Nintendo nintendo switch online Switch

Nintendo Switch Online surpasses 10 million accounts

Nintendo announced at the recent shareholders question and answer session they now have over 10 million subscribers to the Nintendo Switch Online service. Here’s what the company told shareholders:

Question: A Nintendo Switch Online subscription is very inexpensive, so the barrier to entry feels low, but on the other hand the content of the service still feels rather weak. How will you enhance the service going forward?

Furukawa: The number of subscribers for Nintendo Switch Online has increased steadily since the service was launched last September, and it has now surpassed 10 million accounts. Nintendo Switch Online provides users the ability to play Nintendo Switch games over the internet, both competitively and cooperatively. It also provides services such as Nintendo Entertainment System – Nintendo Switch Online, Save Data Cloud Backup, and smartphone application services such as online lobbies and voice chat. In addition, we provided TETRIS 99 as a special offer to Nintendo Switch Online members this February, and then in May, began selling Nintendo Switch Game Vouchers that allow users to purchase two Nintendo Switch download titles at a discount. We recognize that making the Nintendo Switch Online service attractive to users is extremely important, and will continue to make the content of the sservice even more appealing going forward.

Source

10 comments

      1. ????
        They shouldn’t bother improving it? What?? LOL.
        Are you saying that because there’s 10 million people paying for it without complaining? So Nintendo should keep their service shitty because they don’t hear enough people from those 10 million complain about it on the internet? After all, companies shouldn’t even bother caring about customer satisfaction before they get into a internet shitstorm, right?
        People don’t pay for it because they like it, they pay for it because they have to.
        Besides, shouldn’t every company always strive to satisfy their customers and to improve?? Seems like absolute common sense to me.

        I don’t even know what your comment is supposed to tell me and what its purpose is. I genuinenly don’t get it.

        Like

      2. First, you should understand that I’m not speaking out of personal desire. I would love a more robust Nintendo online.

        “Are you saying that because there’s 10 million people paying for it without complaining? So Nintendo should keep their service shitty because they don’t hear enough people from those 10 million complain about it on the internet?”

        The product is successful and extremely profitable. As a general rule, that’s not something you dump more money into unless you have a specific compelling reason to do so. How many of the people complaining on the internet about Nintendo Online are PS4 or PC fans who are unlikely to buy a Switch Online account anyway? Do you know? I doubt Nintendo does either. So the choice is either A) Dump millions of dollars into a product which is *already* profitable to chase customers who may or may not exist, or B) Enjoy lots and lots of money. Not a hard decision for a business.

        “After all, companies shouldn’t even bother caring about customer satisfaction before they get into a internet shitstorm, right?”

        The question assumes facts not in evidence. First, you need to show that there’s a significant issue of customer satisfaction that they are neglecting. That they made a product that isn’t for you is not a customer satisfaction issue. What percentage of online account holders are significantly dissatisfied, and how dissatisfied are they? Is that lack of satisfaction significant enough to effect future purchasing decisions? Do you know any of this, or are you just pretending to know this based on gaming site comment sections even though 99.999% of Nintendo’s customers do not comment of game site message boards?

        This is a bitter pill to swallow for most hardcore gaming enthusiasts, but it has to be said. *We are not their primary customer.* What we want is secondary to the health and success of Nintendo as a business. Now I don’t like that. I would love a company that thrived on “hardcores first”, but rarely does reality give us a perfect scenario.

        “People don’t pay for it because they like it, they pay for it because they have to.”

        Citation needed. How would you even collect that data?

        “Besides, shouldn’t every company always strive to satisfy their customers and to improve?? Seems like absolute common sense to me.”

        That’s actually an unbelievably terrible idea that would completely destroy most businesses. You need to care about quality, but quality costs money. You can only care about quality up to the point that your customers are actually willing to pay. McDonald’s could create an absolutely phenominal and amazing $40 burger, but who’s going to buy it? You invest in your product up to the point where you maximize return, not to create some hypothetically idealized product that caters to the 3 people in the world who actually care. So the question is, would the money they spend improving Nintendo Switch online be more or less than the new customers the improvements would generate? Nintendo has that market research. We don’t.

