Nintendo Online Discussion

Corholio

Nintendo have confirmed you'll have up to 6 months to reclaim your cloud saves if you resubscribe. This will get a fraction of the coverage as the initial 'outrage'.

https://twitter.com/PeerIGN/status/1044663549534949376?ref_src=twcamp%5Ecopy%7Ctwsrc%5Eandroid%7Ctwgr%5Ecopy%7Ctwcon%5E7090%7Ctwterm%5E3

CiDeRmAn

Corholio wrote: »

Nintendo have confirmed you'll have up to 6 months to reclaim your cloud saves if you resubscribe. This will get a fraction of the coverage as the initial 'outrage'.

https://twitter.com/PeerIGN/status/1044663549534949376?ref_src=twcamp%5Ecopy%7Ctwsrc%5Eandroid%7Ctwgr%5Ecopy%7Ctwcon%5E7090%7Ctwterm%5E3

Don't worry, I'm sure some moaning sh1te will find another thing to grumble about

Mr E

kevin2me

Corholio wrote: »

Nintendo have confirmed you'll have up to 6 months to reclaim your cloud saves if you resubscribe. This will get a fraction of the coverage as the initial 'outrage'.

https://twitter.com/PeerIGN/status/1044663549534949376?ref_src=twcamp%5Ecopy%7Ctwsrc%5Eandroid%7Ctwgr%5Ecopy%7Ctwcon%5E7090%7Ctwterm%5E3

True but least thats another thing less for them to moan at, its 20e get over it like dums dums... Dont want it then dont subscribe to it.

I dont really Care too much on NES Side, but it be nice to have, its when SNES, N64 stuff come along ill be chuffed as its 1st time we have proper on the go retro with switch handheld etc..

I reckon at E3 they have a new Online Plan.
20e Gets you online and NES
30e Gets you a SNES games on top
40e N64 and so on....
50e Gamecube if ever comes...
60 Wii

Which in fairness if the system games catalogs fills out for each of them would be worth whichever your after? Id be for that
Can only See 1 extra system per year coming out, with few launch and grow over a year. Then onto next system the year afterwards

panevthe3rd

Mr E wrote: »

On the way!

panevthe3rd

Mr E wrote: »

On the way!

Nollog

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

Don't worry, I'm sure some moaning sh1te will find another thing to grumble about

It's amazing that Nintendo couldn't have the forethought to put that on the information on their years old website with all of the same information, instead making "moaning ****es" have to beg them for an answer from a journalist with contacts.

Corholio

/\/ollog wrote: »

It's amazing that Nintendo couldn't have the forethought to put that on the information on their years old website with all of the same information, instead making "moaning ****es" have to beg them for an answer from a journalist with contacts.

Patience isn't something renowned amongst the modern gamer to be honest. Nintendo could have done that, but equally the whole 'Nintendo erases your data straight away' stuff wasn't a good look. There's very little patience for clarification these days, which always comes.

Pac1Man

There we go. See what happens when we don't accept mediocrity just because it's Nintendo?

CiDeRmAn

Pac1Man wrote: »

There we go. See what happens when we don't accept mediocrity just because it's Nintendo?

What mediocrity?
Surely the point was that Nintendo were reportedly going to be deleting peoples cloud saves if they didn't keep up their subscription.
Then it emerged that there would be a grace period in keeping with industry best practice.
Then it emerged that there would be a whole six months after the end of the sub before the cloud saves would be deleted.

And the issue then became "Well, Nintendo are now sh1t because they didn't tell us this in the first place" ?

That's just mining for disappointment, and when a person doesn't find it they reframe what's in front of them, determined to strike a rich vein of something to be upset about.

Inviere

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

Then it emerged that there would be a whole six months after the end of the sub before the cloud saves would be deleted.

6 months is very fair

ERG89

Corholio wrote: »

Patience isn't something renowned amongst the modern gamer to be honest. Nintendo could have done that, but equally the whole 'Nintendo erases your data straight away' stuff wasn't a good look. There's very little patience for clarification these days, which always comes.

They had 18 months to set Nintendo Online in stone, there is very little they've actually added to the service so they should get the service seamlessly

megaten

Mr E wrote: »

No problem, its still ****. I'm only interested in subscribing occasionally to back up saves. Th only way this would be justifiable would be if they also allowed local backups of saves, which they don't.

CiDeRmAn

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

What mediocrity?
Surely the point was that Nintendo were reportedly going to be deleting peoples cloud saves if they didn't keep up their subscription.
Then it emerged that there would be a grace period in keeping with industry best practice.
Then it emerged that there would be a whole six months after the end of the sub before the cloud saves would be deleted.

And the issue then became "Well, Nintendo are now sh1t because they didn't tell us this in the first place" ?

That's just mining for disappointment, and when a person doesn't find it they reframe what's in front of them, determined to strike a rich vein of something to be upset about.

keane2097

Company's ongoing ham-fisted implementation/communication of simple service causes confusion and annoyance amongst customers. Long time company supporters blame customers.

We'll have more next time company bungles easily implemented feature and/or easily communicated message.

