What kind of self respecting online service can go this long without a basic messaging system. Even more egregious is that Wii, 3DS & Wii U had free online yet they still had some online features that Switch with its paid online does not
Its $20 dude stop complaining. I mean even though the service sucks and is underdeveloped but its $20 so stop complaining. Just give Nintendo your money.
@@MastarCheef1337 even if its 20 nobody wants to pay to play online why should we have to when it was free on the other consoles I hate that they basically copied xbox and playstation I hate that we have to pay at all on any system to play online playing online should be free
a Splatoon 2 Twitch streamer I'm following has an emote that reads "$20 a year" in attractive bubble letters, which his subscribers spam in his chat every time someone disconnects from a match he's in
Thanks for introducing me to this streamer. I was going to buy this game but now i know i need online and its peer-to-peer I’m not going to bother. My internet isnt stable enough for this i already know. I’m going to watch this streamer to fill the void
I actually like when you do more critical videos, it shows that you're not just shilling for them and that you're comfortable saying "Hey, I don't care how much I love you, this isn't cool" and I can get behind that.
@@Deuteriumaddict I'm not exclusively speaking about the Nintendo service but the console itself and the games, the prices for the games are sometimes ridiculously high, because Nintendo knows that we will buy them anyway :(
Recently Nintendo screwed me over by factory resetting my Switch when I sent it in for a minor repair. I lost all my massive data for Splatoon 2 and Pokemon Let's go. They even told me on the phone that they wouldn't have to factory reset it
@@segunthepikachufan1470 Or if it was kept on a low firmware patched, though I highly doubt it since they mentioned playing Splatoon 2 Personally I'm gonna buy a red box Switch and hope for the exploit to work out. If you get one on 8.0.0 (I think), or a Lite on that firmware, they're expected to be hackable, but if not, I'll just transfer my stuff over and hack my launch Switch
@@redwidow1358 Atmosphere works with any Switch version though so it doesn't really matter as long as you have the exploit from pre summer 2018 Switch is
Same, it's not even negative, really, this and the Pokemon national dex video were fair and we'll thought out, Arlo points out where he could be wrong or where his info might be lacking which I appreciate
That's a great description of Nintendo. Nintendo the developer: Great! Fantastic! Hard to fault...! Except when they make really strange game choices. Nintendo the publisher: Is it just me, or are they some weird hybrid of all the notably bad points from other publishers combined? (Though nowhere near as evil, just... stupid.)
@@greatsageclok-roo9013 Even when they make strange game choices, like five years down the road it ends up being like... ahead of it's time and regarded as some underappreciated classic. Honestly, it almost feels like sometimes Nintendo should just get out of the hardware game and focus exclusively on software. Like they clearly don't know how to properly set up servers, their actual console quality gets cheaper and cheaper every gen, and they seem to be totally unwilling to reach outside of their bubble to get the companies or people who could help them successfully launch things that are industry standard now for gaming. Like I feel that if Nintendo launched on other platforms this gen- Xbox, PS4, PC -they would basically be considered the god company completely smashing other games in this live service world out of the water. Like don't get me wrong, the Switch seems like a neat machine (when they work) but I feel like the only reason they're on par with other platforms is the strength of their games, and their actual game sales are probably bottlenecked by the fact that you can only buy and play them on one platform. But then again, I guess if they did start releasing games on other platforms- especially PC -they couldn't sell us Super Mario Bros. fifty more times, so what do I know?
I think the biggest problem Nintendo has is that they feel their name is so exclusive and predominant, that they need do anything and people will buy them regardless. That might have been true in Nintendo's "golden age" (NES to Wii) but they have massively failed to realize they have competition! They have to compete for that money with many providers like Sony, Microsoft, EA with Origin, Steam and now possibly Stadia. With all these services, the pie is smaller and Nintendo just seems blind that it is no longer the #1 gaming platform. That and it's headhunting stand on RU-vid and piracy and it's near paranoia levels of intellectual property protection are making many gamers seek other platforms. As for its networking, even Microsoft has offered it's expertise to help and Nintendo in its arrogance continues to decline citing "we will just milk out casual gamer base and our ip's will sell the system. NO Nintendo!! It's more than hardware, more than netcode it's VALUE for the money and if you continue on this path, you will find your share of the pie shrink smaller and smaller where no matter what gimmick you cook up, gamers won't buy into it. (Think Labo, Cardboard VR, and no browser, Netflix, or Virtual Console on Switch). You have the ball Nintendo, don't drop it out of some foolish pride.
@@greatsageclok-roo9013 Oh I agree totally. Stadia is to Google as the Wii U was to Nintendo, overpriced, both lacked solid support game wise, full of gimmicks, and fail to convey a sense of value to the gamer. But both are also now trying to create markets on their name alone. The Switch is a very good platform for portable gaming and for those who value this over raw performance. But you cannot continue to fail to give basic features that gamers want like a browser, movie apps, and servers for online. And while Stadia is a train wreck, the concept is solid and if they can deliver what they promise, it can potentially put a huge dent in Nintendo providing they don't continue the Google tradition of simply dumping a concept they spent a billion or more on. Nintendo needs to get the bonsai out of its CEO's ass and stop thinking being weird will save them.
I think these games’ online “improving with time” is just the people with bad connections stop playing over time. I don’t think Nintendo has done anything since launch
Faggen Abler Maybe that’s been the source of the lag the whole time. My online is pretty consistent. Most issues indeed result from issues on the end of other players.
Yeah, that'd describe what happened to me. For some reason, Nintendo systems in particular don't agree with my internet, so most games have frequent lag unless I'm playing right next to my router, so after a while I just stopped playing online.
