Nintendo Switch

Nintendo Considers The Virtual Console’s Successor To Be Nintendo Switch Online

IGN recently did an E3 2018 interview with Reggie Fils-Aime. There, Reggie talked about the upcoming Nintendo Switch Online service and the retro games that the service will offer. According to Reggie, it seems that Nintendo considers Nintendo Switch Online to be the successor of the Virtual Console. Here’s what Reggie said about the matter:

“The Virtual Console successor is Nintendo Switch Online, right? With the mentality that says we’re going to be offering a slate of games, and it’s a slate that’s going to increase over time. For many of these games, there’s going to be additional online capability provided in those games. That’s the vision we have for how to best bring our legacy content to Nintendo Switch.

We do [believe people will subscribe to Switch Online], and I say that because what we’ve laid out is a proposition where, yes you get the competitive play accessibility, you also get the cloud save, and you get access to the legacy content. That’s a fantastic proposition for $20 a year. We believe that it’s not going to be any type of issue for us. In fact, it’s going to enable us to continue offering a varied slate of opportunities from an online experience standpoint.”

Source

Advertisements

66 comments

  1. Honestly, if he is being serious about this being the successor to virtual console and having a wide variety of free to play classic games, $20 a year seems very affordable.

    Liked by 8 people

    1. but that also means the rollout of classic games will roll out really slowly. I dont want to wait 5 years to play Super Mario Sunshine on the Switch. I hope Reggie is lying.

      Like

      1. Not necessarily. I think they’ll probably do monthly additions. And if they add 10 games a month, we’d get through a lot quickly, or even 5 a month. And they don’t have to start with nes and then move forward chronologically. They could do nes and GameCube at the same time.

        Liked by 2 people

      2. but do you think that is something Nintendo would do, the Wii u was notorious for the virtual console taking so long to have all the games on it, and Nintendo seems to be very stingy for their classic games. If they do start adding gamecube games, expect a price hike for online

        Like

  2. Just give me some dam GameCube games and maybe some Wii games since the joycon can work as the Wiimote too. Those are the only ones I’m interested in all the other games I’ve played over and over already I’m tired of them lol

    Liked by 6 people

      1. I’m still rooting for a remake of skyward Sword haha. Maybe they’ll make a Sword holder that you can put your joy con in to play the game with. Lol (I’m only being half sarcastic haha)

        Like

      2. Carbon Kale, the Gyros are only part of what made Skyward Sword work. The game required the accelerometer (which I don’t know how good the Switch’s is) and constant orientation via the Wii sensor bar (which won’t work with the Switch).
        The lack of a sensor bar is actually what hinders most Wii game porting.

        Like

      3. Skyward sword used gyro for aiming and motion, not the sensor bar, the joycon are a perfect candidate to handle the game.
        (Sure, the sensor bar was used to recenter the sword and aiming, but I’m sure the technologically advanced joycon would have a workaround)

        Like

      4. JoyCons make great WiiMotes and Skyward Sword is something it would pull off pretty well because it’s got a better placed gyro than the wii motion plus attatchment,and even the wii remote+.
        If you’ll recall, Skyward Sword uses gyro exclusively for all its aiming, and only occasionalklymakes use of the IR lights to recenter itself.
        In most cases, it uses the timing of your item use as the center – say the moment you pull out that beetle.
        – In other games, recentering is just a button press which is what a porould do.

        They could not however, replicate the IR pointing you saw in say Twilight Princess or Resident Evil 4 Wii Edition.
        They’d have to use gyro for that, which is remarkably worse.
        (See the otherwise excellent games World of Goo, Little Inferno and Human Resource Machine for examples of this)

        Like

    1. While it’s not impossible for the JoyCon’s to emulate a Wii Remote, it can’t completely. Wii Remotes can do some some position tracking that the Joycon can’t. Also Wii games don’t receive orientation data, they receive coordinate and sometimes intensity data from the Wii Remote and the games themselves interpret how to use them so it’s problematic. Joycon motion data can only be mapped directly to Wii Motion Plus data.

      That being said, they should be able to work fine for how most Wii games use it.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Not, unfortunately, for most games that use a pointer. World of Goo being an exception (and itself not working great).

        Like

      2. I should clarify, I don’t mean that it would be able to emulate pointing perfectly but something somewhat useable could be worked out albeit with drift. For example, Dolphin can map the Wii Remote to a mouse. In the case of both a mouse and the JoyCons, both sensor points would be spoofed in the same way and the pitch and yaw of the Joycons could be mapped to the update the x and y coordinates.

        Obviously, an implementation like that will be flawed and any games that use the Wii Remote input mode that tracks intensity wouldn’t work but from what I can tell it would be just fine for stuff like Mario Galaxy and the Pikmin games and stuff.

        Though to be fair, I’ve never found any charts that show what Wii games use what data from the Wii Remote.

