Why are people so into paying for online?

[Thinkaman]

For starters, Nintendo is finally getting with the modern world and offering cloud save storage. That's a promising, if belated, first step.

There are lots of things that Sony and MS offer on their more developed platforms--I won't rehash their advertising pages, anyone can golook 'em up.

 

[Crazy Hand 2001]

For starters, Nintendo is finally getting with the modern world and offering cloud save storage. That's a promising, if belated, first step.

There are lots of things that Sony and MS offer on their more developed platforms--I won't rehash their advertising pages, anyone can golook 'em up.

And does cloud saves have anything to do with being able to play Mario Kart or Smash Bros online?

 

[Sean Wheeler]

Honestly, they should just keep the online service free. They can use the money from game sales instead.

 

[soviet prince]

Honestly, they should just keep the online service free. They can use the money from game sales instead.

there a business they got to make money to, the internet is only 20 dollars a year I think ppl can afford to spare

 

[Crazy Hand 2001]

there a business they got to make money to, the internet is only 20 dollars a year I think ppl can afford to spare

Then people would be okay paying for someone who blocks the front door of their house and won't leave until they get paid $20

 

[soviet prince]

Then people would be okay paying for someone who blocks the front door of their house and won't leave until they get paid $20

that don't make sense, I read this exact comparision on gamefaq and it was wrong then and it's wrong now. There charging 20 dollars to use there stuff not making you pay to use something that you already own

 

[ProfPeanut]

You know, the counterargument would hold a lot more weight once this paid online service was actually out.

I'm not saying that we should expect it to get better - on the contrary, I agree that it doesn't seem like latencies will get any better - but we'll have a significantly stronger basis once people are actually playing on the other side of the paywall. And we wouldn't have to wait for Smash to come out to be heard either - you can bet the Splatoon and Fortnite communities are going to raise the most pitchforks if the extra fee they have to pay to play doesn't turn out to be worthwhile.

Honestly, though, you're paying for any sort of internet you're getting at home anyway, or else your parents/guardians are.

 

[DeadlyLampshade]

Is anyone here actually excited to have to pay for online? I would rather pay nothing for it.

But not only is it a cheaper model than online models, since we're paying money for it, we have the right to expect a quality online service from Nintendo at least in terms of multiplayer.

 

[PeridotGX]

Is anyone here actually excited to have to pay for online? I would rather pay nothing for it.

Yeah, I don't want to pay for Online, but I'll do what I must to continue playing games like Mario Kart, Splatoon, and Rocket League.

 

[SpiralGalaxies]

I don't think anyone really wants to pay for online. Especially if people are used to free online on past consoles. I think the relative lack of anger about the online is mainly because 20$ a year isn't actually that much money. Compared to other online services which require monthly or bi-monthly subscriptions and things that adds up to more than 20$ over time. As is common with MMO's and things I believe. 20$ for a whole year of online service is actually pretty cheap.

 

[soviet prince]

I am excited if it means better internet and special features for subscribers

 

[staindgrey]

The overall lack of knowledge in this thread of how revenue and fund distribution works is really killing the argument against Nintendo charging for online play.

The reality is that we, as consumers, can't expect things for free. I mean, sure, you can, I guess, but an adult living in the real world knows that things cost money. This very site staying up and running with all of its features is a direct result of ad revenue and premium subscribers. Do I enjoy paying a yearly fee? Not necessarily, but it helps keep the site I like in business, therefore I pay.

Nintendo's online functionality, from its first party games' servers to their friends and lobby systems are years behind their competition, and it's not a coincidence that their competition makes users pay for their services. It's not a coincidence that PSN also used to suck, with no party chat, cloud saves or even online backups of your trophies (not to mention their huge data breach and multiple-day-long outages) until they started charging for PS+. There are limits to what a company can do for free, and Nintendo's out-of-date online functionality for the Wii and Wii U were a direct result of those limits.

Anyone, as a consumer, has every right to say that he/she doesn't like the idea of paying for playing online. That's their right, and they can protest with their wallets by not paying for it. But saying something like "Nintendo has enough money, they should just give us upgrades for free" is a baseless argument that sounds like something an elementary schooler would say. Nintendo's offering you a service. It's up to you to decide if it is or isn't worth the price their asking. No one's holding a gun to your head and forcing you to shell out twenty dollars a year to play your $60 game on your $300 console.