No, they haven't done anything, and yes people have either gotten better wifi or stopped playing. Nintendo uses Peer-to-peer at the moment, so I don't even know how they could improve it on their end (maybe the net code, but that's only part of the problem)
Oh Nintendo has seen what the fans have said, but they are rapidly becoming "too big to fail" and they don't think they can lose. They can and will if they don't listen and stop this "we know better than the gamers" mentality that all of the AAA companies believe.
Too late for that. The Switch is already selling like hot cakes and people keep lining up to buy more sequels and regurgitated nostalgia franchises. Pokémon SwSh sold big despite bringing absolutely nothing to the table. Nintendo has no reason or incentive to make improvements. Now eat your slop and buy the new half-assed sequel coming down the pipe.
The reason why no body talked about that is because I believe it was reported to be a miscommunication between NOA and NOJ. But yeah kinda messed up still lol
Honestly I’m starting to think this had something to do with Reggie’s retirement. “Wait, we’re not giving them dedicated servers? ...Ight I’mma head out”
*Last year's thumbnail:* Arlo looks at his switch *This year's thumbnail:* Arlo looks at the camera, with the switch *Next year's thumbnail:* Arlo looks at god, with the switch
if you reference splatoon, i think splatoon runs great online and voice chat kinda works if you play with friends (with others I'm glad i have no voice chat). For me they messed up Mario Maker 2 and Smash bros... those i don't want to play online because it just lags so heavily
Jo Gr Ah, yes. I'm glad there is no voice chat with strangers. God forbid I toggle the option off in settings while others decide for themselves. And it kinda works with friends, even though "kinda" for a paid service is less than acceptable.
Yaeven I like having an even playing field without voice chat in ranked. Not sure why they don’t just let us use the native vc in league and private battles though.
@@mike_tw3876 Yes it would, fighting games are good with peer to peer typically but once you get more than 2 people that is when you need servers. Also, the netcode is the main issue with Smash.
I just keep saying "You're PAYING for this." Goodness, someone gifted me a family membership, but even with that, I'm not using their online feature much. Because the frustration just sin't worth it. As a point that no matter how cheap this is. 20 dollar is still 20 dollar. And trash is still trash. Every, single, penny, you subscribe to, stacks. And people keep forgetting that tiny fact.
a lot of games rely on online play, especially games like splatoon 2, mario maker 2, etc so it's not like players of those games really have a choice if they want to enjoy those games.
And they ignore the fact it is a lousy attempt. While valve, GOG, Microsoft and Sony gave Nintendo the recipe or the manual. It's just like a manual for a chemistry experiment in highschool. You have the tools, the chemicals and the formulas to do the experiment and calculate the results and validate them. After that you write down the conclusion.
"Not as bad as Wii U." I most decidedly disagree with that statement. Previous generations of Smash allowed you to see that a friend was playing an online game with an open spot and join them. Ultimate does not allow this, friend matches are segregated into their own exclusive mode (with no ability to invite), so you can't join a friend who just happens to be playing a random online game with a slot open. The inability to connect with people on my Friends list is what kills the service for me. In that sense, Switch Online is worse than THE VERY FIRST ONLINE GAME NINTENDO EVER MADE, TWO GENERATIONS AGO, Mario Kart DS. In MKDS, if you were looking for a match, and a friend was online, that friend would see a little exclamation point in the corner of their screen to let them know that a friend wanted to play. Switch doesn't even do that. I can see, on my Friend list, that a friend is playing Smash, boot up the game myself, go online, set up a friend arena, and sit there alone until the game kicks me for inactivity, because there is no way to know if a friend who is playing the same game at the same time as you would like to play together. For a paid service, that is inexcusable. And that's not even the worst of it. Pokemon, POKEMON, THE EASIEST GAME TO DO ONLINE, HOME OF SOME OF THE MOST ROBUST 3DS ONLINE FUNCTIONS, doesn't even do Friend connections at all. Let's Go has nothing, just random symbols to key in and see what happens. No idea who you will ever connect to, if anyone at all, and no way to search specific Pokemon for trading, either. It is the single worst online setup that I have ever seen in a Nintendo game.
Wii u had free online, better smash online and actually working controllers, dunno why they keep praising switch like its this fucking amazing deal when both of the 90 dollar controllers start drifting after a month in mint condition
@@pandinus1377 thats why i bought a Wii u. So i can play splatoon online without paying AND i can actually play splatoon online for Free and its better then nso
With a peer-to-peer connection, all participants need to have a strong and reliable connection with minimal latency for a good experience. If a single player is located too far away from the rest of the people in the group, there will be noticeable input lag. If one person gets packet loss for one reason or another, the whole group stutters. If you remember the days of Mario Kart DS online, you'll remember how many people used to cheat because of the complete lack of anti-cheat on peer-to-peer. Peer-to-peer is fine for a cheap "isn't this cool?" experience where having multiplayer is better than not having multiplayer, which is the type of thing you see built into emulators, most of which are free. Dedicated servers allow the core of the game to be run on a fast, reliable, and possibly redundant network. If you have a good connection, your experience is great, and if your connection is bad, your experience is not so great, but even so, you won't be ruining the experience for everyone else. In my experience, games that use dedicated servers are still playable even with a less than ideal connection, but if your connection is so bad that the game isn't playable, you don't ruin the game for everyone else involved when you drop. Dedicated servers might be more expensive and time consuming for the hosts, but when you're paying a subscription for the service, I wouldn't expect anything less. I don't understand the argument that peer-to-peer is better, because it simply isn't. It's better than not having multiplayer at all, but that's about it. The only decent argument I've found in favor of peer-to-peer is that theoretically the input delay should be lower, but as explained above, if a single person in a group has a bad connection, the entire group has to cope with that bad connection, causing the input delay to fluctuate game-by-game. I'd rather have a consistent, but slightly higher ping, than a fluctuating ping that might be, but usually isn't, better than on a dedicated server. If your connection to the dedicated server is 70ms stable, and you're always connecting to the same server from the same internet access point when you play (at home, presumably) you get used to that ping and your brain more or less factors it out when playing. However, when you connect peer-to-peer with one person, and get 20ms ping rock steady, and it's almost like playing local multiplayer one game, but then the next game against a different person gives you 150ms ping with lots of packet loss, it's nearly impossible to get used to that fluctuation, making the experience more stressful than fun. Is the rare chance that you'll get a great game with negligible input lag worth all the other games where you're more or less wasting your time struggling with who knows how much input lag and potentially lots of stutters or a random disconnection? I'd rather have a dedicated server, and I don't feel that's unreasonable for a PAID SERVICE. If Switch online was free, maybe I'd feel differently, but given how much money Nintendo makes... probably not... As a PC gamer, I've been holding off on buying a Switch until they fix the problems with their online service. It seems I still won't be buying a Switch for some time.