Pac1Man

keane2097 wrote: »

Company's ongoing ham-fisted implementation/communication of simple service causes confusion and annoyance amongst customers. Long time company supporters blame customers.

We'll have more next time company bungles easily implemented feature and/or easily communicated message.

Sums it up nicely.

CiDeRmAn

I "support" Nintendo in the same way I "support" Sony.
I like their products and often buy their products but I don't seem to take it to heart quite as much as others, when desired features don't arrive.
I mean, I would love to see Netflix and Plex on my Switch.
However, it isn't damaging my experience of the Switch right now.
I own a PS4 and it chafes a bit that I would have to rebuy any PS2 games I really like, rather than just slot one into the drive and have it act as a key to the downloadable PS4 port, as is the case for many on my XB1.
But, at the end of the day, it isn't damaging my experience of the console.

It is always a mistake to personalise this, and I apologise if this appeared the case.
It is of course everyone's right to express themselves here and, outside of pure blunt negativity, I think people are always great for debate in these parts, so keep it up!

Banjo

kevin2me wrote: »

True but least thats another thing less for them to moan at, its 20e get over it like dums dums... Dont want it then dont subscribe to it.

Problem with that remains that your Saves are tied to your console and cannot be backed up unless you pay, which is incredibly backward for a home console 10 years ago, let alone one released a year and a half ago that you are actively encouraged to bring out and flash about in public where it can be broken or stolen "anywhere, any time, <by> anyone".

On the one hand, yes, this is a security feature since a lot of the exploits on previous consoles involved save game manipulation, and security of the platform feeds into it's longevity and attractiveness as a platform for commercial developers.

On the other, you're basically saying that it's fair to treat all of your customers like they're the worst of your customers. That isn't an acceptable attitude when you're running a prison, never mind an entertainment conglomerate. The correct response to the possiblity of save game manipulation to break the OS wide open should be "lets tighten up our code" not "**** 'em all!". €20 or 2c, they're asking for money for a feature that should be available as standard in some form but that they have denied their player base because of a lack of the will, the ability or the creativity to deal with a problem.

And this attitude then feeds into the playerbase. It's a lot easier to feel blasé about eShop tourism to get the best prices - probably at the expense of developer's bottom lines - when you can say "I'm putting the money I saved towards the Online subscription so I can back my saves up instead on a wing and a prayer that my switch doesn't accidentally power on in my bag and burn out".

You keep encouraging the worst aspects of your install base to feel normalised, they will become the norm.

Inviere

Banjo wrote: »

Problem with that remains that your Saves are tied to your console and cannot be backed up unless you pay, which is incredibly backward for a home console 10 years ago, let alone one released a year and a half ago that you are actively encouraged to bring out and flash about in public where it can be broken or stolen "anywhere, any time, <by> anyone".

I have to agree there. I feel it's very harsh to have to pay to back up your saves.

On the one hand, yes, this is a security feature since a lot of the exploits on previous consoles involved save game manipulation, and security of the platform feeds into it's longevity and attractiveness as a platform for commercial developers.

The system is smashed open already, nobody even needs to bother looking at save game manipulation.

Nollog

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

What mediocrity?
Surely the point was that Nintendo were reportedly going to be deleting peoples cloud saves if they didn't keep up their subscription.
Then it emerged that there would be a grace period in keeping with industry best practice.
Then it emerged that there would be a whole six months after the end of the sub before the cloud saves would be deleted.

And the issue then became "Well, Nintendo are now sh1t because they didn't tell us this in the first place" ?

That's just mining for disappointment, and when a person doesn't find it they reframe what's in front of them, determined to strike a rich vein of something to be upset about.

Usually, nintnedo miscommunicate mostly everything they're doing.

In this case they didn't even communicate this deletion thing, I read it and thought "that's weird" chuckling, how can they be this cheap, server space is so cheap, I knew they of course would have a grace period, the question was why let this news story happen, when a simple number on their website would stop all the misinformation.

I agree, it annoys me when everyone on twitch for example is spouting things they think Nintendo are doing, and they do it because exactly this, Nintendo need to fix this.

I'm always amazed that if Sony said the sky was blue, everyone would say yes it's blue, but if nintnedo said the same thing, everyone would be arguing if they meant blue or purple.

But they did a bad thing this time.

The_B_Man

Pfft, Netflix keeps your watch history for 10 months!!

Corholio

keane2097 wrote: »

Company's ongoing ham-fisted implementation/communication of simple service causes confusion and annoyance amongst customers. Long time company supporters blame customers.

We'll have more next time company bungles easily implemented feature and/or easily communicated message.

Who blamed customers? No decent site or person here that I can see did. It's the instant click, needing headline, zero patience sites who reported 'Nintendo deletes your saves' that are lapped up by some people that were the problem. Of course Nintendo bungled the clarification, but it seems people need any scrap of information these days to update their twitter or start a new thread on places like Resetera with these days.

Smertrius

you pay €60 a year for psn and xbox live of course not cloud save isn't free. Security and protection you need antivirus since you haven't name their antivirus. How do I accept you tell the truth? Just because psn and xbox live are 3 times experience does not they are brilliant. Before we pay 60€ a year we have €600 for the internet bill. No such thing as free lunch.