        Like

      1. So this is bad but people having to pay Sony for a streaming service to stream their PS3 games that they already have is okay?

        Dude, you’re basically getting them for FREE

        Liked by 1 person

      2. There’s my biggest problem though. You’re not GETTING them. You’re essentially renting them. Nintendo will allow you to play their classic games so long as you are subscribed to their service (which very well could be terrible).
        Sorry I would rather just own them on the Switch myself, because they’ll be entirely unavailable as soon as the you unsubscribe, and when the service itself ends.

        Like

      3. As if anybody here said anything about Sony’s streaming service.

        But since you mentioned it, Sony’s service is running an instance of a game on a server and streaming the video to you. It’s a way more complicated process where you’re paying for time to use their server hardware so it makes so sense that they would charge money for that.

        That’s not what’s happening with Nintendo’s service. These NES games would be running locally and they’re so small that the webpage you’re on right now is 4.5x larger than the largest NES game…. 9x larger if you compress that game. Downloading an NES game demands less of Nintendo’s servers than just visiting the eShop.

        Liked by 1 person

      4. You have to have the online account, but they said you can download the games for offline play.
        And somehow, I don’t feel like buying my SNES games a fourth time.

        Liked by 2 people

  3. Hopefully they do something because launching your online service 2 years late better be freakin perfect. Hopefully they have an early bird package or something. Hell even a free year just for being dicked around for so long. I mean we still don’t have themes and a bunch of basic stuff thag seems stupidly simple to implement. Nintendo is one of the longest console makers there is. And an Online system isn’t even their first rodeo. Get it together Nintendo.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. You’ve already had nearly two years of free online play, if you bought the Switch at launch, so why would they give you another year for free?

      Liked by 2 people

  4. I’m so glad that I don’t fool with any of this online crap. I buy “physical” games. And I play them just the way they are. Always have. No extra money wasted on DLC or online subscriptions, and no need or desire to play against others online. Even though I’ve tested the waters a few times.

    And btw, YAY! This site finally allowed me to sign in through Twitter again. First time since E3 started.

    Like

    1. Enjoy feeling smug and superior but you are missing out on lots of great stuff by not engaging in any of this, especially the DLC. There have been some great extras added to Nintendo games. I buy physical mainly too but I’m not so stubborn that I won’t do anything else.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. If it’s a game I love SO much that I never want it to end, then I might consider the DLC (if any). The only game I ever purchased the DLC for was Assassin’s Creed Syndicate. Because I really wanted to play the Jack The Ripper stuff. But the DLC for Assassin’s Creed Origins looked boring to me (and FAR too expensive). If I didn’t have the Complete Edition of the Witcher III, I definitely would have considered the DLC for that. Since I loved that game so much. But most of the time, I never love a game enough to pay even more. Also, DLC fills up more space on my hard drive etc., which I try to conserve. However, I did buy the DLC for Breath Of The Wild. But I got bored with it and stopped playing.

        Liked by 1 person

    1. NES Games with Online Features, these games are going to be reworked to run at higher resolutions so it’ll take time for them to port each NES, SNES, N64, (possibly) Gamecube, Wii and (possible) Wii U VC games over

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Most NES games have absolutely nothing to offer an online service. Don’t get me wrong, I love the system. I have an RGB modded NES hooked up to a PVM on my desk right now. I just can’t imagine an NES title where “Hey, this would be awesome if I could play it online!” is really a thing. A huge portion of the popular NES library doesn’t even have multiplayer.

        As for the resolution, that’s a pretty weak excuse. Most of these games have already been worked in 1080. The NES mini is already a product, and the Wii U had 1080 digital output of everything they would want to produce.

        The reality is they want some insurance that people will buy into their online service, and locking the VC behind it is their ace in the hole.

        I defend Reggie a lot on these boards, but I think this digital retro policy is pretty rotten.

        Liked by 3 people

      2. And hopefully some GBA games. There are a ton of those that I want (including Mother 3 of course).
        As for Wii and Wii U, somehow I don’t think it will happen. The Joycon makes for a very inaccurate Wiimote, and Wii U has the second screen. That’s why the Wii U to Switch ports are mainly the games that didn’t use the second screen.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. I’m guessing you’re not familiar with emulation, Carbon Kale, but games from 2D consoles do not need to be reworked to be in higher resolutions. All that’s needed is upscaled the output using nearest neighbor scaling then maybe bicubic. It’s an incredible simple process.

        As for online features, many emulators already offer this for old games without modification to the game. Input-wise, its the same as having a WiFi adapter hooked up to the second controller port. But for stabilities sake, they would also sync up RAM between emulated instances of the game on either side which isn’t all that crazy of process considering the NES only has 4 KB of it.

        Liked by 2 people

  5. Does this mean the games will be tied to your Nintendo Account? If so, I’ll be more than happy with this on 2 conditions.