Just get one for the single player games/modes I played the crap out Mario Cart and never went online I three stared every cup on every difficultly and it took about a week I had a blast then I went to play crash nitro cart and realized I know nothing about cart racing haha so many good games on the switch that aren't multiplayer and plus you have a pic anyway the most superior of all gaming systems
@@gulag_inmate69 I get what you're saying, but I'm not all that into single player games. The primary reason I'd play a single player mode in a game is to practice for when I inevitably feel the urge to play online multiplayer. The Switch's main feature in my mind is the portability, but you know what's even more portable than the Switch? I could get a decent Android smart phone and split controllers, load it up with emulators, and replicate the Switch experience with older games. I could, for example, play Mario Kart Wii through Dolphin on my phone when I'm not at home, then load up CTGP on my real Wii when I get home to play Mario Kart Wii online - the CTGP community is still alive and well. I, personally, prefer MK Wii's feel over MK 8's anyway. Using emulators, I'd get access to more retro games on my phone than you could get on the Switch anyway. The only reason to get a Switch in this situation is to play the new games online, and since the online is really hit or miss on the Switch, I'm honestly better off playing games from over a decade ago online using a mod. I could always soft mod my Switch to brute-force emulators in that way (since there are SO many games that are playable on the Switch that Nintendo doesn't offer yet for some stupid reason), but even a modded Switch probably isn't going to be powerful enough to emulate the Wii, and modding the Switch puts me at risk of bricking the system. Even if I'm successful, it's still possible that Nintendo will ban my Switch from online for being modded, taking away the only thing that makes the Switch better than just using emulators on a phone to play retro versions of the main series Nintendo games, which are generally just as fun as the current versions exclusive to the Switch. If Nintendo had just offered an easy way to access all their classic games, and put the money into making their online service good - especially since they're charging you for a subscription now - more people would be satisfied, and more people would be interested in their console. It makes me sad that the Switch isn't all it could have been, especially since most of the problems are in software, and can be fixed with updates, but until it does, I won't be buying one. I don't believe in buying something that isn't quite great now, and waiting for it to reach proficiency later.
Thing is peer to peer actually can be better in certain cases, specifically fighting games. You'll be hard pressed to find a fighting game that uses dedicated servers. Dragon Ball FighterZ is peer to peer, same with all the Street Fighter games that have online, and these are just a few examples. The reason is because while servers do act as the host, and therefore minimizes bad connection issues, it also creates more links in the connectivity chain that the net code has to keep track of. With peer to peer, you only have to connect to the other player, but on a server, you have to connect to the other player AND the server. This could create more work than what is needed for the connection, and this creates interference, which is awful in a fast paced fighting game. Additionally, it's more expensive than needed, since in fighting games, at most you're connecting 2-4 people for a 5 minute play session. Compare that to games that do rely on servers, like Fortnite, which has to ensure 100 people are connected for a very long game, or Civilization VI where you connect up to 20 people for a game that could last literal hours, or an MMO in which the play session is constant with thousands of people connecting at once. That's what servers are needed for, not a 5 minute game with 2 people. Dedicated servers are not the end all solution to online problems, it's far too complicated to narrow down the problems to one thing. I think the problem with Nintendo, at least to us westerners, is they are still extremely Japan focused, and Japan is not as into online play as people in the west are. They tend to prefer local multiplayer, via split screen or local wireless, since people in Japan live extremely close together compared to us in the west. Have you seen what a Japanese neighborhood looks like? The houses are extremely crammed together. So much so that it's no wonder they prefer local over online. Think about it, why play online, when you can just play with your next door neighbor and friend who's close enough to wirelessly connect to? Westerners are really the only ones asking them for better online, and Nintendo has always operated in a Japan first mindset. This even roots back to the infamous Switch Online app that everyone hates. Everyone except Japan, who actually like the app. Don't ask me why they like it, they just do. The app has crazy good reviews on Japanese app stores. Lol
@@Nosidda You're right in the sense that theoretically peer-to-peer could have lower latency, but as I've previously explained, peer-to-peer requires all players in a game to be in roughly the same area, AND they must have a strong and reliable connection for all users to have the best experience, otherwise there will be input lag and stutters. For a popular fighting game with proper net code that makes sure all players involved are within tolerances (location, no packet loss, etc...), then sure, peer-to-peer is viable, but this clearly isn't the case with Nintendo, with rampant issues. As you pointed out, it probably has to do with Japanese culture and geography, because in Japan, with such a high population density, with everyone being contained within a small island, and with technology being high priority, most players will have a fast connection with minimal distance for the signal to travel. You won't wind up with a common US issue where somebody on the east coast gets matched with somebody in California, causing a ton of latency. It makes sense why Switch online would work so much better in Japan than in the states. I maintain that dedicated servers would still be an improvement overall, because despite the potential latency advantage that peer-to-peer offers, dedicated servers provide a more stable and consistent experience with players from a wider range of distance. I previously mentioned ping examples where with peer-to-peer the ping is highly variable from game to game based on the connection quality and distance of each person in the game, compared to the stable ping you get from connecting to a centrally located