• Topic Archived
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
  1. Boards
  2. Nintendo Switch
  3. Could you imagine if Nintendo actually let people play new games in NSO?

User Info: TheDevilman

TheDevilman
1 month ago#1
>Two Nintendo Switch games released on NSO each month
>Ability to play Wii U/Wii and GC games online with anyone (no more friend codes only)
>ability to record and stream your gameplay
>ability to text and chat through the Switch without the need of a phone
>Periodical discounts on first party Switch games not just 3rd party and not just DLC

What would all this cost?

User Info: Grunfit

Grunfit
1 month ago#2
You do know they would just charge more for it, right? No way they’re giving you access to 60$ games for 50$ a year.

User Info: NintendoGamer83

NintendoGamer83
1 month ago#3
If these board is as usual, it will demand all that and more... for less than what NSO costs now. Because Nintendo must provide more than the competition, at less cost
Rules should be applied equally and fairly against all users. Too bad some get a proven free pass.

User Info: TheDevilman

TheDevilman
1 month ago#4
Grunfit posted...
You do know they would just charge more for it, right?

That's why I asked how much

No way they’re giving you access to 60$ games for 50$ a year.

How bout $60 a year? And not every Switch game costs $60.
Also why is it fine for Sony/MS to do it but if Nintendo does it they either 'cant' do it, or would need to charge some outrageous price?

NintendoGamer83 posted...
If these board is as usual, it will demand all that and more... for less than what NSO costs now. Because Nintendo must provide more than the competition, at less cost


I dont agree with that belief

User Info: NintendoGamer83

NintendoGamer83
1 month ago#5
TheDevilman posted...
I dont agree with that belief

Why?
When NSO was announced at $20, it was bashed for not providing what the more expensive services do.
Rules should be applied equally and fairly against all users. Too bad some get a proven free pass.

User Info: TheDevilman

TheDevilman
1 month ago#6
NintendoGamer83 posted...
Why?
When NSO was announced at $20, it was bashed for not providing what the more expensive services do.


But did it provide new games? No

User Info: NintendoGamer83

NintendoGamer83
1 month ago#7
TheDevilman posted...
But did it provide new games? No

And why should it?
It was 1/3 the cost.
Why did it have to provide what the others had?

TheDevilman posted...
I dont agree with that belief

Clearly u believe it
Rules should be applied equally and fairly against all users. Too bad some get a proven free pass.

User Info: MajinSoulx

MajinSoulx
1 month ago#8
Nintendo's games hold their value far longer than Sony's games. By the time games like Infamous or Bloodborne were added to PS+ they were already on sale for like 20 bucks or less. Why would Nintendo just give their games away when they still sell for 40 to 60 bucks years after their release?
Regardless, I much prefer being able to pay less and get games you cannot purchase on the system otherwise. The "free" games in PS+ inflate the price and are pointless to people who actually purchase games.

User Info: TheDevilman

TheDevilman
1 month ago#9
NintendoGamer83 posted...
And why should it?
It was 1/3 the cost.
Why did it have to provide

I'm not even arguing that lol. I'm saying if it was $60 pricetag and didnt offer new games people woulda screamed (as they are now at $50).

You're conflating the argument. People were pissed that Nintendo didnt offer the same quality of service the competitors did. But not for the price. People would be willing to pay $60 for NSO if it provided the things I mentioned in the first post. So that is why they complained about the $20. Not for the price but for the lack of viable content which they woulda been glad to pay more for.

User Info: TheDevilman

TheDevilman
1 month ago#10
MajinSoulx posted...
Nintendo's games hold their value far longer than Sony's games.

This is manufactureed BY Nintendo though.
If they put discounts on the online versions than the physical versions would go down in price as well.
They are connected.

Regardless, I much prefer being able to pay less and get games you cannot purchase on the system otherwise.

But once again thats manufactured and controlled as well because once upon a time you could purchase those games via VC and the eShop.

The "free" games in PS+ inflate the price and are pointless to people who actually purchase games.
But not everyone has actually bought every game they offer so how could that be pointless.

Also what about Gamepass
  1. Boards
  2. Nintendo Switch
  3. Could you imagine if Nintendo actually let people play new games in NSO?
  • Topic Archived

GameFAQs Q&A