Top
120°

Nintendo Switch Online is Functional, But it Could Be So Much More

The Nintendo Switch Online service launched this week and we're pretty underwhelmed. Let's take a look at the current state of NSO, and how it could change.

Read Full Story >>
cultureofgaming.com
The story is too old to be commented.
CyberSentinel25d ago (Edited 25d ago )

Even when it was “free” I didn’t use it.

Nintendo will all the money they have and are making off this successful switch generation, can’t even invest in their own online infrastructure. Instead they outsource it to google.

Pathetic.

Neonridr24d ago

you have a Switch and never played a MP game online?

Teflon0224d ago

Me neither, not a big surprise. Only online game I'd play on it is Mk. But no one I know plays switch online so we only play together if everyone brings a switch or split screen

Neonridr24d ago

@Teflon02 - Splatoon 2 is another great online game. Obviously Smash is a no-brainer

FallenAngel198425d ago

Nintendo didn’t even try to ease people used to free online gaming on the system into this subscription service like Sony did for PSP & PS3 users with PS+ where it remained optional.

At least Sony provided so much value with PS+ that not only did it make a mockery of XBLG, people didn’t throw as much of a hissy fit when it was revealed to be required on PS4 because of over the $1000 of value per year it offered.

Nintendo on the other hand just released a half-assed service and expect everybody to be okay with it because it’s cheaper than the competition, which doesn’t hold much weight because it still offfers less than the free online offered on PS3, Vita & even Wii U.

Gemmol24d ago

It did not offer $1000 value in its first year, it was mostly indie games, second year they started adding games that cost more even tho their old

But go ahead complain as much as you want

Teflon0224d ago

It gave ps3 and Vita games as well as ps4, you got cloud saves with separate storage for each. Every month you were getting around $100 or more in value from plus so yes. You were. Just not only on ps4

Gameseeker_Frampt24d ago (Edited 24d ago )

http://www.ign.com/articles...

Not that facts make a difference to one such as yourself. I'm sure you will try to spin your comment and say you didn't mean the first year of the Instant Game Collection but instead the first year of it on the PS4. Problem is, they were releasing retail games for the other 2 platforms part of the IGC and the reason they were not doing it for the PS4 was because it was in its FIRST year and nobody was going to put their $60 game into the $50 a year PS+ on day 1. But go ahead and keep deriding the indie games that were part of it because those same indie games are coming to the Switch for full price and you most likely will be praising them.

FallenAngel198424d ago

@ Gemmol

I said by the time PS+ was revealed to be a requirement on PS4 it was offering over $1000 in value, not when it launched.

Even when PS+ did first release it offered plenty of value in the form of additional digital discounts, full game trials, early access to betas, in addition to free PS1 and PSN games.

But go ahead and damage control

Gemmol24d ago

ps4 started with ps plus, it grew to what we like current day, but both system first year there is not much

i have both systems, if you have both try to be unbias

FallenAngel198424d ago

PS+ grew before it arrived on PS4. In 2011 it introduced cloud saves to consoles and in 2012 it received IGC that introduced AAA games to the free games lineup.

PhoenixUp25d ago

“If you do the math, Nintendo Switch Online is technically worth the price.”

You can spin it all you want, you’re still getting ripped off since you could get better online that’s free on PS3 & Vita.

Even 3DS & Wii U offer more features such as simple voice chat, save backups, online multiplayer, internet browser, & messaging than Switch does at the cost of $0.

Neonridr24d ago

online on Vita.. that's a gem. What games am I playing with this amazing free Vita online.. oh right

cpayne9324d ago

The vita had many problems but the ui and psn were really nice on it. Wish that system had gotten more support.

Neonridr24d ago

@cpayne93 - I have one, but my purposes for buying it were strictly for Remote Play. So I have definitely gotten my use from it just for that alone.

Teflon0224d ago

Vita had alot of online games... Alot owere cross play too.

paintedgamer198424d ago

Dont forget virtual console... this is a huge let down.

InKnight7s24d ago

Fanboys are making articles now?

The alpha stage service is pure garbage
I am using Ps Vita and Ps3 and both are free since ever and both have browsing and good collection of apps all for FREE.

Neonridr24d ago

people pay for online for gaming.. not to browse the internet. Why the hell would I watch netflix or browse the internet on my Vita?

InKnight7s24d ago

In Vita case its free and its an option, but there ain't any options in Switch case + using voice chat through smart phones is most awkward thing.

Neonridr24d ago

@InKnight7s - oh don't get me wrong, I agree with you there. The voice chat option is absolutely ridiculous and I hope more devs decide to implement their own in game chats to avoid Nintendo's convoluted method. But browsing / watching netflix isn't exactly the same thing as playing games on line against other people. That was more or less my point. I can just browse the net and watch netflix on my phone, I would never use my Vita for that.

Protagonist24d ago

nintendo always chooses the cheapest route, do not expect something much better.

Show all comments (26)