dedicated server. It's a lot easier to get used to stable ping compared to fluctuating, even if that fluctuating ping is lower on average. Proper net code could improve the highly fluctuating ping that the current Switch online provides, but it can't fix players that have bad connections, and packet loss from one player will always result in issues for anyone involved. Dedicated servers make it such that the only person that suffers from a bad connection is the person with the bad connection; you won't ruin other people's games because you lagged from packet loss, or lost connection entirely, nor will others ruin your games for the same reasons. Dedicated servers would also enable a wider range of area, and therefore people, you could play with. Servers would have to be somewhat local, which is expensive on Nintendo's part, but if they're not doing this, when why on Earth do they need charge a subscription for Switch online in the first place? This isn't their first rodeo with online gaming, and they never charged money for it before. One of the things I, personally, really like about online games is the possibility of playing with people from around the world. With local dedicated servers, you could choose to play on a server outside of your area, sacrificing some latency, but allowing you to play with people from the other side of, or even another, country. It would be so cool to connect to the Japanese server and play Mario Kart with Japanese players. Such a thing might completely unplayable for all parties involved in peer-to-peer, but with dedicated servers, the only one that's lagging would be me, because I chose to play on a server outside of my region. If I were to put peer-to-peer vs dedicated servers into an analogy, I'd say something like this: Would you rather drive the fastest car on the road? Or would you rather give up 15% of that speed for creature comforts such as air conditioning, heated seats, a killer sound system, smooth suspension, and bluetooth? Sure, in certain circumstances speed would be the most important thing, but the majority of the time I'd rather have the creature comforts. And if I'm paying a subscription either way, I'd DEFINITELY rather have the creature comforts.
@@tacotoad3959 While I understand what you are saying about servers offering more stability, as you yourself pointed out, servers are not as good at limiting latency as peer to peer connections. Why do you think every fighting game under the sun uses peer to peer connections rather than servers? It's due to that advantage of less latency that peer to peer has, since fighting games require extremely precise timing and movement that's extremely action based, a type of gameplay where even a single millisecond of latency can make all the difference. And since you're usually only connecting 2 people, maybe 3 or 4 on occasion for only a few minutes, the lack of potential for things to go wrong is minimal. This is crucial for a game like Smash Bros, because the smallest amount of latency will affect everything, and while servers would make it more stable, it would create more latency than it already has due to it's bad net code. So while I agree that some games Nintendo has would benefit from having servers, not all of them would, with Smash being the biggest example of a game that needs to get peer to peer right. In regards to what you're saying about if one person has a bad connection, than everyone does, if what you're saying about peer to peer is true, than why do other fighting games have no issues with online? Many people are misinformed about Dragon Ball FighterZ and think it uses servers, and people tend to be shocked to find out that it's actually peer to peer, because the online in that game is so good. That game and many others use peer to peer connections with virtually no issues, to the point that people think the games use dedicated servers when they actually aren't. If you craft the net code well, the issues you're bringing up don't happen, mainly because the way peer to peer works is by making one of the two players the primary host for the game, mainly the one with the best connection acts as the host, basically the player with the best connection in a weird way becomes the temporary server for that session. Peer to peer is not the problem, the problem is Nintendo isn't crafting their services correctly. There's a common theory that Nintendo crafts their net code using a type of net code that isn't meant for gaming. I admittedly don't know all the details, but Wolf Den on RU-vid did a great live stream talking about it. Basically my understanding is there are two types of net code, one that is stable, and one that is not stable. For gaming online, you actually want to use the unstable net code, because if any information in the connection is lost, the net code will make up for it on its own and leave that lost information behind to ensure the session keeps going constantly. This allows the session and pace to be constant at the cost of information loss, which isn't good for things like email or websites, but it's well suited for gaming, where it's more important for the session to be constant than try to hold every byte of information. The more stable net code that's most commonly used is not a good option for gaming, since it works to make sure no information is lost during the session, and it does this at the cost of consistency, which is an issue for something fast paced and constant like gaming, because it would cause constant lag and freezes as the connection works to get that information back, and pauses the session temporarily to recover that information. Does that sound familiar at all? Again, I recommend looking up Wolf Dens video, he explains it better than I do. I'll try and link the video if I can. TL;DR The problem isn't peer to peer, the problem is Nintendo themselves. They simply aren't giving enough attention to crafting their net code correctly, likely because they are focussed primarily on Japan first, and Japan isn't as into online gaming as we are for a multitude of reasons. Peer to peer has been proven to work just as well as using a server given the criteria of what the game demands is up to speed, and the net code is crafted properly. Smash is a fighting game, and therefore peer to peer is the best option for it due to it's advantage of having less latency than using a server, but Nintendo needs to handle it properly, and the problem is they AREN'T handling it properly. If using peer to peer is the problem, then why do more than 60% of all the online games everyone plays use peer to peer connections rather than servers, including ones you wouldn't expect, such as Monster Hunter World on PS4 and Xbox One? The answer is peer to peer is not the problem, NINTENDO is the problem.