    1. It goes beyond NES games & eventually moves onto SNES, N64, & Gamecube titles.
    2. Nintendo Account becomes the universal Nintendo account system that every Nintendo system from this point forward will use and thus your catalog of Nintendo classics will carry over to each successive Nintendo system after Switch, meaning you won’t have to recollect them all over again as they’ll be permanently tied to your Nintendo Account.

    Sadly, this makes it sound more like the games you get will be tied only to Nintendo Switch Online & once the Switch is replaced with a new system, all of your games will be gone & you’ll have to start all over again with the next system. … Unless they plan on copying Sony & keep the Switch name and just add a number to each successive Switch. lol (Doubtful but stranger things have happened. *cough*PresidentTrump*cough*)

    Liked by 1 person

    1. At least you don’t have to buy the games this time. Unless you count the twenty dollars a year subscription fee.
      (*Cough*better then Hillary*cough*)

      Like

      1. They really should have just allowed the purchases to carry over completely. The only reason they didn’t with the Wii was because Nintendo stupidly packages each game with it’s own modified version of an emulator so there was unnecessary additional work being done for every game brought to Wii U’s VC.

        *cough* Bernie would have won *cough*

        Like

    2. No way the next system isn’t a “Switch 2” with more features that can’t exist on the current Switch. They’ve done this before with the SNES and WiiU.

      Like

      1. Being powerful enough for VR is one thing. Something completely unexpected in the same way as Labo would be another.

        Like

      2. So you basically just want a spec bump and think that will be enough to support VR?

        Logistically, the concept of the Switch won’t work for VR. They would need a dedicated home console for that.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. Specs are what makes the PS4 Pro better suited for VR so I don’t see how that would make a difference just because it’s smaller and could slide into a headset. Technology will have advanced a lot when the time for Switch 2 comes around.

        Like

      4. VR isn’t the same as just strapping a display to someone’s head. It needs accurate, low-latency position tracking as well.

        I was too quick to say that it absolutely couldn’t do VR though. You COULD do VR with the a successor to the Switch but it would require a few things in order for it to get close to the PSVR experience… which is still significantly worse than competing solutions.

        1. Powered HMD and controller attachments with structured LED arrays.
        2. A 60hz or 90hz display that’s at least 1080p, preferably OLED.
        3. Having the Switch connected directly do the dock. This would allow it to use its docked performance while simultaneously sending video to the TV and receiving video from two cameras that are connected to the dock’s USB ports or from 3D camera built into the dock. The built-in 3D camera method would have the most blind spots where tracking wouldn’t work.
        4. The Switch or the dock (with added image processing) would need to correct the distortion and resize the image it’s sending to the TV in order to allow someone to spectate or play against the VR player.
        5. To get performance on the level of the base PS4 it needs to be about 6 times more powerful which is roughly equivalent to a GTX 1050 which uses 75 watts of power and has significantly more robust cooling.
        6. The HMD would need to have a microphone in order to enable voice chat which is a far more common means of communication in multiplayer VR games.

        Of course all of those things would further put the different modes of the Switch at odds with each other. For example, a lot of people feel a 720p LCD display is fine for a portable game system and that targeting a high resolution would just be a waste of resources, a waste of battery, and a waste of battery, yet updating it to suit VR requires just that. To make things worse, someone might expect a Switch successor to have less bevel to house a larger display, but at 6.2″ it’s already at risk of some of the screen being outside of the players field of view in VR mode so making the screen larger would make even worse use of whatever the screens resolution is. So in those respects the mobile and VR modes would be at odds. Similarly, that means investing even more in a screen that wouldn’t be usable in the docked mode. In other words, it’s already difficult to use all of the animal with the Switch, that would be more so the case if they implemented VR. On top of all of that, the larger screen, the large battery, the heatsink, and fan being in the headset would further add to the size and weight. The cooling and the heat produced by the system could potentially send vibrations through the headset and make the headset become very sweaty or fog up.

        A dedicated home console would be able to provide the same or better experience for less money without out any of those disadvantages.

        Like

    3. When you bought VC games on the Wii U, they gave them to you at a steep discount ($1) if you had them on your Wii. Well, my Wii U and Switch are tied tot he same Nintendo account. There’s no reason they can’t do the same again.

      Like

    1. So it’s happening a lot to you too, huh? What’s up with it? Like 1 out of every 4 of my comments get hit with “awaiting moderation” and I can’t find *anything* wrong with them after looking them up and down for minutes straight.

      Liked by 1 person

    1. If you’re sticking with exclusives for Switch, 1 or 2 200gb Micro SD Cards should do it. (I recommend starting off with just one for now and only buy a second one when you start to run out of room.) You could buy a 128gb mSD card but 200gb is cheaper in the long run.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s