(Poll) Will You Plan on Paying for Nintendo Switch Online?

[Drew Sebastino]

Some people have appeared to be deeply annoyed by the thought of having to pay for online on the Switch for Splatoon 2, while others have appeared not too bothered. What I'm curious about is whether or not people will be willing to pay for the online service in order to play Splatoon 2, or if they feel that it's not worth it. Of course, this won't be very representative of the overall Splatoon 2 playerbase, but I'm curious. I'm leaning more toward no, as I've exhausted much of what this game has to offer at this point and can always just stick with Splatoon 1 (unless I can't... Don't take notes Nintendo, lol.) but I'm willing to pay if I believe the service actually improves the online experience, and isn't just an arbitrary $20 fee.

 

[Windstar]

I have a gun to my head. I’m forced to, or no more Splatoon.

 

[MindWanderer]

I don't think there's any real possibility they'll make any changes to the netcode. The game works "well enough" and not enough of the general population would notice the difference enough to make the massive expense worthwhile. First they need to see how many people will just pay up. If it's a huge number, they might improve the netcode way down the line, or, more likely, will do so for Splat3. If it's just modest, they'll keep with the plan. If it's too low, they may need to roll back the idea or risk not selling any copies of Splat3 at all. Bear in mind that they're also probably using this as a testbed for Smash Bros. for Switch.

For me... I just have to see if I still play at that point. I don't play a ton right now. With more weapons (Neo Splash and Sloshing Machine Neo are high on my list) and more stages (like the Splat1 ones), maybe I'll give it another shot.

 

[Drew Sebastino]

I have a gun to my head. I’m forced to, or no more Splatoon.

I don't think there's any real possibility they'll make any changes to the netcode. The game works "well enough"

Not according to this poll, lol. But of course, we don't represent the whole Splatoon 2 population. However, we are probably the most die-hard Splatoon fans though (well, there's the Japanese, wherever they reside online), so I don't know what this means for Nintendo, but it's probably not good.

I can see some slight improvement to the netcode, but nothing that will seriously cost Nintendo money, so centralized servers is out of the question. Maybe an option for regional or worldwide matchmaking. It would mean they'd have to mess with the menus and do a bit of overhauling, but no one expected an update the game to let you change your weapon between matches. An improved tickrate would be nice, but I don't know what it would mean for Nintendo (cost). Public voice chat is the last semi-realistic thing I'd expect, but I'm certainly not counting on it.

 

[Windstar]

What’s that? I’ve never seen that before in my life! Is that the Chinese Splatoon bootleg I’ve been hearing about?

 

[(X)]

Some people have appeared to be deeply annoyed by the thought of having to pay for online on the Switch for Splatoon 2, while others have appeared not too bothered. What I'm curious about is whether or not people will be willing to pay for the online service in order to play Splatoon 2, or if they feel that it's not worth it. Of course, this won't be very representative of the overall Splatoon 2 playerbase, but I'm curious. I'm leaning more toward no, as I've exhausted much of what this game has to offer at this point and can always just stick with Splatoon 1 (unless I can't... Don't take notes Nintendo, lol.) but I'm willing to pay if I believe the service actually improves the online experience, and isn't just an arbitrary $20 fee.

Unless competing doesn’t matter to you. Anyone who has a competitive drive won’t have a choice

 

[*★Nebula★*]

Yup, I've pretty much already sold my soul to Nintendo... so I don't have a problem paying a little bit more to use online features for games like Splatoon2 that I love.

 

[Padre]

Yes, even we dont know yet what it brings. At least highly unlikely that I wont.

 

[Dessgeega]

My response largely depends on others. If the playerbase remains stable and most of my friends stay on, fine, I'll pay the toll. But if players leave en masse and the people I enjoy teaming with depart, so will I. Either way, I'm not optimistic.

 

[J'Wiz]

I'm still holding out the faint hope that online will improve when they offer paid online. Even if they don't, I still play this game too much to not do it.

The fact that they keep delaying it makes me think that they're working on something. Otherwise they'd just throw paid online at us. Maybe that something is better servers!

 

[Elecmaw]

In it's current state, no. My biggest concern with the paywall is that it'll cause a large drop in the active playerbase, thinning out the lobbies and further skewing the poor matchmaking. The EU lobbies are already sparse as is, and i can't imagine how bad it'd get once we actually reach the point of getting that paywall.

20 bux really isn't that big of a deal, but it's really the consequences of it that'll scare me off.

 

[Drew Sebastino]

What’s that? I’ve never seen that before in my life! Is that the Chinese Splatoon bootleg I’ve been hearing about?

You're probably thinking of this :p:

Unless competing doesn’t matter to you. Anyone who has a competitive drive won’t have a choice

I don't think so. Part of why I don't care nearly as much about Splatoon 2 as I did Splatoon 1 (other than the game feeling less skill-based, at least to me) is that I don't feel the need to get better. Getting to S+ in Splatoon 1 was a true testament of skill. Getting to S+ in Splatoon 2 is a joke, and S+0 isn't any different to S+50 to the matchmaking (if I'm not mistaken), so it's more for bragging rights than anything.