 

[**Gilgamesh**]

I always hate paying for something that requires me to use MY INTERNET in which I am already paying FOR. PlayStation and Xbox should have gotten massive backlash considering not everyone is a hardcore online person. The only game where I use my PS4 online is Fortnite. It just makes people who don't typically play online often even less likely to play. It also hurts the Free 2 play model due to the fact you are hard-locked out of a freemium game if it requires online and you do not have it. The costs also starts to become ridiculous when you factor people who have both Xbox and PS4 and now a Switch. Having to pay separate fees to just access online is highway robbery. Only reason why I'm not that mad is because it's not a ludicrous cost like 60$ like Sony. This is just another reason why people are switching over to PC since it's literally FREE there. These fees are a huge annoyance to casual gamers who play online every now and then. Combine it with the fact that games such as Fortnite LITERALLY have their own servers separate of Sony/Nintendo/Microsoft etc. Now Imagine if every third party company started adopting the model of having people pay to use their servers (better quality right?) since their servers are entirely independent of Sony/Microsoft/Nintendos.

The main problem people have is that we're already paying to even have online to begin with and now we're paying to ACTUALLY use the online that we're paying for already. Another problem is that not everyone uses online frequently. It feels similar to double taxation. The only thing people is assuming in this thread is that Nintendo will better improve their services when they have never stated they will (your just hoping that your money is actually going to something that will benefit you). Why better improve quality when Sony and Microsoft makes a killing off of online fees. I never even play the free games Sony gives out with the service because I don't even have time, not to mention interested in what they give out (see the correlation between casual gamers and the absurdity of online fees). You also do not get to keep the free games; they expire the minute you don't renew your service. It's pretty much just there so console players would shut up about the fees which unfortunately worked.

What should have happened was that people majorly pushed back like when Microsoft initially unveiled the Xbox 1 with all the clear blatant cash grab hard locks/ restrictions.

The reason people and you are paying for internet/ Wi-Fi is to guess what? Access online. The disconnect happens very quickly once you realize that your internet actually doesn't allow you to access online and then look at PC gaming. The only reason why your paying for online is because Microsoft and Sony has a monopoly on the console Market. Now that Nintendo is going on board with fees, there's nothing for you to do unless a massive and coherent strike happened. That what happens when monopolies are formed and when companies can band together when they both get profit from it.

tl;dr

The actual reason that everyone missed in this thread is that some companies tried doing exactly what the console companies did to PC and it has always laughably failed.
PC has much more competition ( larger market and no monopolies) and when Microsoft tried forcing PC players to pay; the plan pretty much backfired badly and scared everyone else from even trying online fees. PC players are much more quick to give harsh backlash when companies tries to do stupid ****. Console players have no large or open market and thus can be subjected to fees that are unnecessary (companies either pocketing the money or shoving the costs of maintaining the game to the consumers ;typical 101 capitalism) where else to go besides PC.

 

[Crazy Hand 2001]

The overall lack of knowledge in this thread of how revenue and fund distribution works is really killing the argument against Nintendo charging for online play.

The reality is that we, as consumers, can't expect things for free. I mean, sure, you can, I guess, but an adult living in the real world knows that things cost money. This very site staying up and running with all of its features is a direct result of ad revenue and premium subscribers. Do I enjoy paying a yearly fee? Not necessarily, but it helps keep the site I like in business, therefore I pay.

Nintendo's online functionality, from its first party games' servers to their friends and lobby systems are years behind their competition, and it's not a coincidence that their competition makes users pay for their services. It's not a coincidence that PSN also used to suck, with no party chat, cloud saves or even online backups of your trophies (not to mention their huge data breach and multiple-day-long outages) until they started charging for PS+. There are limits to what a company can do for free, and Nintendo's out-of-date online functionality for the Wii and Wii U were a direct result of those limits.

Anyone, as a consumer, has every right to say that he/she doesn't like the idea of paying for playing online. That's their right, and they can protest with their wallets by not paying for it. But saying something like "Nintendo has enough money, they should just give us upgrades for free" is a baseless argument that sounds like something an elementary schooler would say. Nintendo's offering you a service. It's up to you to decide if it is or isn't worth the price their asking. No one's holding a gun to your head and forcing you to shell out twenty dollars a year to play your $60 game on your $300 console.

