayStation's service.

>>712759920
>Nobody is doing free online
Weird, I don't remember Valve charging me a subscription to use my own internet.

>>712759138 (OP)
I think Nintendo should charge for online play
HOWEVER
I think virtual console needs to come back, so lag and shit isn't even an issue, but for games they decide to implement online play, those should function just like any modern game with online play, and data backup retrieval should be comp'd. Nintendo is well off enough, they can easily accommodate that.

>>712760038
PCs and consoles are two different platforms.

>>712759138 (OP)
I still pirate games but I play both on Dolphin and on NSO. Even if it was $50 a month, that's only 5 hours of work a month.
>but muh $600 a year you could have saved
Poor people worry too much about other peoples wallets.

>>712760826
>Even if it was $50 a month
NSO isn't $50 a month.

>>712760468
Didnt have to pay for ps3 online

Im not paying anything, I have an m4 Mac Mini under my TV dedicated to emulating and playing pirated blu rays and stolen sports streams.

>>712759138 (OP)
I’m actually surprised reviewers aren’t talking about the input lag more

>>712760826
You make 10 bucks an hour and are calling people poor?

>>712761184
You didn't have to with the Wii either. Reality is nobody is on PS3 anymore and nobody is on the Wii anymore (Wii is actually shutdown for online anyway). The most recent and widely available consoles, the PS5 and Nintendo Switch consoles, are paid online and current generation consoles are the ones people play their games on, not the PS3 or the Wii

>>712761094
Breakfast status?

How come Nintendo could afford free online play for Wii U but they can't afford it for the Switcheseses????

>>712761094
>>712761271
nta, but they were presenting $50/month as a hypothetical for the sake of proving a point
That said, nso is philosophically a rip off, and until Nintendo re-approaches the whole endeavor, I'm kinda done with Nintendo

>>712761845
They can afford it, it has nothing to with affording it and everything due to what cattle will tolerate and then defend for free online.

>>712761271
If you're bitchin, yeah. Try not living in a major city, I have no idea how people are struggling. I pay for NSO but I have no idea in what world that contributes to poor people remaining poor.

>>712759138 (OP)
You are everything wrong with gaming today

>>712761845
Share holders. Plain and simple.
The scale has tipped, and souless suits have become more important to Nintendo than the demographics that put them on the map in the first place

>>712761845
I wonder how much damage PS2 online being super ass vs Xbox being real good (but $50) did to this discussion?

>>712762046
Why would any demographic besides the one paying their bills right now matter? I don’t disagree with you but if Nintendo
Is looking you in the face saying “I’m going to charge you more now, stop me bitch” and you’re saying “no I can’t I’ll just pay” why wouldn’t they do that?

>>712759920
I'm expecting Xbox to go free online soon
How can Xbox handhelds and PC have free online while still requiring a subscription to play Non-F2P on the Xbox console

>>712762195
True, Nintendo is essentially staring everyone in they eyes demanding as such
Thing is, for the first time since nes/snes/gbc, I'm out.
I'm so over their shit that I'm just not going to participate. It will suck when kirby air riders comes out, as well as news on the new smash, and more gc games come, but to me this is a matter of principle, and although Sony and Microsoft have been doing similarly for a while now, Nintendo, what was the last holdout, doing the same thing just feels so wrong.

>>712759920
They more than pay their server costs with the games they sell using those servers.

>>712761994
I told the truth. NSO is $50 a year. Contrast that with PlayStations cheapest and worst option ($80 a year for PS Essentials) and Xbox's cheapest and worst option ($10 per month for Gamepass Core, meaning $120 a year if you keep subbing every month). By "worst" options, I mean you basically only pay to get online with a few games maybe thrown in. Value wise, NSO is better simply by the fact you have access to NES-Gamecube, all Gameboy consoles, SEGA Genesis, and whatever else they eventually add to it like the Mario Kart 8 Deluxe DLC and Animal Crossing DLC plus online play with all Switch games that offer it. Including playing older games that previously didn't even have online play with people online like Soul Calibur 2.

When you think about what you get with NSO for $50 compared to the competition, it's a good deal.

what is the point of paying for online when you can't even fucking message your friends to organize playing games together?
can you do that on the switch 2 or is it still completely non functional?