        “I don’t even know what your comment is supposed to tell me and what its purpose is. I genuinenly don’t get it.”
        The long and the short of it is, if the problems with the online service doesn’t *actually* cost them customers, there isn’t *actually* a customer satisfaction problem. This isn’t a loot box based system where EA can keep charging the same customer over and over again to stay viable. They needed to draw a fairly large audience, and they did. That’s proof of business concept right there.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. I see some of your points, but it’s still difficult for me to come in terms with the concept of putting a crucial feature, in this case online multiplayer, behind a paywall and not giving a damn about how well it actually works and how much it pays off for the consumer. Yeah, it is “cheap” in comparison to the competitions prices, but it’s still overpriced for what I’m getting. Not putting money into working on it might be a “smart business decision” when looking at raw numbers, but from a business as big and rich as Nintendo, I would expect them to actually care about customer satisfaction and put some extra buck into their services instead of putting a paywall in front of a very important feature and not make it worth the money, even if they techincally don’t “have to”.
        Generally, online multiplayer does not require people to pay for it, as we can see on PC, but it was a deliberate choice from Nintendo to ask for a monthly fee for it. So what’s the point of that if absolutely nothing is even gonna change about the quality of their online service, compared to how it was before it got locked behind a paywall, you know what I mean? I wouldn’t really mind paying for it if they had actually made their shit better and worked on the many flaws- in fact, I was optimistic when I first heard about the announcement of their paid online service, because it seemed like a no-brainer to expect them to finally make things better. It made perfect sense in my head, because as you’ve said, quality requires money, and a paid service was gonna give them that money. But turns out they had no such plans, lol.

        Now, to the specific points I don’t quite agree with-

        “So the choice is either A) Dump millions of dollars into a product which is *already* profitable to chase customers who may or may not exist, or B) Enjoy lots and lots of money.”
        Or C), fix the issues, make improvements, give people a justification for why you’re asking for money for the service in the first place and ask for more than 20 bucks, bump it up to 30 or even 40. Like that, they’ll still make money and people will actually have a reason to pay for it instead of being forced to, if they want to enjoy one of today’s the most crucial features. You need to make investments for a chance to generate even more profit, don’t you? It works for the competition too, so why can’t Nintendo do it?

        “Do you know any of this, or are you just pretending to know this based on gaming site comment sections even though 99.999% of Nintendo’s customers do not comment of game site message boards?”
        That’s the point I was trying to make. People who complain on the internet are only a very, VERY small fraction of people actually using the service. Not everyone who uses it is gonna go on the internet and compose a complaint about it. Which is why we don’t know if people are actually satisfied with it. This is why I think it’s a bit ridiculous to think that Nintendo shouldn’t even bother with improving the service- just because they don’t see millions complaining about it online, doesn’t mean dissatisfied consumers don’t exist.

        “How would you even collect that data?” (in relation to me saying that people don’t pay for it because they want to, but because they have to)
        I mean… does anyone really want to pay money to use online multiplayer, on any platform? LOL. So this whole online service deal is about giving people reasons to pay for it, and in Nintendo’s case, I genuinenly can’t see a single reason why anyone would actually want to pay for it, other than the simple fact of wanting to play online, which in itself doesn’t require them to ask for a fee, as we’ve established already. Do people actually want to be bound to their stupid phone app for simple features? Do they want lackluster online modes? Do they want extremely basic features to be missing? Obviously, I don’t have hard evidence collected through surveying every single user of the online service or anything, but it seems like common sense to me that no one would actually want any of that, much less pay for it. You don’t have to directly ask people to figure out that those things are not very desirable in the least.

        In all honesty, the way I see it, this whole thing just makes Nintendo look like a bunch of greedy fucks that came up with a way of pulling money out of people’s pockets without having to give anything back in return. Might be “smart” from a business standpoint, but it doesn’t seem to be the most favourable light to be seen in.

        Like

      4. “Generally, online multiplayer does not require people to pay for it, as we can see on PC, ”

        Not anymore. Not on console. Not since the Xbox360 defined how the west saw online play on consoles. Sure, it’s a terrible deal for everyone involved. Yes, first it was just Xbox, then it infected Sony, now it’s infected Nintendo. Value though, is 100$ in the eyes of the buyer. If people place value on the simple act of getting to connect online on a console, then people are going to charge for it.

        Nintendo is not just at an abstract and ethical responsibility to do their best to turn a profit for their owners, but a literal legal obligation to do so. If the general public are dumb enough to think that it’s reasonable to pay for access to peet-to-peer hosting, there is an actual legal argument that a gaming company is in violation of their obligations if they *don’t* charge for it and leave money on the table for no reason.

        The good news is this probably won’t last forever. Boomers and Gen Xers will fade away into age, and younger people will never think that paying for general access is justifiable.

        ” It made perfect sense in my head, because as you’ve said, quality requires money, and a paid service was gonna give them that money. But turns out they had no such plans, lol.”

        I think many of us fans might have to come to terms with the concept that….. it is entirely possible that Nintendo are not competent to make things better.