Given that the online play only uses peer to peer connections, the only thing actually paying for is the matchmaking servers. So Nintendo is effectively providing nothing and making you pay for nothing.

that don't make sense, I read this exact comparision on gamefaq and it was wrong then and it's wrong now. There charging 20 dollars to use there stuff not making you pay to use something that you already own

Ironic, because online uses peer to peer so all Nintendo is doing is blocking you from playing online unless you pay them for something you already own. Nintendo doesn't own the peer to peer servers

 

[**Gilgamesh**]

"Because Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo have strict monopolies on what operating systems run on their gaming platform and can force all connections to go through their server using hardcoded routing definitions.

a computer can connect to any server it wants to. a computer can even connect to Sony servers which is how PSN goes down frequently to DDoS attacks. Your computer can just straight up BE the server which is more commonly known as the dedicated server." -AlphaWelp

Consoles are set up not to allow any of this because it opens up more monetization options for the monopoly." Just another reason besides the PC open market as to why console does this.

 

[staindgrey]

I always hate paying for something that requires me to use MY INTERNET in which I am already paying FOR.

*snip*

You made some valid points in the whole post, but I'm curious about the one you opened with.

You know that paying for your personal internet connection has absolutely nothing to do with the costs for what other companies provide via the internet, right? By this same argument, you shouldn't have to pay for, say, Netflix. Or, even going a step further, you pay for your electric bill, so why should you pay for a Switch at all?

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Basic economics has always stated: if people are paying for it, it’s not overpriced. Maybe it’s too expensive for some people, but Nintendo will react to people paying or not. If enough people don’t pay Nintendo’s online fee, they’ll lower it. But I wouldn’t hold your breath - Nintendo’s charging a third of what the other consoles are.

I know I never play online, so I’m not going to. Why pay for something I’m not going to use? But that was an issue with Sm4sh: there was not much to do without playing competitively and/or online, so that was a waste of $60 for me. Hopefully this one will be better in that department.

 

[aarchak]

I always hate paying for something that requires me to use MY INTERNET in which I am already paying FOR. PlayStation and Xbox should have gotten massive backlash considering not everyone is a hardcore online person. The only game where I use my PS4 online is Fortnite. It just makes people who don't typically play online often even less likely to play. It also hurts the Free 2 play model due to the fact you are hard-locked out of a freemium game if it requires online and you do not have it. The costs also starts to become ridiculous when you factor people who have both Xbox and PS4 and now a Switch. Having to pay separate fees to just access online is highway robbery. Only reason why I'm not that mad is because it's not a ludicrous cost like 60$ like Sony. This is just another reason why people are switching over to PC since it's literally FREE there. These fees are a huge annoyance to casual gamers who play online every now and then. Combine it with the fact that games such as Fortnite LITERALLY have their own servers separate of Sony/Nintendo/Microsoft etc. Now Imagine if every third party company started adopting the model of having people pay to use their servers (better quality right?) since their servers are entirely independent of Sony/Microsoft/Nintendos.

The main problem people have is that we're already paying to even have online to begin with and now we're paying to ACTUALLY use the online that we're paying for already. Another problem is that not everyone uses online frequently. It feels similar to double taxation. The only thing people is assuming in this thread is that Nintendo will better improve their services when they have never stated they will (your just hoping that your money is actually going to something that will benefit you). Why better improve quality when Sony and Microsoft makes a killing off of online fees. I never even play the free games Sony gives out with the service because I don't even have time, not to mention interested in what they give out (see the correlation between casual gamers and the absurdity of online fees). You also do not get to keep the free games; they expire the minute you don't renew your service. It's pretty much just there so console players would shut up about the fees which unfortunately worked.

What should have happened was that people majorly pushed back like when Microsoft initially unveiled the Xbox 1 with all the clear blatant cash grab hard locks/ restrictions.

The reason people and you are paying for internet/ Wi-Fi is to guess what? Access online. The disconnect happens very quickly once you realize that your internet actually doesn't allow you to access online and then look at PC gaming. The only reason why your paying for online is because Microsoft and Sony has a monopoly on the console Market. Now that Nintendo is going on board with fees, there's nothing for you to do unless a massive and coherent strike happened. That what happens when monopolies are formed and when companies can band together when they both get profit from it.

tl;dr

The actual reason that everyone missed in this thread is that some companies tried doing exactly what the console companies did to PC and it has always laughably failed.
PC has much more competition ( larger market and no monopolies) and when Microsoft tried forcing PC players to pay; the plan pretty much backfired badly and scared everyone else from even trying online fees. PC players are much more quick to give harsh backlash when companies tries to do stupid ****. Console players have no large or open market and thus can be subjected to fees that are unnecessary (companies either pocketing the money or shoving the costs of maintaining the game to the consumers ;typical 101 capitalism) where else to go besides PC.

