Quantcast

Nintendo Switch Paid Online Delayed Until 2018, Confirmed $20 Yearly

After a lot of silence regarding Nintendo’s plans for the Switch’s paid multiplayer setup, the company finally revealed some more concrete details on the upcoming paid service.

In an update to their official site for the Switch, Nintendo confirmed the official name of the service, known simply as Nintendo Switch Online. The service will cost $3.99 a month, $7.99 for 3 months, and $19.99 for a year. This is much cheaper than both Xbox Live Gold and PlayStation Plus, which currently cost about 60$ a year.

Similar to those services, Nintendo Switch Online will give subscribers access to online multiplayer, Online Parties and Voice Chat, exclusive game discounts, and some free games. However, as previously detailed, these games will be NES and SNES games with added online multiplayer, that will only be available for free one month at a time.

Finally, to top all the updates off, Nintendo announced that they were delaying the launch of the service from this fall to 2018. The previously announced voice chat app is still planned for release this summer, hopefully giving us a bit more time to test out the service before we begin paying for it.

How do you guys feel about the Nintendo Switch having paid online features? Sound off in the comments below!


About

Currently interning at Niche Gamer. I've been playing video games since I was three years old.



43 comments
  1. Anon_Amous
    Anon_Amous
    June 1, 2017 at 11:05 pm

    Hmm, pretty inexpensive versus competing online. Reworded stuff about “monthly” access.

    There must be something I can complain about though…

    THE DONGLEZ

  2. Feniks
    Feniks
    June 1, 2017 at 11:07 pm

    Launching a new console without online infrastructure.

    You do you Nintendo.

  3. Maelstrom
    Maelstrom
    June 1, 2017 at 11:09 pm

    To be fair, $20 for a year isn’t half bad. I mean, it’s not free online, and the VC game thing sucks, but it could be worse I guess.

  4. Nagato
    Nagato
    June 1, 2017 at 11:23 pm

    “However, as previously detailed, these games will be NES and SNES games with added online multiplayer, that will only be available for free one month at a time.”

    As I understand it, they actually seem to have done away with that idiotic plan in favor of a more Netflix-
    or Xbox Game Pass-style instant library of NES games.

    Granted, chances are it’ll be only half a dozen games big before they start switching them out again, but it’s still pretty rare for someone at Nintendo to have spoken up and told those old Nipponese superiors that what they were gonna be offering was shit.

  5. RandomRow
    RandomRow
    June 1, 2017 at 11:33 pm

    “However, as previously detailed, these games will be NES and SNES games
    with added online multiplayer, that will only be available for free one
    month at a time.”
    They changed it, it’s now a catalog of games that last as long as you have a subscription. Like Netflix

  6. Thoon Thoon
    Thoon Thoon
    June 1, 2017 at 11:33 pm

    I’m still wondering what I’d actually be paying for, since MHXX works on 3ds/n3ds just fine for free and cross plays with the switch version…

    I mean I guess waaay back my 360 ‘kinda’ justified it by how much bandwidth it was always burning showing me ads. I know you’d think those people would pay to be there in a sane world but at least it was obviously something making new, concentrated intensive use of their resources, but ‘I know we’ve done this as long as we’ve had online but we want money now’ is really a poor sell.

  7. TheOnceAndFutureKing
    TheOnceAndFutureKing
    June 1, 2017 at 11:34 pm

    At least its dirt cheap. Hopefully they have a more practical alternative for team speak.

  8. Garett Dylan Drake
    Garett Dylan Drake
    June 1, 2017 at 11:41 pm

    Great price. Way more cheaper than playstation plus and xbox live.

  9. larverto365
    larverto365
    June 2, 2017 at 12:00 am

    Yeah that does seem cheap. I would still much prefer that it was free, though.

  10. RandomDev
    RandomDev
    June 2, 2017 at 12:06 am

    If I’m gonna pay for online $20 a year not so bad.

  11. sanic
    sanic
    June 2, 2017 at 12:09 am

    Well better than $60 course $0 would be the most ideal.

