Nintendo Online vs Virtual Console

Does anyone actually prefer nintendo switch online to a potential switch virtual console? Be honest.

Attached: switch online classic game offerings.jpg (2000x1000, 360.55K)

Virtual Console was better and more frequently updated. SNES Switch App has a whopping 30~ games over the course of what, a year is it? Pathetic. And you have to keep paying up to access those games, even the games you couldn't give a shit about.

No i wish we just had a fucking virtual console with gameboy games i wanna buy megaman V

>still no earthbound
weird

I don't. We're this far into the Switch's life and we still don't have the GB family and the N64. I already thought getting one system a year was horrible and we aren't even getting another system this year. Plus the drip feed is just as bad as it was on the Wii U.

>No i wish we just had a fucking virtual console with gameboy games i wanna buy megaman V
Nintendo has a system for people like you: its called the 3DS.

I have a hacked switch, so I don't need to pay to retain access to the new/snes games, and even I don't bother using their crappy app. Android emulators running on the switch allow for way more titles and systems.

I still like vc injection and wish they gave us more systems.

me unironically
i dont want to pay $10 per title and i wouldnt play the majority of these games otherwise
i just wish they put out gb/gbc/gba/n64/gc/etc games too.
i would pay additional money for more games

Nintendo Online is unarguably better. It's got 55 NES games and 34 SNES games. Remember, they charged $5 for NES games and like $7 for SNES games. You'd have to pay $513 to get the Nintendo Online collection via Virtual Console.

Nintendo Online sucks, but you're out of your fucking mind if you're romanticizing the ripoff that was the Virtual Console. Just emulate.

>34 SNES games
At least 3 of which are untranslated Japanese roms.

cant say for the others but for mario picross it really doesn't matter

I play 2 games. F-Zero and Super Metroid.
On VC I could have bought those games for $10.
Now I have to pay $25/year. I have spent $50 on Switch online. Effectively, I've RENTED each game for $25.
Switch Online is a fucking scam. I don't even play Smash online anymore because the service has no fucking servers and is so shit it's just unusable.
I won't be renewing it.

>It's got 55 NES games and 34 SNES games
Yeah, and how many of those are you actually going to play? pays for the subscription and only actually plays 2 of the games on offer. I myself have never actually paid for the service, but when I had a free trial I only played mario kart snes and demon's crest. That's a fucking $10 value. If the games were sold separately, not only would I actually be able to keep them for a one time fee instead of having to pay a monthly subscription to access them, I would be paying less because I the games that I want don't amount to a $25 value. Switch online is dogshit. Nintendo's incompetent management of the online in past consoles was excusable because it was free. But now Nintendo wants to have their cake (shit netcode) and eat it too (paid subscription) and tendies are happy taking it up the ass with no complaints. NSO is inexcusable.

Attached: Game_Dude.png (640x480, 396.4K)

On the one hand, I'd prefer to own the games. On the other, I can easily simply just pirate all these Nintendo online games on my Playstation Vita, but I'd much prefer to play them on my my Nintendo Switch so i appreciate not having to pay 8 bucks for the individual games I want. It's already got pretty much all the games I really wanted. For the others, I'll just settle for playing them on my Vita.

I play maybe 3 of them, and irregularly at that. I've played through 5 or 6 of them, but I prefer playing these games on my PC emulator.
I'm not excusing NSO (I only have it for Splatoon 2), I'm just saying that Virtual Console is worse by a large margin.

I've had a free NSO sub for 10 months now. Never once did I have even the slightest desire to download the NES/SNES apps.

It should have both.

Free games are nice and all, but virtual console might actually motivate them to port the damn games

i got to play fire emblem 3, mario picross, panel de pon, wild guns, dkc2, etc all for the first time and i wouldn't have bought them individually

Yes and no. Virtual Console was better in that we had access to so many more games, but Switch online basically gives you a bunch of them right off the bat for $20 a year. I spent a lot more money on virtual console than I did Switch online. That and I can actually play the games remotely with others.

So I can see the benefit of both. It's mostly nice for the convenience of having these old games on the go. But content wise, it's no contest, virtual console offers more games pound for pound.

Did you need google translate or something for FE3? Or could you reasonably play it on your own? My Japanese is alright, but not exactly fluent.

Not at all virtual console was Soo much better

They should have a everybody votes style channel and have people vote for their most requested game among options provided and release them every month instead of giving us shit like SCAT

>vote
We'd get the most basic bitch shit only then.

Yes and no. It’s great having all these games included with something I would have bought either way, but it basically means no third party games like SMRPG or Chrono Trigger

NES games were $5
SNES, $8
N64, $10

Buying all of the worthwhile games on Wii/WiiU VC would cost hundreds of dollars. NSO is $20 a year.

Nintendo should make some of the games able to be separately purchased, but the new model is an improvement in the price department overall.

But, if you really want NES/SNES vc, grab a NES and/or SNES Classic and hack them.

i played it on my own. FE is arguably a little difficult since itll use some dated terms, so i wouldnt recommend it.
panel de pon is a simple read if you want

I think it's a lousy deal. Everything is barebones, the functionality is a joke in most games, and the NES/SNES libraries are missing all the great 3rd party games. Canceled after my first year.

The concept of the subscription model I am strongly in favour of. On paper, $20 a year for a whole library of retro games on demand is an amazing deal, but the problem is that Nintendo is not only adding games to the library at a snail's pace, but the games they are adding are a cluster of 3 titles nobody's ever heard, usually for good reason, and then one game people actually wanted. By the time a years subscription runs out, you'll have 4, maybe 5 games max that are both new to the library and that are actual classics of the system, not just shovelware that had cheap licensing agreements for a re-release.
I also think the argument that licensing is hard for Nintendo to get for this service is just bull. Not only are they the richest company in Japan and could survive decades without a sale on their reserves, but some titles currently missing such as EarthBound and Super Mario RPG are owned either in part or entirely by themselves, what would be so hard about adding those games to the library? Nothing, it's just that Nintendo wants to nickel and dime you by stringing you along with pathetically slow updates to the retro library knowing people will spend another 20 dollars thinking "itll pick up eventually", and then before you know it you're onto next gen and the console loses all focus from Nintendo.

Just install an emulator on your phone.