The Legend of Zelda

This sounds cool, actually, because it's Nintendo! There are tons of Nintendo games I'd love to play again, if not for the first time. If I had a Switch, or if that service was available for the Wii U, I'd definitely look into it. As of yet, I have BotW on the Wii U, which has greatly reduced my desire to get a Switch. I might get one eventually.

Oh and don't forget there is now the Switch XL! :) I still need to get another 3DSXL, since the two in the house are lost. Actually, I might prefer a "New 2DS XL," since it does fold and I really don't care about the 3D.

Also, in related news for consoles, a new slim PS4 is coming out and seems comparatively priced. I still haven't gotten one yet, but I already have at least one reason to (FFXV, which I'd like to see on Steam).

Oh, I just remember seeing something about it. I didn't know it was an April Fools thing.

I'll be the skeptic and say that this doesn't sound all that interesting. $20 annual fee for online services is super cheap, but it appears that, really, you get what you pay for. I really don't like the idea of a service tied to an app on your smart phone. Something like that should be included in the console, not a third party peripheral. The actual gaming being done online is happening over wi-fi. Why can't you build voice chat into that infrastructure. Everyone that offers online gaming has a voice chat offering built into the service. The whole thing sounds like a solution to a non-problem.

Secondly, the idea of an entire library of classic games from Nintendo sounds awesome, but so far it's only 3 games. 3 NES games, at that. SNES games are being considered, but aren't in the pipeline. Online play for NES games is almost completely uninteresting to me, with the exception of maybe Blades of Steel or Double Dribble. Probably Jackal. There are great multiplayer sessions to be had, sure, but those games may never become available. Certainly not a selling point of an online service.

One thing they should do, if they don't want to carry the burden of servicing an online chat infrastructure, is allow the download of apps like Discord to the Switch system, maybe even modified to streamline with the Switch's UI. Discord also already has a phone app, so that's already taken care of.

So, in sum, $20 annually really only gets you bare-bones online gaming, and a few really, really old games that you've probably already purchased 3 or 4 times already, which could grow into more games that you may or may not like (which you've also probably already purchased before). I realize $20 is cheap, but you're not getting near the experience of the other $60 services, so it's a bad comparison. It's like buying a phone charger from a plastic tub at 7-11. It's cheap for a reason.

@Scrypt, they're apparently doing voice chat via an app on a phone/mobile device. https://www.gamespot.com/articles/e3-2017-nintendo-talks-about-switchs-clunky-voice-/1100-6451004/

I think Nintendo has a ton of nostalgic value and I think this $20/year fee sounds like a good value. That is, of course at least hoping that the service would see many games from various console generations. It is also a bit of a gambit, because you may not want to play what they're offering one month or even more. It would also be nice to keep something for what you're paying, instead of being limited to a month to play a game, and then perhaps waiting for it to become available again.

GregoPeck, the voice chat tied to a phone is what I was talking about in my first paragraph. Nintendo is separating voice chat from the rest of the multiplayer infrastructure. The games will connect for multiplayer play over a wi-fi connection, but the phone app will likely be made to utilize a cellular service. Otherwise, why not include it into the base system? What problem is being solved by allocating chat to a mobile device? It can't be for gaming on the go, because the games will still need a wi-fi network to play multiplayer online, right? It just doesn't make sense to put chat features on a phone app, while not offering it at all via the main console. What if your phone is dead? What if you don't have a phone/applicable device?

I agree that it doesn't make much sense, that it's not built into the system like others. Either we talked about it here or I read about it somewhere else, hasn't Nintendo been purposely limiting chat features in order to provide a "family" friendly environment, free from trolls and such?

I think of it like this: if there was a device that did nothing but play games from retro Nintendo systems and they charged a $20 subscription service to access it and play all those games for as long as you keep up your subscription, I'd think it was a good deal. It really depends on the library, though.

I don't disagree with that at all. That would be a fantastic deal, actually. I'd say that's far from what Nintendo is offering here, however, and to assume it will grow into that is putting the cart way before the horse. I don't mind the idea of supporting Nintendo for the sake of Nintendo, but talking about a retro subscription service, as Nintendo (as big as they are), and only talking about 3 games at launch? That's embarrassingly unimpressive, even if they do offer a new online multiplayer feature. And we do know for sure (at least according to the quote in the Kotaku article) that SNES games are under consideration, but not planned.

What I think happened: Nintendo saw how huge the demand was for the classic mini console, killed it before saturating the market, and are now deciding to offer classic games in a subscription package.

The more important aspect of a Nintendo Online Service will be how smoothly you can connect to other players and play games. I'm talking infrastructure stability, not just ease of use. Nintendo, in the past, has missed the mark in this respect (most of the time missing the entire target). This new service doesn't seem to be much different. Having a handful (give or take a dozen) of ancient games (multiplayer or no) tied into this service seems like an effort to sugar coat an ultimately bland offering.

Again, $20 for a service is a pittance, and it might be a good thing. I just hear you guys saying that this info of a classic game subscription makes the Switch more desirable, and I don't get that.

Also, has the Switch not had any type of online service since launch? Like, a store or anything?

Travis: "This makes the Switch even more compelling. I'm impressed."
Jon: "Yep, I agree."
Travis: "we have to assume they're planning a fairly robust retro library.

I didn't say you would run out and get one now, just that you find this to be a significant value.

I thought about getting a Switch at launch, but realized I only cared about BotW, so I bought that for the Wii U instead. The Switch looks like it's getting some interesting stuff, but now that I've played BotW (on the Wii U) I have even less interest in buying a Switch any time soon. I still don't have a PS4, either, but I'd like to get one eventually for the Final Fantasy and Kingdom Hearts games I'm missing out on.

re: Wolfenstein I may jump in on that. That to me was one of the top three things I most pulled out of E3. I might pre-order, but I still have some time to think about it.

I find it difficulty to rank the Zelda games as you did. They're all so very great, although the 2nd Zelda game is my least favorite. I remember trying to play it multiple times and having no idea what to do. I did finally play again many years later using a guide and cheat codes.

Other than that, Wind Waker, Twilight Princess, Ocarina of Time, Majora's Mask, Skyward Sword, the modern console versions are fantastic. I didn't play Link to the Past until I got it for the DS. It was cool and I enjoyed it, but that was my first and only hands on experience with it. The original Zelda is great, too!

My most recent favorite Zelda game is Hyrule Warriors, I love it absolutely! I expect Breath of the Wild will join the ranks of the top Zelda games.