anyone else concerned about multiplayer tho??

[Boccages]

My only concern is Nintendo not using the multiplayer functions to their fullest because of people not wanting to fork over $30 CAN ($20 USD) a year for the Nintendo Switch Online service.

Not only this. But the fact that an Animal Crossing with a big online component would mean the Nintendo Switch Online service would be more profitable for Nintendo. Hence, the company would be more than willing to keep on adding content to the game. Look at Splatoon 2 for example. That's the kind of post-launch support I want for Animal Crossing for Nintendo Switch.

 

[-Blue-]

$20 a year to play a game online is hardly expensive. Yes some people's expenses are limited, but every other system and company has made their customers pay for online support. Nintendo is now doing that same and so it's really only fair. We've grown too used to getting the stuff for free.

 

[ForbiddenSecrets]

$20 isn't the problem. The fact that their online service is pretty garbage is. It might be cheaper than Sony/Microsoft but you're getting worse features, worse implementation, pure P2P, NES games people already have/don't care about/ect (that you need to connect to the internet weekly to keep playing even if you have an active sub), and a cloud service that not only doesn't work for one of the most popular switch games Splatoon 2 (which should have had it's own server saves from the start) but also doesn't keep your save data when your sub dies (Sony keeps the data for 6 months and Microsoft doesn't charge you for cloud saves so they keep it as long a their servers are running) which on a system that has NO OTHER WAY to back up your data in case of bricking is pretty flawed.

When you consider what we're actually paying for it's not really worth it except for one little thing. We don't have a choice unless we want to stop playing online games. Claiming that people should be able to afford it or they are too poor to own a switch really detracts from the reason why a lot of people really are choosing not to buy it.

 

[smonikkims]

I never thought of small children not being able to access online thanks to this. I'm pretty sure a child small enough to be annoying wouldn't know to ask their parents to pay for the online in the first place so it would only be ages maybe 7 and up who actually know enough to ask for it and therefore be at least decent to play with haha. Then again I don't think I ever encountered annoying kids before (then again again I didn't play New Leaf online very much when I was active with the game)

 

[solarskits]

$20 isn't the problem. The fact that their online service is pretty garbage is. It might be cheaper than Sony/Microsoft but you're getting worse features, worse implementation, pure P2P, NES games people already have/don't care about/ect (that you need to connect to the internet weekly to keep playing even if you have an active sub), and a cloud service that not only doesn't work for one of the most popular switch games Splatoon 2 (which should have had it's own server saves from the start) but also doesn't keep your save data when your sub dies (Sony keeps the data for 6 months and Microsoft doesn't charge you for cloud saves so they keep it as long a their servers are running) which on a system that has NO OTHER WAY to back up your data in case of bricking is pretty flawed.

When you consider what we're actually paying for it's not really worth it except for one little thing. We don't have a choice unless we want to stop playing online games. Claiming that people should be able to afford it or they are too poor to own a switch really detracts from the reason why a lot of people really are choosing not to buy it.

oh man, is it really that bad? maybe after having the online service available for some time they'll get more feedback and fix those flaws?? maybe it won't be too bad once the new AC actually comes out ?\_(ツ)_/?

 

[Pansy]

Like others have pointed out, Nintendo's multiplayer service really does have flaws. We can't just not buy the service, especially since many who play this game have probably played with a friend at some point or another. I'm not concerned about multiplayer in AC Switch, but I concerned about the features we're supposed to get with it.

 

[pawpatrolbab]

$20 a year is literally nothing to pay for online, so I really doubt that will effect it

 

[ESkill]

I'm cool with it, but it might suck for those who don't want to purchase the service. I'm going to purchase a year subscription when it launches and Splatoon is the only game I play online. So far the features seem a bit bare bones but I do think it'll get better. Hopefully since we now have to pay for it, they'll work on voice chat. I don't use it, but I know it's a big deal for a lot people and Nintendo has it set up pretty absurdly. I also think it'll make online play better. I get kicked from a lot of matches so having dedicated servers should make it better, and hopefully they can keep servers online longer.
How it'll affect AC, I'm not sure. Obviously visiting others' towns is a big deal, and I hope Dream Suite comes back. I hope it works out for everyone though and we're all happy with the end product.

 

[QueenOpossum]

$20 a year to play a game online is hardly expensive. Yes some people's expenses are limited, but every other system and company has made their customers pay for online support. Nintendo is now doing that same and so it's really only fair. We've grown too used to getting the stuff for free.

Except PC.

Don't have to pay online there. Purchase game, play game.

(I'm not actually that opposed to the nintendo switch online, but PC does exist)