CiDeRmAn

I'm paying for services for my XB1/360 and my PS3/4/Vita and I don't mind, they all give me online gaming, which I never play, and a decent marketplace, not to mention free stuff each month.
Nintendo seem to be slotting into the same playbook, albeit with some small differences, and one big one being the implementation of voice chat, which only makes any kind of sense if you are playing on the go, outside the home network.
I understand that this is not Nintendo's first try at the online gig, what with them implementing it with mixed results on all their consoles since the Wii and the DSi, but I still like the current though early ecosystem.
I would personally take that the current PS and MS versions are very much, from a service/UI perspective, developments from earlier successes, whilst Nintendo seem to have ripped up the systems that they used and implemented something different for the Switch.
This is confusing, as I wasn't aware that the WiiU online system, including Virtual Console, needed fixing, rather it needed enhancing.

I mean, I can turn on my WiiU and play the lovely Metroid Prime Trilogy right away, but it looks like an in determinant amount of time before Nintendo will let me play it on the Switch, if ever. And, when I do, I will more than likely have to buy it again... which I will...

Pity.

Inviere

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

I understand that this is not Nintendo's first try at the online gig, what with them implementing it with mixed results on all their consoles since the Wii

Cidey you're so polite. That's a fancy way of saying Nintendo have been trying for 12 years to get online right, and still haven't

It's a relatively cheap, albeit kinda gimped online offering. The question is, would people prefer to pay what MS/Sony are charging and get a complete, polished, and valuable service? Or would they prefer to pay half the price, and get half the service? Me personally, I'd have thought the cheaper service would have proven a winner. They goosed up royally though by forcing users to buy it in order to back up their saves...that was a bad move, and changed the goalposts.

CiDeRmAn

I was paying for such a service on the PS3 and took them a good few years to get it right, it was maligned for most of it's active life as poor, especially compared to the excellent service the 360 delivered.

But, sure, I would say it's pretty subjective, some are happy with the value it delivers, others are not.
I suppose the adoption rate figures in the next twelve months will shed some light on the popularity of the service, and people satisfaction with same.

Banjo

It would be easier to accept the shortcomings that potentially will be ironed out if not for the dick-moves that are clear business decisions unlikely to change with time, first and foremost being the NESflix system -they know that we know that they know they're sitting on a goldmine of classic software that they could unleash immediately but instead we get the bull**** curated approach while at the same time there's no "these games are yours to keep, but only if you subscribe *this* month." carrot to sweeten the pill. They've spent too much time thinking about how to make the online service work for *them* and it seems the consumers who will actually be paying for it are an afterthought.

It's put me off playing online - Rocket League's "rocket pass" would have had me coming back every other day to earn the free rewards (and maybe some keys to open boxes or upgrade to the premium tier), but what's the point when they're not free any more? You can buy Hollow Knight or Into the Breach and play as much as you like with no further gouging to worry about.

And you can say that they gave us a year of free access to the service but they didn't. No cloud saves, no software, no tertiary services, just barebones online. They couldn't have charged for that and sold software off the back of it.

Aaaaanyway. Bye bye, Rocket League. Might see you again on pC some day. *Cue hulk end credits tune*

Inviere

Banjo wrote: »

first and foremost being the NESflix system -they know that we know that they know they're sitting on a goldmine of classic software that they could unleash immediately but instead we get the bull**** curated approach while at the same time there's no "these games are yours to keep, but only if you subscribe *this* month." carrot to sweeten the pill.

That's similar in principle to the Games with Gold and PS+ offerings, in terms of, they're yours as long as you're a member. I don't have particular issue with that alone, but with Nintendo there's a slight but important difference.

With Sony/MS, you can choose to not subscribe, and buy the 'free' games they were offering for yourself, yours to keep, outside of the subscription model. With Nintendo, it certainly seems anyway, that you have to subscribe to get these games. There's actually no way to buy them otherwise*. I've a bit of an issue with that.

*There's a very attractive option about to be presented to Switch owners...

https://twitter.com/libretro/status/1045606619780968448

Ol' Donie

I've only ever played Mario Kart 8 online, so I pay no attention to news about Nintendo online service.

Hadn't played for a few weeks, went to have a go last nigjt and it tells me I need to pay something or other now.

F*ck that.

ionapaul

Ol' Donie wrote: »

I've only ever played Mario Kart 8 online, so I pay no attention to news about Nintendo online service.

Hadn't played for a few weeks, went to have a go last nigjt and it tells me I need to pay something or other now.

F*ck that.

I'm somewhat similar - the only game I have that would require a subscription to play is Splatoon 2. But I'm not paying another €20 just to be able to play one game online. Have no interest in the NES/SNES or otherwise games that can be played with a subscription, my backlog of modern games is what I'd prefer to focus on

Don't plan on subscribing to online and to be honest it may mean I'll return my gaming focus to my PC and my new PS4, hopefully my Switch doesn't end up gathering too much dust.