Nintendo Direct Topic

[The Shoemaker]

Lots of Final Fantasy coming to switch. Maybe I'll give FF X another try after not caring for it the first time!

Get XII instead. It feels more open, and the battle system isn't traditional so it won't feel as "old" to you.

I'm definitely leaning more towards XII of all the games. I've also already played XII-2 so I have some connection to the characters.

[Kong Wen]

Lots of Final Fantasy coming to switch. Maybe I'll give FF X another try after not caring for it the first time!

Get XII instead. It feels more open, and the battle system isn't traditional so it won't feel as "old" to you.

I'm definitely leaning more towards XII of all the games. I've also already played XII-2 so I have some connection to the characters.

... there isn't a XII-2. Unless you mean Revenant Wings on DS?

[The Shoemaker]

Get XII instead. It feels more open, and the battle system isn't traditional so it won't feel as "old" to you.

I'm definitely leaning more towards XII of all the games. I've also already played XII-2 so I have some connection to the characters.

... there isn't a XII-2. Unless you mean Revenant Wings on DS?

Yes that one. Just realizing now as a kid I used to call it "X two" because I didn't know how to read Roman numerals, and conflated that into now thinking the game was titled XII-2

[Jordan]

I think this Direct was a literal disaster. It was supposed to be the Direct where they unveiled the online service. That service is a flop. The English trailer sits at roughly 6.4 likes and 21k dislikes at the moment. Nintendo is offering basically nothing other than the ability to play games online. The other features they suggest are riddled with problems. Apparently they are going to outright delete cloud save data if you don't pay. They don't just prevent you from accessing it for non-payment. They outright delete it. NES games can't be accessed if you don't go online for a week as well, for some reason. Yet even without these flaws, the services suggested are so trivial that they are not worth $20.00 per year. I don't even think they have dedicated servers, meaning that the online experience after paying $20.00 is exactly the same as it was before you paid anything. This is a greedy money grab by Nintendo which probably is not going over as well as they expected. They are probably going to need to do some immediate patches and do some PR damage control.

Nintendo's online service at the moment is a scam and pretty much ruined the rest of the Direct. I can't care about any of these upcoming games because I don't even think I want to play the Switch anymore until they fix this somehow. Either give up on the idea of making people pay for online or offer something legitimate to make the $20.00/year worthwhile. Given the cheaper cost of service, Nintendo had a very low bar in order to compete with Sony and Microsoft. They somehow bungled everything anyways. They retroactively killed my desire to play several of the games I already have, such as Monster Hunter Generations Ultimate, and any games they may release in the future with any kind of online.

[The Shoemaker]

Online info didn't kill the direct for me, as it was exactly what we thought it was. Disappointing, but not shocking. Luigi's mansion and Animal Crossing were way bigger announcements than I was expecting.

I honestly don't think they think the online service is a good value, or that it's something people would react positively to. It has had nothing but negative press since they've talked about it. I think they are just going to see how it does at this point.

The service is majorly disappointing, but to be honest I'd pay $20 a year for just the NES games, and somehow it would seem like a better value if that's all the service was. Though I wouldn't pay for multiple years unless more consoles were added to the service.

I'll be getting a family plan, it'll be about $10 a year for me.

[Kong Wen]

I would have considered paying $20/year just for the NES games, but I won't log in at least once a week, so I've decided I won't even subscribe at all. $0/year it is.

[The Shoemaker]

I would have considered paying $20/year just for the NES games, but I won't log in at least once a week, so I've decided I won't even subscribe at all. $0/year it is.

Do you usually keep your switch in airplane mode?

[Kong Wen]

I would have considered paying $20/year just for the NES games, but I won't log in at least once a week, so I've decided I won't even subscribe at all. $0/year it is.

Do you usually keep your switch in airplane mode?

No.

[The Shoemaker]

I would have considered paying $20/year just for the NES games, but I won't log in at least once a week, so I've decided I won't even subscribe at all. $0/year it is.

Do you usually keep your switch in airplane mode?

No.

So then wouldn't you be fine for the NES games since all you need to do is be connected to the internet? From my understand standing it's a passive process, not an active one.

[Kong Wen]

Do you usually keep your switch in airplane mode?

No.

So then wouldn't you be fine for the NES games since all you need to do is be connected to the internet? From my understand standing it's a passive process, not an active one.

If it's passive enough to keep me logged in even when my console is hard-powered off for more than a week at a time, then yes.

EDIT: The bottom line is I'm not going to change my gaming routine/behaviour to add some housekeeping busywork just to maintain some kind of online switch for their online service. Nintendo clearly haven't figured out how to make accounts work yet.