You make many valid points there, but in the end, it's their service and they decide how it's used, don't buy it if you don't like it, that's how the system works. Yes, they are asking you to pay to play games you already own, but they offer the online, they decide what to do with it. I'm not the happiest with their service, but I'll pay because they aren't asking ridiculous amounts of money and I do see myself using their service. Besides, they don't just offer online play, they are also offering cloud save backups and a couple other things, so it isn't just taking your money.

 

[MrRoidley]

Because it's the way the console makers are doing it now, unfortunately. Nintendo actually stayed with free online for quite long
With that said, I'm not paying until it is proven the connection is good, or if they actually beef up their classic games library. Both are worse than the Wii U.

The "connection error" from Splatoon 2 became a meme for a reason. It happens quite frequently with MK8DX and Mario Tennis. (And guess what, on Wii U both Splatoon and MK8 were buttery smooth to me with little connection drops)

 

[Jamison]

Historically speaking when Xbox live cost money and playstation network was still free XBL was significantly better in many aspects. *cough cough didn't constantly get hacked cough cough.* It's obviously a money grabbing move plain and simple. It might help make some games online experiences better as a result. I mean if you gave me the option to play sm4sh online with dedicated servers instead of their awful peer-to-peer netcode I'd have taken it in a heart beat. It doesn't speak well for the online aspect of a game when most smasher believe melee emulated netplay is of superior quality to smash wii u online (I'm talking ping, frame drops, etc.).
Some people will say well Nintendo's online is cheaper or that PSN and XBL have paid online so we're lucky Nintendo took so long to follow suit. I don't buy into that nonsense. I'm not saying I'm not grateful Nintendo's online was free for so long or that it's price compared to other consoles is cheaper. But, they have enough money. They could make the online better if they wanted to allocate the resources to do so. Most of their consoles (including current gen switch) and handhelds have brought them a ton of money. They could make a better online and keep it free. But speaking frankly, I don't expect online quality to be a focus with a company that time and time again won't even put an ethernet port on their consoles. But hopefully it will create more games with dedicated servers and better online gameplayer overall.

 

[Banjo-Kazooie]

Truth is, we still don't know how much will paid online affect Nintendo services. They have said so little besides free Super Mario Bros. 3.
Some are willing to try it, some are scarred coming from the other companies.

 

[soviet prince]

Historically speaking when Xbox live cost money and playstation network was still free XBL was significantly better in many aspects. *cough cough didn't constantly get hacked cough cough.* It's obviously a money grabbing move plain and simple. It might help make some games online experiences better as a result. I mean if you gave me the option to play sm4sh online with dedicated servers instead of their awful peer-to-peer netcode I'd have taken it in a heart beat. It doesn't speak well for the online aspect of a game when most smasher believe melee emulated netplay is of superior quality to smash wii u online (I'm talking ping, frame drops, etc.).
Some people will say well Nintendo's online is cheaper or that PSN and XBL have paid online so we're lucky Nintendo took so long to follow suit. I don't buy into that nonsense. I'm not saying I'm not grateful Nintendo's online was free for so long or that it's price compared to other consoles is cheaper. But, they have enough money. They could make the online better if they wanted to allocate the resources to do so. Most of their consoles (including current gen switch) and handhelds have brought them a ton of money. They could make a better online and keep it free. But speaking frankly, I don't expect online quality to be a focus with a company that time and time again won't even put an ethernet port on their consoles. But hopefully it will create more games with dedicated servers and better online gameplayer overall.

just because they have a lot of money don't mean they should hand out services for free. Also when you buy the game your paying for the content in the game the online service is separate.