it being regionlocked would not be as bad if there were no japanese only games. fuck man,i just want to play fire emblem1 on my switch even if it is basicly unplayable for me because i cant read or speak japanese lol. the fucking puyopuyo game is in snes online,so why would i need to spend about 20€ more in japanese currency just to play the one game I am really interessted in?(Iknow the game is not really good,but i am just a fan of the series)
I do love Splatoon and it's one of my top favorite online games though but I would still love to see custom lobbies where I can be creative with my own lobbies. Deciding what stages and game modes should be available, how many players on each team can battle in a match and if only my added Switch friends can join. I can even name a lobby as "I love Hieda no Akyuu" or "Cosmic Monolith Battle". Not to mention that I also want an option for the voice chat where I can interact in public, only with friends or not at all. Maybe that way, I even don't have to hear some horrible geese honking at me. They should pretty much include that option when having easy native voice chat on to the console and controllers.
If cleaning it doesn't work, look up how to ship it to Nintendo. Had the same problem, did the same thing, and they fixed it for free past my warranty.
Nintendo: Can we charge you for online? Fans: To give us dedicated servers and quality online? Nintendo: Yes Nintendo: *does nothing like a boss* D I S C O N N E C T T I M E
It’s amazing how poorly Nintendo treats their customers and they still keep coming back. Idk what kind of witchcraft they have over their fan base it’s truly amazing
-Still haven’t bought it. -Fell behind all my friends in Smash because I only practice offline -Considered it JUST for Super Mario World -...still, out of pride or principle, can not bring myself to pay for garbage
Practicing online only helps with the basics. Beyond that, playing online actually makes you worse, because it gets you accustomed to input lag, as well as rewards bad habits like spamming (there's a reason Link and Richter are extremely common online, but rare in-person). I have online, and I refuse to practice online because it makes me lose my sense of timing and good reaction speed. Your best bet to getting better at Smash is playing in-person with friend(s) one-on-one.
I remember I once heard from another RU-vidr that he was playing Mario Maker 2 and it took the characters half an hour to go down the flag pole after the level ended, it took the game HALF AN HOUR TO *END* THE LEVEL
@@aionicthunder "Hey, it works for me, so clearly my experiences are the same as everyone else's. If yours is different than mine, then you're just wrong."
Can relate I guess it depends on internet speed and types. I have shit wifi but it's actually good enough. However add bad connection and oh God the controllers disconnecting at wrong moments just makes it horrible.
Not gonna lie in my experience in Smash online it almost always great with only minimal lag, but when it DOES get bad it always kicks me off the fight with an error message.
That was because it was exclusive to people who bought launch models of the 3DS before the price dropped and nintendo promised that it would be exculsive to them.
@@therealbite The reason Nintendo didn't offer the games on the Eshop was because they were not satisfied with the quality of how the games played. They weren't being emulated, they were running on the built-in DS mode running exactly how a DS runs GBA games, and as a result lacked stuff like save states, which are available on the Wii U. Personally, I think they should have offered them anyways, but that was their reason.
@Halcyonacoustic That isn't really the thought process, people would obviously be bummed if they just bought a game system $250 and the price went down to like $160, Nintendo for whatever reason decided to give them a gift in the form of exclusive GBA games and free NES games, and while it's nice to know they never went back on their word it does confuse me that they didn't put other GBA games not part of the program up.
Splatoon 2 literally has disconnections in 90% of matches and I say that as someone that used to play it daily and just got sick and tired of losing 3 or even 2 vs 4 matchups because of that crap. Somehow I almost never disconnect from it and never have lag whilst playing. Do not even get me started on Smash. I think the fact its hard to even find a 4 player match tells you everything.
I think the reason why you cant find a 4 player match as most people online like to play competitive rules and not casual play on crap stages and items..
@Simon Stevens Dude, same. Actually I've recently tried (after 3 months of avoiding solo) to play solo with my "competitive" preference: 3 stock, one on one, ect... My first match was a stamina, one on one match with stage hazards. My second match I joined a 4 player match where everyone jumped me... WITH STAGE HAZARDS. I kinda miss For Glory/For Fun...
Splatoon matchups were so bad I stopped playing turf wars altogether. At least in salmon run i could still play with the people who weren't disconnected.
@@JoelGarcia-lu3tw I should be able to play what I find fun and no it sure as shit is not perfect with the dog shit connections people have thanks to P2P with crap net code.
Nintendo just can't into Online. Their online service is subpar and extremely lacking in features. The online store is extremely difficult to navigate for non-new mainstream games. No free big games like on Xbox or PlayStation. And they charge for it. It's not a big price, but it's the principle of the thing.
Every major video game store is awful to use; Xbox One and PS4 run like garbage and hardly work, and Steam doesn't have tabs if you use it in its own browser. Why are all of them so bad?
Yung Falafel but PS+ games are seldom good. Either they are just lackluster or they are old games that everybody has played already. The only good service of this kind is Microsoft’s Game Pass.
I don't mind the $4/month for Online. I used to pay $10/month for Xbox Live Gold. (which I never used) So, I moved that money to a $10/month Microsoft Office 365 subscription.
I've been busy enjoying literally everything else BUT my Switch that, for a while, I forgot it actually exists. The Wii U is actually really nice lmfao.
@@Sapphaura Yes indeed. Nintendo just needed to make better trailers for the console, give it a less confusing name than Wii U, and make more games take actually advantage of the gamepad controller. Bam, a perfect console.