>>712763036
not op, but if they just had nso for online play, and let you DOWNLOAD retro games to play offline, and didn't include data recovery behind nso as well, I'd buy a switch 2 today.
The problem is that Nintendo is too greedy, and wants to exploit consumer's addiction to convenience, and put as much shit as possible behind a "nominal fee" to guarantee a fuck load of free money every month/ year. THAT'S the problem.

>>712759138 (OP)
>you're only giving $50 away to a soulless corporation that killed Iwata and hates your guts, for nothing in return

>>712763337
>not op, but if they just had nso for online play, and let you DOWNLOAD retro games to play offline, and didn't include data recovery behind nso as well, I'd buy a switch 2 today.
Here's why they won't do it. That would mean some people who don't play their games online could pay a one time fee of $20 or $50, download all the games they wanted, then never come back again and don't resub. It's a terrible business decision.

>>712763854
a great business decision:
>make various $60 online games
>lock it behind a paywall
>people who loved the first game don't buy these
>they play Fortnite instead, which is free and can be played free

>>712761184
such tism, I can't beileve you poor fags are still trying to use "doube paywall" as an argument.

>>712759138 (OP)
>>712761267
>input leg
I haven't used either does it have lag in regular single player retro gameplay or are you just freaking out about the online quality?

>>712762281
>Xbox to go free online soon
If the game is free, it is already like Overwatch or Marvel Rivals. Only paid games like CoD need it

>>712763721
>for nothing in return
That's false

>>712763854
I know WHY it makes "business sense". But Nintendo wasn't always like that (at least outside of a courtroom).
I don't mind gaming getting more expensive if the quality and value are there. But with every year that goes by, the value/ quality goes down, some years maybe not as noticable as others, but the decline is real. I'm not going to reward Nintendo just because x million people are conditioned enough to do exactly what Nintendo wants them to do.
If this is the direction, with no return in sight, I'm glad to continue gaming exclusively in retro consoles and games.

>>712764849
being allowed to use your internet connection to host games is nothing in return, it's a scam.

>>712759138 (OP)
Nintendo doesn't pay the artists, coders, writers, or anyone else who worked on those physical media games a second time when they released these emulators on the Switch.

Explain to me why they're entilted to being paid a second time for a game that I've already purchased once?

>>712760468
It is a different platform that lets me do the same things as the others. You can classify it however you want, but they are competing for my time and money over the same type of entertainment so I will judge them all the same. Nintendo and the others are a worse experience, so I expect the price to reflect that and be cheaper.

>>712759138 (OP)
The lag is just part of the problem with bloodless suits. They're in such a hurry to be in control of everything that they don't stop to acknowledge shit like previous cloud gaming services failing or needing crutches just to "work".
I don't mind the future. I mind paying to be a guinea pig to subsidize a pro-investor future

>>712761267
because the switch already had more input lag than prior generations and its competitors (a lot of games had a +1f switch lag tax assuming 60fps which isn't even always a given) and was still an overwhelming success
it's not something people who buy it pay attention to anymore

>>712759920
Nintendo was doing free at the beginning.

>>712765706
Yeah, NSO was always going to be a charged subscription. The first year was free for server testing and shit, they're doing the same for the voice chat right now

>>712765163
>or anyone else who worked on those
false
https://vansonnguyen.com/do-japanese-voice-actors-get-paid-well-542/

>>712759138 (OP)
>Are we really going to complain about input lag now?
If the service isn't worth using, then yes I will complain about how my $20 (or $50) are being wasted. Expenses that don't work aren't worth paying for!

>>712759138 (OP)
I am not paying to use my own internet and to not own games that I already have and can readily get better and for free. Est shit and die.

>>712759920
>Nobody is doing free online
Consoleplebs, I swear to god
Nintendo is also the cheapest here because it's the worst. It's all p2p, dripfed roms and the online was literally better from a technical standpoint and in how games utilized it on the fucking Wii U.

>>712767753
>I am thief
PCigger further nuking his own platform.
good

>>712767953
>the others aren't p2p
lol

>>712768325
Gargle my balls shill farmer, I pity your existence

can't own things anymore