I don't like an extra bill but I also don't expect everything handed to me, there a buisness and there in it to make money which all buisness are in it for.( otherwise it a charity)

 

[Izanagi97]

I just want to know if there will be new info on this at the next direct

 

[thespoiler]

The online isn’t going to be faster. Nintendo games are peer to peer and that’s not going to change. The problem I have with this new service is it’s basically the same as what we get now, plus some 30 year old roms lazily tacked on. The online experience, which will still be worse than what the 360 and PS3 offered, isn’t worth the 20 bucks UNLESS they let us know what is down the pipeline. Maybe some voice chat lobbies and other basic functions of last gen would be a good start. What frustrates people is the lack of communication of what to expect. I’m considering finding someone with a family plan and paying them 5 bucks, because I’m voting with my wallet and paying for sub-PS3 level online services is anti consumer.

 

[Deleted member]

It's going to be crap and we are all going to eat it up. I will be doing it out of social obligation of being able to play with my friends (the alternative would be to buy a plane ticket, the more luxurious but expensive option), and too many will be doing it because it's "normal" now.

To educate you on what Peer to Peer means, it means that your console creates a temporary server by itself to communicate directly with another or more systems within the same game. This means that if either of you have connection problems, both will have an issue with it.

That, combined with the fact that it takes pretty much no management from Nintendo, and that they so far have done nothing to showcase the "free demo" aspect of their online service so far, gives a pretty heavy indication that we'll be seeing more of the same, bad online peer to peer + a hacking playground on games like Splatoon.

Not enough people will start their pitchforks on Nintendo on that because, let's face it, they're a pretty dang popular company about now.

Bless the world if I'll be wrong on this though. If we get a proper connectivity between people from midSep, and the extra features will be worth a damn, I will be the first to praise it. But I simply do not expect it.

 

[Izanagi97]

It's going to be crap and we are all going to eat it up. I will be doing it out of social obligation of being able to play with my friends (the alternative would be to buy a plane ticket, the more luxurious but expensive option), and too many will be doing it because it's "normal" now.

To educate you on what Peer to Peer means, it means that your console creates a temporary server by itself to communicate directly with another or more systems within the same game. This means that if either of you have connection problems, both will have an issue with it.

That, combined with the fact that it takes pretty much no management from Nintendo, and that they so far have done nothing to showcase the "free demo" aspect of their online service so far, gives a pretty heavy indication that we'll be seeing more of the same, bad online peer to peer + a hacking playground on games like Splatoon.

Not enough people will start their pitchforks on Nintendo on that because, let's face it, they're a pretty dang popular company about now.

Bless the world if I'll be wrong on this though. If we get a proper connectivity between people from midSep, and the extra features will be worth a damn, I will be the first to praise it. But I simply do not expect it.

I have a feeling the P2P stuff is only because it works well enough in Japan (I think)

 

[Jamison]

just because they have a lot of money don't mean they should hand out services for free. Also when you buy the game your paying for the content in the game the online service is separate.

Respectfully hard disagree. When a game markets online play as a selling point you expect online play when you drop $60 or more for a game. It's not like the game comes out then half a year later they add in online as DLC. When Xbox Live was around you could save game data and migrate your profile to another console. So you could keep your game stats, unlockables, etc if you played on your friend's Xbox or if your Xbox broke and you had to get a new one. Considering you could do that with a silver (FREE) XBL account over a decade ago and the Wii U had no such features, if your console broke you were just screwed I'm not very optimistic about Nintendo online.

You can't take something that was part of what you paid for and separate into two separate charges and expect everyone to be perfectly fine with it. Netflix used to charge one rate where you would get DVD's and stream media. Then they split it into two separate charges. Wasn't like both charges weren't still going to Netflix. Nintendo licensed games charging you to play on a Nintendo console is greed, pure and simple. Since the other consoles are already doing it, it's honestly not surprising at all. Don't fool yourself into believing you're actually paying for any real additional benefits. It's like a bakery all of a sudden charging you separately for the cake and the frosting but they throw in 1 cookie with the purchase of frosting.

 

[soviet prince]

the online does not come with what you bought just the ability to connect to there service

 

[Mgl]

Look at the bright side, now that were paying for it it should be better quality

 

[Crazy Hand 2001]

Look at the bright side, now that were paying for it it should be better quality

They will totally improve the online right?

 

[Mgl]

They will totally improve the online right?

Hopefully

 

[Sprintle]

Look at the bright side, now that were paying for it it should be better quality

Nintendo's online service needs many more features before I consider it to be worth a monthly fee. As of now, it's pretty barebones. I actually think the connectivity itself, at least in my experiences, is pretty decent. Other than a few disconnects here and there, playing online on the Switch is a pretty smooth experience.