Online has been fine for me for the most part, with Smash being the exception. But my biggest issue (shared with the lag) is how hard it is to play with friends online. I once met a guy in online Smash who was a good player, respectful and we had very little lag in our matches. I added him as a friend, but because I don't know him personally and can't contact him through the Switch itself. It's basically impossible for me to play with him ever again. What's even the point in being able to add people you played with before and notifying me when they're playing if I can't interact with them? And that's just one of so many issues, lag may be tolerable but even free NSO would be a horrible service
_"What more could you want?"_ A lot more RPGs. Earthbound/Mother 2, Chrono Trigger, Final Fantasy 4-6, and Super Mario RPG, plus region exclusive games like Terranigma and Secret of Mana 2/Seiken Densetsu 3. Also, the Donkey Kong Country games. Like, how is at least the first one not on there already?
Well for most of them, have some complicated licensing issues. Especially Mario RPG. Donkey kong country I can see coming someday. They just need to work with Microsoft.
@@max_harwell Microsoft has no hold on the Donkey Kong series. That's a myth. Nintendo retained full rights to DKC when Rare was purchased. The most likely reason we don't see Donkey Kong Country very much anymore is because many of Nintendo's higher ups dislike the series, and would prefer it disappeared.
@@mix3k818 And the virtual consel had a wide variety of games including N64 games. What will make NSO even more worth it is releasing N64 games but knowing Nintendo, that either won't happen or not for another, say, 10 years?
"How has it affected you?" Still haven't subscribed to the service. When the most appealing part of an Online Service is the ability to play a bunch of classic games, that is NOT a good sign. I refuse to join the service until Nintendo actual makes dedicated servers (or I guess now, create a better netcode) so the online play can be reliable. After a f-ing year the service finally has SNES games but it's only got a few games right now with no concrete schedule for future additions. No Donkey Kong Country Trilogy, no Earthbound, I can go on and on. I'm better off with my Wii U Virtual Console and the games I own for my actual SNES....and then my N64 & GameCube. At the moment (and probably for another year) you're more likely to find a better selection of classic games at retro gaming store & grab used copies. The other features are a joke especially cloud saving since it's most likely fear of cheating/hacking/modding save files. Overall it is very disappointing (although sadly not surprising) that Nintendo is stuck decades behind the competition when it comes to online services. Then on top of that Nintendo is too prideful to ask for help so their service can be on par with everyone else's. I just refuse to give them any money for the online service until they start putting in serious effort to improve it. If that doesn't happen? Well I can rest easy knowing I didn't give them my money for such a poor online service. I HOPE that it gets better but that hope continues to slowly die every month without any announcement about new/improved features.
@Mikemaster X10 They probably just played online with friends on a different console. Probably one with better online servers. Nintendo needs to: _fix_ _their_ _NETCODE_
@Bluey Beak Yeah, but it could be way better, but Nintendo seems to have this problem where they don’t want to compare their online services to something like PS+ or Xbox Live, which they should because knowing the competitor is key, but they won’t. And they’re at least aware of the fact that people usually just pay for shorter plans instead of the yearly one. Nintendo _has_ the time, manpower, and resources to improve. Now they just need the drive to do it.
Nobody has ever wanted to pay for online gaming, other than the xbox kids so they can claim their servers are "better" *xbox kid still gets booted from red dead online every hour*
Nick S You really shouldn’t have to pay for online, it’s just Microsoft that set this stupid precedent of giving Microsoft money for doing nothing, while claiming it would “pay for servers”, when in reality that’s not the case. They’re saying that paying for online gives you access to making online parties and playing games with friends when in reality, they’re just holding it back until people give Microsoft money for doing jack shit.
@@hypnobagels8634 Its ultimately Nintendo's and Sony's choice, so the fact they followed Microsoft's footsteps is entirely their fault. Scapegoating Microsoft solves nothing, and basically absolves Sony and Nintendo for being greedy.
One time my friend and I was playing smash bros, and we were experiencing so much online lag and input lag we just jumped off the stage. Keep in mind this is the online they say they give the strongest connection to smash bros. And we PAY FOR THIS. THIS IS ABSOLUTE BULL CRAP.
I know it's taboo to say this, but I look back longingly at the Wii U. Now don't get me wrong, the game library on the Switch is way, WAY better. But as a piece of hardware and the services that went with it, I thought the Wii U was better quality and a more interesting concept (minus the portability which of course is it's biggest selling point to a lot of people). Too bad it flopped so hard that it never really got to live up to it's potential.
People say the Switch is better than the Wii U...I don’t see it. The Switch has online that you have to pay for, meanwhile the Wii U’s online is free. That’s not even taking into account the amount of hardware issues the Switch has compared to the Wii U. Joy-con drift anyone? Also, any console that has THREE PIKMIN GAMES available for playing is an automatic winner!
Simon Stevens I Really Really miss Virtual Console! Not just for the better selection but for the fact that you could buy your games. I’m not with the crowd who’s ok with renting these games and giving Nintendo infinite money for 20 to 40 year old games. I’m just glad I managed to get the nes and snes Classic while I could. I’m really not a fan of subscription services.
Personally, I’m not a fan of playing NES and SNES game through the online membership. This is mainly because I don’t want my first experience with some of these classic games to be through a temporary membership program. These games will give me memories that will last me forever, so why would I play them on something that won’t last forever.
I see what you guys are saying, and I understand that they’re successful, but they need to set their priorities on the proper market. Otherwise, companies like Sony, Microsoft or even Google will seize their moment and become even more successful.