  12. OSad
    OSad
    June 2, 2017 at 1:19 am

    The Switch must be selling well enough that the profit margin justified pushing this back or something. Though more likely than not, it’s just not ready for deployment yet.

  13. Squirrel on crack cocaine.
    Squirrel on crack cocaine.
    June 2, 2017 at 2:53 am

    Not a bad price but Nintendo history of on-line play is awful at best.

  14. Joe
    Joe
    June 2, 2017 at 5:51 am

    The fact that the online infrastructure itself is probably not going to be any better, and we’re basically being asked to pay $20 a year now for the same service that was free on Wii U. Pretty much just like PS4 did with PS3.

  15. InkViper
    InkViper
    June 2, 2017 at 6:35 am

    I’m genuinely curious as to why people still think a decent online service with dedicated servers could still be possible, for free on a home console!

  16. InkViper
    InkViper
    June 2, 2017 at 6:40 am

    What online infrastructure that they had previously? It was predominantly peer-to-peer, that’s why the service sucked, and why it was free.

  17. Malcolm_Ecks
    Malcolm_Ecks
    June 2, 2017 at 8:17 am

    Because they’re stuck with their 12 year old selves in the Dreacast days before Online became expensive to do.

  18. DrearierSpider
    DrearierSpider
    June 2, 2017 at 9:39 am

    We all know Nintendo are money grubbing pricks that’ll charge as much as they possibly can for their products. If they’re asking for 1/3rd of the competition’s price, expect at most 1/3rd of the comparative quality.

  19. CrimsonColossus
    CrimsonColossus
    June 2, 2017 at 11:10 am

    Hopefully this, as well as the Switch’s success, will pressure Sony and MS to lower their absurd online subscription prices.

  20. Andrew Phillips
    Andrew Phillips
    June 2, 2017 at 11:14 am

    I can see the value as long as the library is big enough and the emulation is at least passable, unlike the garbage they put out on the Wii U.

  21. Nalferd
    Nalferd
    June 2, 2017 at 2:20 pm

    Still holding out on the Switch until I clear my backlog.

  22. totenglocke
    totenglocke
    June 2, 2017 at 2:21 pm

    So the millions of PC gamers are living in the past too? ?

  23. Jumanji Joe
    Jumanji Joe
    June 2, 2017 at 3:56 pm

    So now nintendo thinks you should pay them for the privilege to use their buggy online service.

  24. Squirrel on crack cocaine.
    Squirrel on crack cocaine.
    June 2, 2017 at 3:58 pm

    Is that really how they’re going to do voice chat? If so, that’s just pathetic!

  25. Malcolm_Ecks
    Malcolm_Ecks
    June 2, 2017 at 7:10 pm

    Console=/=PC in this respect. Nice try though son.

  26. Shattno
    Shattno
    June 2, 2017 at 8:36 pm

    *!=

  27. Phasmatis75
    Phasmatis75
    June 2, 2017 at 9:48 pm

    Good to hear, still not paying for that though.

  28. Phasmatis75
    Phasmatis75
    June 2, 2017 at 9:48 pm

    I really wish Sony would do away with that god awful now and go with Xbox Game Pass type of system.

  29. Phasmatis75
    Phasmatis75
    June 2, 2017 at 9:49 pm

    Same reason Gabe Newell is rich, online sales can easily cover the operating costs.

  30. Phasmatis75
    Phasmatis75
    June 2, 2017 at 9:51 pm

    Yes it does, since Sony and Microsoft take a percentage of each sale. They more than make enough to not only pay operating costs, but to turn a profit on that alone.

    Charging for online is the past when digital sales were that prevalent. With them now being common place charging for online is ridiculous. Hell Steam has a larger online library, has to handle more downloads in a day than both Microsoft and Sony do combined, and they still are rolling in so much money from their cut of digital sales they haven’t had to release a game in years.

  31. Phasmatis75
    Phasmatis75
    June 2, 2017 at 9:52 pm

    It went Wii U levels of sale back in March. They’re pushing it back because it’s that unpopular.