 

[MindWanderer]

In it's current state, no. My biggest concern with the paywall is that it'll cause a large drop in the active playerbase, thinning out the lobbies and further skewing the poor matchmaking. The EU lobbies are already sparse as is, and i can't imagine how bad it'd get once we actually reach the point of getting that paywall.

Oh, I totally didn't consider that. A lot of the more casual players will drop out, leaving just the hardcore ones. Turf Wars and Splatfests will be a complete nightmare of S+50 homicidal maniacs. I'll probably have a hard time even finding people to play against in A rank where I still am--and the people who are there will be of a much higher caliber because the skill floor will just get a huge bump. I'm nearly to S in Rainmaker but I think maybe I shouldn't be in a hurry to get there, because I will get utterly murdered.

 

[Green Waffles]

I would vote "possibly"

but the chances of Nintendo improving match connection to the degree I'm asking is. . . slim

 

[LiX]

What will it cost again? 20 bucks a year, right? If so, that is a joke compared to what Sony or Microsoft ask. I'll definitely do it, as the Switch is new and other great titles with online access will come out (Super Smash Bro. etc.).

Do I think it's a good idea of Nintendo to do? Heck no. They were just picking up speed with the Switch being really successful. Now they jam in an online service. Arguing that Sony and Microsoft do it too is not valid, as it wasn't Sony and Microsoft having problems with selling their previous platforms...

Will it hurt Splatoon 2? I definitely think so and don't like that thought at all. The problem isn't so much that the online service is expensive. The problem is that the playerbase is made up of 3 groups of people, as I like to see it: Children, Casuals and the Competitives. And you'll get rid of 2 groups if you put up a paywall, namely the children and the casuals. Here's why:

The children will go to mom and dad and ask them: "Hey Mom, hey Dad! Can I buy this nintendo subscription service thing with reoccurring, yearly costs?" What will Mom and Dad say? They'll say no before the poor kid can explain it's only 20 bucks. Parents don't like reoccurring costs and Nintendo should know that. If most of your games appeal mostly to kids, don't scare away the kids.

The casuals will not pay either. It's just an annoyance and there's plenty other games to play. The few casuals who will pay are going to find out it's only them and the competitives left in the game. That's going to make them rage quit. So the casuals are off the boat aswell.

All in all, as you can tell from my rambling: I don't think the paywall is a good idea!

 

[Ulk]

That's just the thing with paid online services. It's a ransom. Not more, not less. I'm strongly against the principle and hate to support it, but as the word ransom already implies, I am being pushed into a corner here, so I will subscribe. Splatoon doesn't hold much value without online services.

 

[Cyan]

I'm on the "Yes and No" side for this. I'll pay for one year, see out the final Splatfests, determine whether the game improves in connections and enjoyment, and if yes, I'll pay for a 2nd year, if no (or it worsens) then that'll be where I cut ties with the online, I don't want to pay for something that isn't worth my time, money and effort. If dedicated servers happen (lol that's never happening) then hooray and great tidings and celebrate. The thing here is if I'm only paying for MK8D and Splatoon 2 and some terrible "exclusive eShop deals" then I'm not willing to pay. MK8 is free on Wii U, the game hasn't improved all that much and I barely play it online and for Splatoon 2, I'll have more than likely exhausted everything the game has to offer by the time the final Splatfest draws to a close. I'm not a fan of Smash, playing local and messing around not knowing how to combo or anything is fun, but I don't care for competitive and all the other online ways to play it because it strips the carnage and hilarity that makes it fun to play for me. I don't see Rocket League being affected, but knowing corporate greed I bet PS4 and X1 block the ability to play that game despite it being Psyonix hosting the servers, so I wouldn't be surprised if Nintendo joined that club too. I'm not looking forward to the switch over, because it could ruin the experience of Splatoon completely and turn it into the ultimate tryhard competitive "play meta or else" game that I don't enjoy (the way Splatoon 1 ended when support stopped).

 

[techton]

When Super Smash Bros. for the Switch comes out, probably, since I often have fun playing For Glory.

Until then, no. Nintendo has to get their **** together and fix the tons of flaws that Splatoon 2 has first before they make online payments.
On the topic of Splatoon 2 flaws, I can't enjoy the game because of them. Really hope Nintendo will be here to step in and improve things. (Weapon balancing, matchmaking, removing ranked, etc.)

 

[Dewnose]

When Super Smash Bros. for the Switch comes out, probably, since I often have fun playing For Glory.

Until then, no. Nintendo has to get their **** together and fix the tons of flaws that Splatoon 2 has first before they make online payments.
On the topic of Splatoon 2 flaws, I can't enjoy the game because of them. Really hope Nintendo will be here to step in and improve things. (Weapon balancing, matchmaking, removing ranked, etc.)

Wait, wait. Removing ranked? What about people that can’t do league??

 

[techton]

Wait, wait. Removing ranked? What about people that can’t do league??

I can't do league either. I just want ranked gone. It's garbage and pointless.