Before Nintendo announced that an online service would exist, I bought a few online games. After the service came out, I couldn’t play like half of my games.
Nintendo: "We need money to maintain game servers!" Also Nintendo: Uses Peer-To-Peer online, and thus, have no servers, to begin with. Everyone: Stares in disgust.
Nintendo: Ok we need online service for our games. Any ideas? Random Employee: What if we cheeped out and just made most of our games peer to peer so we don't have to invest in servers or optimization of said servers and netcode? Nintendo: GIVE THIS MAN A PROMOTION. Me: Why the heck is nintendo able to get away with charging you guys with peer to peer connection? I know its nintendo but if sony or microsoft's online was so abysmmal and didn't have dedicated servers and relied on peer to peer for a majority of their games there would be so much backlash.
You know, the switch is amazing until you consider all the problems that make other consoles so much better, with the switch only getting sales because they have great game ideas found nowhere else and a good reputation.
What online needs: - be able to Send invites/messages to friends - voice chat on the console (get rid of the phone app) - custom friend code, let people register their nickname so other people can look them up.
Okay but... Even before the song got used in memes, I freakin' loved the Flower Garden BGM and is one of the first tracks that comes to mind when I think of video game music I love so dang much. XD
@@sias.2569 It's getting there. Sucks I traded my hackable Switch for a lite, but the back was coming off due to heat, and the vents were starting to crack and we're close to falling off, again, due to heat, and it was cracking, again... due to heat. And I was tired of it, so I traded it for the Lite. Can't wait for drifting, though... that's gonna be fun...
@@sias.2569 Honestly, the Gamecube is decent in this regard. Dolphin does a solid job, it's constantly updated, a satisfactory amount of graphical options (texture packs and you can upscale to 4K and beyond), and it can even do Wii games. Not to say there aren't negatives, things like gamecube player have never been a priority and not every game under the sun is 100% perfect, but the important games work. The Nintendo 64 on the other hand is...yeah. Project 64 has had issues to say the least, but a lot of games do run, you can upscale them to 4K, and some plugins and texture packs can enhance things. It's just not as straight forward as it probably should be, there could be issues. But hey, usually you just drag and drop the game into the emulator and you're good. There's also Pokemon transfer support from Gameboy saves.
Where would you even get the games? Nintendo freaking Thanos-Snapped so many ROMs off the internet to the point I can't find any to download of a large portion of their games, like Gachaforce for example.
I just learned this trick turn your phone into a wii Fii hot spot.I connected online in the middle of nowhere and had a flawless connection. Being able to be online anywhere made my subscription a lot more worth it
It's a misunderstanding to treat "Nintendo Switch Online" as a single service that powers all Nintendo games's netcode. They do not have any unified platform that puts online multiplayer into all their games. Every game's development team develops their individual netcode, where you can generally have delay-based netcode (easy to implement but generally low quality) or rollback (Generally high quality, but difficult to implement as you need to be able to generally predict how players will play the game to an extent). And then that netcode is put into a P2P framework (Better for low player count games like Smash, but dependent on the connections of individual players) or is server-based (better for high playercount games like Mario Kart, as it reduces the impact a player with a bad connection has), and then NSO is simply you paying money to be allowed to access that netcode to play online. You don't get your money's worth because Nintendo (and a LOT of Japanese developers) are absolutely inept at making Netcode that works well with internet that is slower or has to connect over greater distances (such as across the continental US). Whether it's P2P or servers, it's still bad netcode running in that shell. Giving Smash servers won't fix the terrible delay-based Netcode that has like 6-8 extra frames of input lag MINIMUM which means the BEST case scenario still feels noticeably worse than offline play. tl;dr put GGPO in Smash Sakurai.
Servers don't really increase latency all that much unless the distance between all participants is higher. However that's the point of the server, if someone is really far away from the server, their problems are mostly isolated on their end. Everyone else can play without lag, but they may notice that one player lagging. Servers in general give you a much better average connection. It's also true that bad netcode is just bad netcode, but I haven't seen anyone break down the netcode in Nintendo's games to actually determine how good or bad it is. Besides, I haven't experienced it being any worse than typical P2P networking. Personally I think P2P networking always sucks except in very specific situations. Either way, doesn't change the fact that Nintendo wanted money for Online Services and to bring servers to the table, only to have never brought any servers to the table for actual multiplayer gameplay. At best they've got servers for Smash and Super Mario Maker 2 to store data like levels and Miis. The actual multiplayer seems to be P2P. On top of that, P2P puts all costs on the User-end. Meaning it's free for Nintendo. If Nintendo has been charging for Servers, but only uses P2P multiplayer, they are effectively charging money for nothing at all. The only reason I can't call NOS a scam is because it delivers on the NES/SNES portion of the deal. I'm sure they would twist the idea of servers to host level maps and miis as providing servers for multiplayer as well, even though that's quite a stretch.
Eh. It's kinda playable if you catch it on a good day. That's definately kinda sucks material. Did you ever try to play Brawl online? Now that REALLY sucked.
@@aprinnyonbreak1290 There's no reason for Smash online to be as bad as it is. We're in 2019, this is unacceptable for a service we're paying for. A multi-billion-dollar company like Nintendo should be able to figure it out. Using "Oh it was bad back then" isn't a really good argument in my personal opinion because they've had _11 years to fix it._
Tetris 99 and Splatoon 2 both perform well enough online for me that even not really playing other online multiplayer games, I feel justified in paying my subscription. The SNES and NES games are definitely awesome, but more of a happy bonus. .... Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut it's not great for a lot of other stuff atm, sadly. So yeah; hopefully Nintendo gets off their tushes and work on that decently soon.