  32. Zombie_Barioth
    Zombie_Barioth
    June 2, 2017 at 11:20 pm

    Microsoft makes about 1bil. annually net profit from Xbox digital goods/services, including XBL Gold.

    While its possible Nintendo is only looking to subsidize costs since they’re charging 2/3 less, they may also not need to charge nearly as much to turn even a small profit.

    They aren’t leasing out server space, running cloud services, or licensing “free” 3rd-party games like Microsoft and Sony, as far as I’m aware anyway.

  33. Personaknight
    Personaknight
    June 3, 2017 at 10:12 am

    I feel like it’s a case of absence of online altogether would be better.

  34. totenglocke
    totenglocke
    June 3, 2017 at 10:45 am

    Severs cost the same regardless and developers factor in that cost when making the game. Console peasants are just dumb enough to pay an extortion fee to use their internet connection.

  35. Ruggarell
    Ruggarell
    June 3, 2017 at 1:40 pm

    Every Nintendo console past the gamecube sucked.

  36. Fenrir007
    Fenrir007
    June 3, 2017 at 8:28 pm

    This is some PS2 era Madkatz level of insanity.

  37. Fenrir007
    Fenrir007
    June 3, 2017 at 8:30 pm

    Xbox Live possibly sounds like a better deal considering they actually offer good games every month. Can’t say the same for the PS4.

  38. catazxy
    catazxy
    June 4, 2017 at 1:13 pm

    Kinda funny, I’ve posted this comment on Gematsu and it got deleted…so take that as you will

  39. Travis Touchdown
    Travis Touchdown
    June 4, 2017 at 1:55 pm

    Looks better than what Xbox and Playstation do.

    Does anyone else realize that this is going to lock out underage kids? Not to mention all the added bonuses of having an app where you can keep in touch with your gaming buddies anywhere.

  40. le master trole
    le master trole
    June 4, 2017 at 2:30 pm

    >online
    >expensive
    lmao have you even looked at hosting prices lately?
    Servers are cheap af nowadays.

  41. InkViper
    InkViper
    June 4, 2017 at 7:08 pm

    There’s a reason why I said consuls and didn’t mention PC’s, as inevitably Valve would be brought up. The internal business structure is completely different to Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft. And there are two reasons for this, first there are no shareholders at Valve, it’s solely owned by Gabe, therefore no financial dividend has to be paid to investors, which also means no external investors making demands on how internal funds are spent in particular departments or what should be done with those departments.
    An example of this from other companies was a incident in 2013 where a large shareholder suggested selling off Sony entertainment, due to the lack of profits from those departments ( http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-05-14-sonys-largest-investor-calls-for-break-up ) needless to say Valve does not have this issue, and therefore can structure funding for any departments however they wish from what ever lines of revenue that are available to them. Effectively they have the ability to run a loss leader department, such as servers without worrying if the department itself is profitable, as they can fund it from other revenue sources.
    Second point is those revenue sources, yes they have the ability to fund all their services via the cut they take from digital distributing of other people’s games, however you also forget they still sell their own game with counterstrike global offensive, and the various micro-transactions available in those games such as keys, skins and the like. This also extends to the other micro trends action heavy game such as team Fortress, and the selling of hats! Although much of the revenue these micro-transactions generate go to running the respected servers their own games are on, this doesn’t mean that revenue is also allowed to run the servers they have available to third parties! that would all be down to individual contracts and agreements they have with said third parties if they allowed them to use their servers to begin with.
    The point I’m making here is even with Valve software, someone has to pay the costs, and just because they don’t charge the end user for a yearly fee, doesn’t mean you’re not paying for that service even if it’s not obvious and somewhat in direct.

    Now I’m not disagreeing with you that Nintendo can not cover server costs through digital sales and micro-transactions, but this will never happen as long as they are accountable to shareholders, who demand every department be profitable, and that’s why I don’t think it’s useful to bring Gabe and Valve into this.

  42. DrearierSpider
    DrearierSpider
    June 5, 2017 at 9:58 am

    PlayStation and Xbox already have an app that you can chat from, the difference is it’s optional. And who’s under the impression that anyone other than children and sex offenders will be chatting on Mario Kart?