As is, I'm going to grit my teeth and pay the $20/year because I want to play the new Smash online as well as other games. But Nintendo seriously needs to consider beefing up their service to the level of PSN/Xbox Live.

 

[Sean Wheeler]

I didn't have that much lag on Smash Wii U, so seeing any lag on the Switch would not be an improvement.

 

[soviet prince]

Nintendo's online service needs many more features before I consider it to be worth a monthly fee. As of now, it's pretty barebones. I actually think the connectivity itself, at least in my experiences, is pretty decent. Other than a few disconnects here and there, playing online on the Switch is a pretty smooth experience.

As is, I'm going to grit my teeth and pay the $20/year because I want to play the new Smash online as well as other games. But Nintendo seriously needs to consider beefing up their service to the level of PSN/Xbox Live.

in nintendo defense sony and microsoft may include lot of extra content but it is also 30 dollars higher

 

[scoobymcsnack]

Its not really that people are into paying for online, no one is going "Oh boy I sure am excited to spend my money on stuff". People are okay/happy with it because it means the online services should be better. Not only that, but $20 a year isn't really that big of a deal. Plus they have perks, so you're not just paying for online play. You're paying for 20 different NES games with new games being added, all updated with online play. You also get special offers and deals. This can all be found on their official website.

 

[soviet prince]

Its not really that people are into paying for online, no one is going "Oh boy I sure am excited to spend my money on stuff". People are okay/happy with it because it means the online services should be better. Not only that, but $20 a year isn't really that big of a deal. Plus they have perks, so you're not just paying for online play. You're paying for 20 different NES games with new games being added, all updated with online play. You also get special offers and deals. This can all be found on their official website.

right on the dot, 20 is very affortable and if the service does not approve after it starts then you got the right to complain.

 

[**Gilgamesh**]

The service isn't going to improve if Nintendo doesn't have dedicated servers. Peer to peer will still have you being just as laggy as before due to your console being linked to whoever your playing. If your net is bad; it will lag the match of the other person. If your opponent has bad net; the game will still lag. Nintendo only provides matchmaking. Until Nintendo states there games will no longer use peer 2 peer; expect the same quality of online play.

I will personally just play Fortnite on my PS4 then on my Switch since I already dished out 60 bucks for it. I will wait for Smash Ultimate for me to buy their service.

 

[Lyndis_]

Because people are fine with anti-consumerism as long as it becomes the norm and gives them the illusion of a better service. Oh and the "it's cheap so it's okay!" yeah, it's cheap so you'll say exactly that. It not being that bad is not a benefit.

Xbox and Playstation have had no reason to make you pay for online for years, and anything they claim to offer you is done the same by Steam. Anyone saying otherwise is ill informed, and likely has some bias towards the company.

Anyone expecting the servers to get a huge improvement because of this are in for disappointment. Nintendo likely does not even run the servers for any non first party games. This is absolutely not for necessity.

Cloud saves are also not a benefit. They're the only form of save backups on this system, and they're pay walled. On the most fragile home console ever. Almost every single console since the Gamecube, and every Nintendo console, has had some form of free save backups. This is including Xbox One and PS4.

Anyone that goes "servers aren't cheap" must have forgotten the fact that these games we're going to have to pay to play online for are already going for $60. It's not like these are free to play games or MMOs on a subscription. These are AAA games that should cover the cost of the servers for that game.

 

[EpicElliot]

I feel like paying for online is useless since you can't even talk to people with out a phone app (witch I don't have a phone that can do that) with sony & M$ having party chat for what well over 10 years now & Nintendo still don't ! & now have the nerve to charge for online ? I don't care how cheap there online I wana talk to friends ! sence wii to now switch I have play with friend on Nintendo games online line like 20 times B/C it was to hard to communicate yet I have played with friends famly & randomes WAY more times on soney & M$ thousands of times by now ! Nintendo NEEDS to get with the times I'm a HUGE Nintendo fan yet for years I have play with friends on competitor consoles more then Nintendo themselves B/C of Nintendo's stupidity all I want is simple easy to acsess party chat like ps4 see if your friend is on & invite them to chat & see what games you wana play EASY but not for Nintendo

 

[Crazy Hand 2001]

right on the dot, 20 is very affortable and if the service does not improve after it starts then you got the right to complain.

You think paid online will improve?