Yeah, this is how I feel. It's not a big deal for me, but I'm bummed for people who want to play MM2 online, etc. I guess the biggest problem for me is the false advertising. There are some games that just don't work online, and that's not really fair.
@@TheRealPunkachu Agreed, with Smash to some extent and Super Mario Maker 2 (at least the launch versions) being the greatest offenders. Sure you COULD technically play those games; you just won't probably want to with its connection issues. And for games so heavily advertised to be online capable, like you say, that feels pretty deceptive.
The switch lets you accidentally buy overwatch on the account that you don’t have an online membership, but then doesn’t let you play it on your other account that does have a membership.
I made this a while ago, so I'll just plop this wall of text right here: Okay, so here's my ideal “Virtual Console” service. Instead of being presented on the EShop where you can buy each one individually, it would be a service, kinda like NES NSO, but way better. First, it would have games from NES to maybe Wii U if the Switch can handle it (And it doesn't make too much use of the Gamepad) Second, you can play games online with friends like NES NSO, but Wii U games and Wii games (and maybe DS and -GameCube games- (Hi there, editor here, I don't think most of the NGC's library contained online play besides PSO I think) will have a internet service once again. Third, you can download games to your Switch/MicroSD Card (Hi there, editor for the comment version here, it would probably be converted to another file so you can't just rip them and play them on a emulator without any effort, I mean that would be cool but that isn't Nintendo), so you don't need a internet connection. Fourth, it will launch with a ton of games already on the service, unlike Wii/Wii U Virtual Console and NES NSO where those have a very small amount of launch titles. Fifth, there's a separate section that has Soundtracks from the games. You can also download them so no internet required (These might not be converted, I don't really know). Sixth, you can view the game's boxart and Manual. Seventh, You can adjust your controls in the settings for each game. Eighth, if the license can be acquired, then Third-Party games and other Non-Nintendo systems can be on the system, like the Genesis, or a game like Bomberman.
It’s great to know that Nintendo still holds the same beliefs as the old emperors that closed off Japan, refusing to advance and remain old-fashioned. Online services haven’t changed much since 3DS, if they’re not worse, except for the fact that you have to pay for them. I have a feelings that’s why Nintendo made a new console, just to charge us a yearly fee like all the other brands do, even though they’re ill-equipped and close-minded when it comes to listening to fans about things, particularly most English fans. Thanks Nintendo. You’ve ruined a lot of games for me this past year due to shitty games with even shittier online features.
"We love the Switch so much that we'll continue to give them our money and they don't see any reason to improve." Are we talking about the Joycon drift too, Arlo? Cause ...I'm looking at _you_ Switch LITE.
I mean, go ahead and pay triple the price for the service on another console that doesn't give you half the value Nintendo does. Please, waste ur money.
@@Seth_Hezekiah He never said anything about other consoles. Stop jumping on everyone's back, you childish fanboy. You're the aids of this comment section.
Daniel Baker your the definition of a childish fanboy what exactly is upsetting you? Also did he even mention another service? Do you use logical reasoning at all? Or type hate as soon as you see something you don’t like?
I'm all for the "negative" videos. Nintendo is a corporation, not a religion. Without feedback and criticism, they'll only get worse as a company and that hurts everyone. I have personally refused to get online all of this time just out of principle. They aren't providing a service at all, instead it's a paywall to the internet and they're using old games as hostages. I would love to purchase NES and SNES games on my Switch; I refuse to pay a service to "rent" them.
The Switch era has truly been "the quality worsening" for Nintendo for sure. I wonder if they started to give no "ducks" out of bitterness from Wii U flopping which they put significantly more effort into maybe, I just hope it gets better soon especially with the Mon coming out soon
@supernintendoswitchnerd2017 you can't deny that they have had serious quality control issues this gen, though. The joy con drift, dpad on the pro controller, the online service being worse than Xbox live when the original Xbox came out.
I don't like this argument, because it implies that Nintendo's online service hasn't been *absolute garbage* for the last two generations. The only difference now is the paywall. Smash has *never* worked online. The joystick issue is pretty unforgivable, though.
Wow. It's like paying for a subscription is a scam or something. If only we had something to compare this service to so we could've seen this ahead of time.
My biggest problem with NSO is the terrible online multiplayer options in games. It started for me with Splatoon 2 when I couldn't group with my friend in competitive mode (I think that's what the problem was, it has been a while). Then, in Smash, you can play with your friends, but only in that terrible lobby system where you can play for hours without anyone ever actually joining. I just wanted the ability to do a team battle with my friend against random opponents, or even free for all, but he'd be in the same game. MM2 has no grouping, the list goes on. There's a fundamental ignorance for how online works in the modern era, Switch Online feels more like it should have been on the Gamecube.
Nintendo likes to do this thing where they "TEST THE WATERS" on new features by making something small BUUUT.... nobody likes to use those features that test the waters because they're too terrible for anyone to want to use them, and in the end, nintendo sees it as a failure... so they don't want to make that feature better because they see it as something no one wants this is something that has been proven they do repeatedly and i really hope they stop doing this
@@lpsoldin3162 i'm refering to features like the mobile app for voice chat! and testing the waters on old franchises to see if there's interest, similar to what they did with chibi robo, making a 2d game on the 3ds with a low budget to see if there is interest in it but it wasn't what people wanted, so they saw it as "no ones interested in chibi robo" :\
@@lukestarfield7299 I think you're making some leaps there with assumptions, but those are better examples than I was thinking of. Could still be a chance that franchises like Chibi Robo will make a come back on Switch, but it's definitely not a priority.