        ” You need to make investments for a chance to generate even more profit, don’t you? It works for the competition too, so why can’t Nintendo do it?”

        You’re mixing up “can” with “should”. If they can make the profit without the improvements, and it doesn’t actually hurt their public image enough to damage sales, why spend their energy there? As for raising the price for a better service, this is a guess, but I’m going to guess that the people who’s most successful console is the Wii are probably marketing to a poorer demographic. Back to the McDonald’s example with a twist. Which would you rather own? McDonald’s who sells lots and lots of cheap food, or a Michelin Star restaurant? If you want glamour, obviously the latter. If you want to make lots and lots of money, you do the former. By and large, cheap outsellf top quality every single time. This is why Nintendo doesn’t compete for most powerful console. Back in the day, the NES was absolutely pathetic compared to computers. The PS2 was the weakest of its generation (if you don’t count the Dreamcast) and it crushed the world. The Wii was more or less a modified Gamecube and it humiliated the competition not simply in sales, but in profit per sale as well. While the PS3 and Xbox 360 were selling low numbers of consoles at a loss, Nintendo was selling high numbers of Wiis at a profit. This is what they’re shooting for. The price point that hits mass appeal, outside just the typical gaming audience. Once they start raising prices to appeal to just the typical gaming audience, you lose half the reason Nintendo machines sell in the first place.

        ” Which is why we don’t know if people are actually satisfied with it. This is why I think it’s a bit ridiculous to think that Nintendo shouldn’t even bother with improving the service- just because they don’t see millions complaining about it online, doesn’t mean dissatisfied consumers don’t exist.”

        It’s certainly more indicative of that then it is of there being widespread dissatisfaction without any evidence. Put your place in a Nintendo exec’s shoes. You walk into the board room and you have a proposal to spend tens of millions in online infrastructure. They ask you why they should do that when it’s already a successful program. You tell them for customer satisfaction. Do you think they aren’t going to ask you why you think customers are significantly dissatisfied? Companies do not drop millions of dollars and change their entire pricing model on a blind idea that there simply must be someone out there somewhere who would prefer things this way.

        ” I genuinenly can’t see a single reason why anyone would actually want to pay for it, other than the simple fact of wanting to play online, which in itself doesn’t require them to ask for a fee, as we’ve established already. ”

        You could say precisely the same thing about gaming hardware. In fact, legendary former Nintendo President Hiroshi Yamauchi did just that. (paraphrased from memory) “The system is just a box that people have to buy to get to Mario.” As I said earlier, our problem is that people *DO* see value in just getting access to online. Value is a measure determined by the buyer. If people *will* pay for online, then online inherently *has* value. It’s precisely the same reason an Apple product costs three times as much as another brand’s of the same specifications. People will pay it, therefore it is worth that much. I fall into this category myself. I wish Switch online were better. I do not wish it were better enough to stop paying for it. This is how, in the absence of unusual necessity like selling water in the desert, fair prices are determined.

        “In all honesty, the way I see it, this whole thing just makes Nintendo look like a bunch of greedy fucks that came up with a way of pulling money out of people’s pockets without having to give anything back in return. ”

        What it actually showcases, is that you don’t understand at the most basic and foundational level, what value is and how it is fairly evaluated. The one greedy in this situation here is you, demanding that Nintendo spend millions and completely throw away a successful program just because it isn’t the kind of program you would prefer. The Switch is the budget console. They market to budget customers, as they have for nearly 20 years. Their web program last gen was budget, as was the gen before that. They are not the platform for the tech enthusiasts. They have gone *way* out of their way to tell you that again, and again, and again, and again, and again. By what rational standard can you expect them to suddenly start building, pricing, and marketing to a tech enthusiast’s standard in the middle of their already existing budget oriented platform?

        Liked by 1 person

  1. I really hope they are improving their online. Since they aren’t gonna force 3rd parties to censor their games on their system, I’d like to think they are also already in the works of improving their paid online, too. (One step at a time is better than making no steps at all.) I love the fact Nintendo are doing this. It’s all topsy turvy now as it use to be where Sony were the ones being lax with censoring while Nintendo were doing the opposite. No matter. Companies like Sony, Microsoft, Disney, CBS, etc will cease this crap when they realize that the “woke” & outrage cultures aren’t making them money. They are only listening to these people right now because they think they can make money off of them. But catering to a vocal minority while the majority is leaving in droves is no way to make money. At the end of the day, money is far more important than some of their “values.” Green is the only color that really matters. (Star Wars 9 needs to bomb or else Lucasfilm will shrug off the Solo film being a flop as just a fluke.)

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

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

%d bloggers like this: