Wish we did not have to share an island.

[Mairen]

I used to only have one switch in my household, which me and my husband shared. When animal crossing came out, we were both fine sharing an island together. "Hey Nook wants me to pick a place for a general store, where should we put it?" as example, and we'd decide together. "I found this really cool villager on an island and brought it back home for me, but I also found one of your dreamies so guess who's also joining our island!" We have a very healthy relationship so it would be kind of weird to let a game like animal crossing cause discord between us.

Despite that, we did end up getting a second switch just for this game. We felt that the 2nd (and 3rd and so on) player was tacked on as an afterthought. It was pretty disappointing they weren't able to help donate items to get things built. So now he has his own island and I have mine. I was actually kind of sad when we decided to get a second switch because my island seems a bit lonely without him.

 

[DJStarstryker]

Nintendos entire thing is family. I'd be 100% thinking its capitalist values if it were EA or another horrible cash-grabby sort of business. But its... their entire core for the company. The choice to have everyone on an island was likely not linked to switch sales I mean... who would buy an extra console just for ONE game? That's ridiculous to expect from people.

That's the core concept of Pokemon though - expecting you to buy multiple games and multiple consoles if people in the same household want to play together. That's been true since the '90s when Pokemon started. My family ended up getting multiple Gameboys and Pokemon games so my brothers and I could each have our own save files and trade Pokemon.

I know Pokemon isn't Animal Crossing. I know it's developed by Game Freak, but it's published by Nintendo, and both Game Freak and Nintendo are part of the larger umbrella The Pokemon Company, so Nintendo has a large equity stake in the series. It's basically Nintendo for purposes of this discussion.

The point is, Nintendo is a large company. They want to make money. They've also already done capitalistic, money grabbing things like having microtransactio-based games and paid DLC in other games. These games that they've done this in are family friendly too. So I don't think Nintendo being family-friendly means they won't intentionally make decisions to highly encourage you to buy multiple games or consoles.

 

[ForgottenT]

It's definitely a cash grab from Nintendo, don't kid yourselves, the amount of switches they've sold due to this is insane, and it was a calculated move, excusing the cash grab, and acting like this wasn't an EA level move is ridiculous.
They have the right to design the game this way, but it is immoral if you ask me.
At least the console is rather cheap.

Post automatically merged: Apr 29, 2020

I wonder how many fights there will be when people sharing a family switch starts moving out on their own, and now can't transfer their island with them to their own switch because Nintendo didn't care.

 

[SheepMareep]

That's the core concept of Pokemon though - expecting you to buy multiple games and multiple consoles if people in the same household want to play together. That's been true since the '90s when Pokemon started. My family ended up getting multiple Gameboys and Pokemon games so my brothers and I could each have our own save files and trade Pokemon.

I know Pokemon isn't Animal Crossing. I know it's developed by Game Freak, but it's published by Nintendo, and both Game Freak and Nintendo are part of the larger umbrella The Pokemon Company, so Nintendo has a large equity stake in the series. It's basically Nintendo for purposes of this discussion.

The point is, Nintendo is a large company. They want to make money. They've also already done capitalistic, money grabbing things like having microtransactio-based games and paid DLC in other games. These games that they've done this in are family friendly too. So I don't think Nintendo being family-friendly means they won't intentionally make decisions to highly encourage you to buy multiple games or consoles.

The 3ds/ds/handheld gaming consoles are not marketed as family devices though. They didnt have multiple profiles for families to share. There was no ability to attach new controllers for multiplayer use like the n64, Wii, or switch. You had to buy a 2nd one to play with each other because it wasnt meant for the entire family. It's hard to make a portable/handheld family device which is why it took nintendo this long to come out with one at all.
The switch handles pokemon save files completely differently because of this too. You can have multiple files on one console unlike other versions.
It's a completely different type of game as well. Pokemon is a single player game with online trading features added in. Animal crossing has always been a multiplayer game in a sense where you share the save file with your family AND interact online if you wish. I dont see why they would change such a core concept of the game itself. They could have done it way better of course, but I dont understand the anger of sharing when this is how it has been? How it was marketed to begin with?

Also what nintendo games have microtransactions?? pc and mario kart for mobile devices as well as pokemon go are a different platform all together in which microtransactions are the normal based on the type of game play. Every mobile game has microtransactions. Mmos have microtransactions. That's how they typically are. Also I wouldn't consider the DLC nintendo has put out as cash-grabby; every DLC I have seen them put out for main line games has greatly added to the experience of the game itself. (except for maybe dragon quest builders as I'm pretty sure it's all cosmetic. I cant remember if it added to the story or not, but it turns into a design game at the end anyway.)

Of course this is a company that wants to make money. The majority of switch sales I've noticed relating to ac are people who did not have a switch prior to ac. Not so much people buying a second one... idk anyone really who bought a 2nd switch for ac itself. That would be a ridiculous assumption for nintendo to make lol I mean why spend another ~$300 total to have a second save file of a game you could just share...? They want to sell switch lites-- hence them showing it frequently in the trailers-- but to use ac as the only reason to get a 2nd switch would be stupid on their part when it does not have the same function as other games. (I.e. being able to transfer save data to that other switch.)

As someone who does have 2 switches (my main switch and my bf has a switch lite) its not... really good for ac use. I mean unless you buy a physical copy for the switch lite you cant interact with the other persons town. (You also cant have multiple player characters on the non primary switch if using the same download.) It's not like splatoon where you can play the game together using the same download and just different accounts on each switch. You also cant transfer any acnh save data over.
Nintendo made it very impractical to buy a 2nd switch for ac compared to its other games imo. So the idea that they did this to sell more switch devices doesnt make any sense to me as I dont see any families that would willingly buy multiple switches AND multiple $60 games for their kids who have difficulty sharing a multiplayer game.

Also note 3ds games are only like. $35. And the devices were cheaper too if you waited a bit. The switch prices havent changed at all with the new switch lite. (Switch lite is $200 and the 3ds was like... $100 after the 3ds XL came out literally a year later prior to acnl release. the 2ds was like $80 when it came out in 2013 the same year as acnl.) It's 2x more expensive to have multiples. A switch lite and ac is $260. (A total of $320 if you include the game bought for the original switch and way more if you also bought the other switch just for acnh.) A 2ds and acnl was $115. Those are the cheapest options for both lol.

 

[ForbiddenSecrets]

I love playing multiplayer games with my wife. ACNH, however, isn't so much multiplayer as it's a system that allowed multiple people to use the same resources and tiny space without expanding for the second player. If we had to share a ACNH town I honestly wouldn't enjoy it. Her decorating style, design ideas, favorite villagers, ect are all very different than mine. It wouldn't make us fight but either one or both of us would just stop playing.

Also AC is the only switch game that handles saves like this. Why? Why wasn't the second + player characters handled in game (on one profile) and when you logged on you could just pick which player was playing like how Netflix asks me who is watching. Clearly the save data for all players besides the first is somewhat handled in game because you can delete them in game while the first player can only be deleted from the system itself. I can't think of a single good reason to tie players to profiles explicitly (outside NSO sales??) Then each profile could have it's own save but if people wanted to share a town they could.

 

[Aliya]

I grew up playing AC with my sister and was excited to play NH with her once I heard about co-op play, but she is the second player and hates sharing everything too. We only have one switch in our house and can't afford another right now, but I would consider getting her a separate one just so we can play together in a more meaningful way. She tolerates that we have different tastes in villagers, but she can't stand having nothing to do to help develop the island.

I think there was a lot of missed potential here, but I'm still glad to have the opportunity to bond with my sister over something we grew up with.

 

[Mairen]

For you guys saying it's a cash grab... I think it's okay if it is. They aren't just going to give free switches to every citizen of the world, as awesome as that would be. They are a business afterall. I happen to be pleased with the products and services they are selling, so I'm fine to pay money to get those things. You guys say "cash grab" like it's a bad thing for businesses to try to make money. Do you do this at the supermarkets too when they try to charge you to buy food?

 

[moonchu]

nintendo is a business, so yeah - they're trying to make money. businesses can also have core values, and i do think nintendo's is family-oriented. it doesn't have to be either or. and saying nintendo is family-oriented also doesn't mean we're some brainwashed nintendo super fan. people bought ac and a lot of switches in large part due to the circumstances currently. i'd be interested to know how many of them would have purchased a whole new console + game otherwise.

anyways, yeah it really sucks having to share your island. i would hate to share my ac island with someone because i have my own ~*~vision~*~. but it's also not really a new thing either, new leaf was the same way. i understand that it's 'easier' to buy a new cartridge than a whole new console. just sayin it's not a new concept to nintendo.

hope you find a solution, OP. i would really just talk to my significant other about compromises in the game. like hey, you can use resources to build this thing if i can build this thing. or split the island in half or something and you both can decorate in your own areas. mb look up the tree count for a 5 star town and plant and and half so you can each farm your own resources. stuff like that.

 

[Alolan_Apples]

I come from a family where four members play Animal Crossing.

Spoiler

All four of us have our own Nintendo Switches before ACNH came out, so we all got our own islands. But as someone who made alternative characters for my town, I can see how it can be a problem for an entire family to share a console. Multiplayer is a joke, alternative characters do not reserve the right to move buildings around, so if anyone want to design a town like they want to, they all have to compromise. I hope you guys don’t get into too many conflict.

 

[Dewasa]

For you guys saying it's a cash grab... I think it's okay if it is. They aren't just going to give free switches to every citizen of the world, as awesome as that would be. They are a business afterall. I happen to be pleased with the products and services they are selling, so I'm fine to pay money to get those things. You guys say "cash grab" like it's a bad thing for businesses to try to make money. Do you do this at the supermarkets too when they try to charge you to buy food?

I agree. Although there are things that can be done different by Nintendo, in terms of design and decisions, it's not that bad if you're talking from a cost perspective. Remember that the New 3DS XL used to be around $200 USD. The 2DS XL have since replaced it, bringing it down to $150 USD. The Switch Lite have now replaced the $200 price point and with the Switch's growing library, I can see it being destined to replace the 3DS/2DS sooner than later.

People who purchased 3DS/2DS did not have the goal of purchasing said system to share. It was purchased for their own personal usage. How many family members/friends do you know who have their own handheld consoles versus having to share 1 3DS/2DS? I personally know a lot. I know it was a big gift when a kid receives one, especially at $150 to $200 a pop but then again, how much are iPads nowadays? I think close to double.

That's the tough part for Nintendo, they try to distance the HOME console marketing of the Switch by introducing the Switch Lite, but by using the same name (Switch) people won't be able to disassociate the fact that the Switch Lite is Nintendo's pure handheld replacement to the 3DS XL which goes back to 1 handheld console per 1 person marketing strategy.

 

[ForbiddenSecrets]

For you guys saying it's a cash grab... I think it's okay if it is. They aren't just going to give free switches to every citizen of the world, as awesome as that would be. They are a business afterall. I happen to be pleased with the products and services they are selling, so I'm fine to pay money to get those things. You guys say "cash grab" like it's a bad thing for businesses to try to make money. Do you do this at the supermarkets too when they try to charge you to buy food?

While I mostly agree with you, because companies obviously should be paid for their work, AC is the only game on the switch that locks every profile into the same save file. I can't say if it was some sort of switch pushing agenda or just anti consumer game planning that they honestly thought was a good idea, however, what I can say is that people aren't being crazy for saying it looks like a cash grab. It's not remotely the same as a supermarket asking for payment because this was a feature that only this new game has that is distinctly against the buyer.

Even if someone thinks having to share an island is fine I can't imagine many people would say that having their own profiles would be worse.

 

[KattCrossing]

I feel you on this, my biggest gripe is that we are limited to one island per switch. I have always had at least 2 towns because of how indecisive I am. Not only that, but i consider each town their own design project. Once I'm done, I like to move on to the next town but keep the finished town to run around when I just want to chill. The limitation of the one island per switch sucks.


I've never had to share an animal crossing game before, but with NH it's different. My bf paid for part of both my switch and the game, so of course I wanted him to play with me. However, this meant that in order to give him the best animal crossing experience I decided to not do any resets for my map. I now absolutely HATE where resident services is because it's so close to my airport that I can't terraform on the bottom half of my map without it being super cramped. However, I can't restart because I'm not the only one playing. My boyfriend doesn't care as much as me about centering and aligning things, so the resident services doesn't bother him at all. He also hogs the leader a lot lol. My boyfriend wants his own switch, but with scalpers there's no way we can afford another one. I'm currently holding onto a bunch of villagers in our town that he likes for when he eventually gets his own, but now I can't get my dreamies in the meantime. If we could have more than one island on the switch then all of these issues wouldn't exist.

That being said, I'm happy that NH is the game that made him get into animal crossing. I just wish I could have more than one NH island. A lot of people, including me, purchased multiple cartridges of NL and CF to have many islands. i can't think of any other game that you'd purchase multiple times. I feel like Nintendo is losing money by limiting us to one island per switch.

 

[Mello]

There are some reasons why Nintendo may have opted to save to the system storage, and not the SD card. I'm guessing it's the same reason they are hesitant to offer cloud saves. They fear people exploiting the game by making save backups, which can easily lead to duplication, among other exploits. Example: You have 100NMT, you spend all 100 and don't find Raymond. Restore save, and you now have 100NMT again.

As far as each profile getting their own save, this falls into another category from the above. Could it be sharing is more common for cultures in Eastern parts of the world? While others may be right about it, it does seem like too much of a conspiracy that they did it intentionally to sell multiple Switches to the same person. The way they've demonstrated this in the game's marketing, they intend for mom, dad, sister, and brother to all play together on the island, as if the Switch was a family owned console, and not a personal gaming device. As such, the Switch can have a profile for each family member, so rather than adding a player for your dad or mom to the island under your profile, they just use their already existing profile on the Switch to join the island.

Just because some people will inevitably abuse cloud saves, does not mean that Nintendo should not offer them. Punishing your customer base for what the minority would do is not the right way to go about it, and frankly it's not how other tech companies go about their business practice.

Calling it a "conspiracy" that Nintendo wants to inhibit certain multiplayer features so that the user is interested in buying another console is not conspiracy at all, it's entirely plausible. By allowing us, the users, to experience coop, we're enticed by what it offers, but we're left wanting more than what couch coop can offer us, which in turn, leads us down the path of exploring the possibility of saving for a second switch so that we can experience the full package the game has to offer. The couch coop feature funtions essentially the same way as a demo does for any other game.

 

[Flunkifera]

I think compromise and talking with each other is very important, but I also get why you would get into arguments. Personally, I don't have to share my switch, I think it would be a nightmare to share it with my brother, because I already visualized my island design and I know what I like and want my island to look like. If I would have to constantly compromise on something and change things up, especially if it are two completely different play styles, maybe you're better off with buying a second switch.
If that is not what you want there is one thing that could be kind of cool: Split the island in 2! The left part of the island is yours and the right part of the island is for your wife! Now you can do whatever you want on your island and get to use all the resources from your part. The only thing that needs to be distributed as evenly as possible is rocks, fossils, etc. Like that both your personalities would be combined and that could be kinda cute!

 

[-Blue-]

Nintendo wants to make money. And we let them by just accepting this. There could had been a way to implement more than one island per console. All other games needed a new game cart or memory card. Heck cloud saves don't even give you a back up. And what happens if your system fries? You're up the creek. And transferring to a new switch wipes the AC data but all other game saves stay.

Nintendo is also from Japan and they're very family oriented. So they use this guise to make it look like it's for the family, but they're also making more by implementing this. I like Nintendo and probably always will, but some of their business practices make me frown nowadays.

I'm lucky enough that only I play my switch and so the island is all up to me. But they don't understand some people don't have that option and have to share with their siblings, spouses, ect. The worst is siblings too young to understand the game and it's like oil and water. I'm sure you've heard of young siblings booting up their older siblings games and just laying waste to the town and not understanding it's a dingdong move.

Imagine not being able to have your own island and having to deal with that all the time. Trampled flowers, chopped trees/bamboo that you worked so hard on to make a pretty forest, trash littered everywhere, furniture wherever they found it, all the resources just depleted to nothingness.

 

[JKDOS]

Just because some people will inevitably abuse cloud saves, does not mean that Nintendo should not offer them. Punishing your customer base for what the minority would do is not the right way to go about it, and frankly it's not how other tech companies go about their business practice.

Calling it a "conspiracy" that Nintendo wants to inhibit certain multiplayer features so that the user is interested in buying another console is not conspiracy at all, it's entirely plausible. By allowing us, the users, to experience coop, we're enticed by what it offers, but we're left wanting more than what couch coop can offer us, which in turn, leads us down the path of exploring the possibility of saving for a second switch so that we can experience the full package the game has to offer. The couch coop feature funtions essentially the same way as a demo does for any other game.

On the other side, just because some people abuse item duplication, peacock butterflies, or interests doesn't mean they should patch those from the game. It's the same reasoning isn't it?

Calling it a "conspiracy" that Nintendo wants to inhibit certain multiplayer features so that the user is interested in buying another console is not conspiracy at all, it's entirely plausible.

I said "Seems" like one, not that it is one. And I didn't reject your opinion at all. I in fact said you may be right about it.

 

[Mello]

On the other side, just because some people abuse item duplication, peacock butterflies, or interests doesn't mean they should patch those from the game. It's the same reasoning isn't it?



I said "Seems" like one, not that it is one. And I didn't reject your opinion at all. I in fact said you may be right about it.

No, that's an entirely different train of thought, actually. Glitches (item duplication) need to be patched as they were never intended to be in the game in the first place. What I'm talking about is a feature, which is cloud saving. Cloud saving is not a glitch, and it's offered by Steam for most of their games, play station, xbox, etc. Steam has many cheaters, is cloud saving disabled for their games? No, it's not, because to punish someone for what they can do with something simply doesn't make sense. We have guns available for purchase in the real word; these can be used to commit all kinds of crimes, do we take these off the market? No, just because they can be used for crime, doesn't mean people can no longer purchase them. It's the same line of thought with disallowing cloud saves because they can be misused.

As far as your latter comment about it seeming like a conspiracy theory; I'm throwing that out entirely because any implication that a company striving to make money could potentially be conspiracy doesn't hold any real weight.

Edit: I only mentioned glitching above, but I see you were also talking about patches for game balance purposes with nerfed interest rates/insect spawn rates as well. In those cases, no, they're not removed because of people abusing, those are essential balance patches. Think about how many bells were pumped into the game's market early on with item duplication in the first place. Adjusting down seems to be a good way to counteract that to a degree. Not only that, but perhaps original spawn rates for the rare insect table they had in mind were not properly implemented, or they overlooked how high the initial spawn rates were. This is an adjustment, not removing something that could be abused.

 

[-Blue-]

I mean it's kind of insulting that we pay for all these (albeit bare-bone online subs) and we can't even use them where they matter.

It's like they jingle keys in our face, but they don't operate the car in front of them.

 

[Foxxie]

Kudos to you for even trying. My family noped out of sharing an island with me because they know how much the creative escape means to me. Don't listen to the "you should just compromise" people. Just because you find it hard sharing a creative space, doesn't make you a bad person. I'm sorry Nintendo failed at this. I had 10 copies of NL and would happily have many carts if they would let me have an island per copy of the game... I'd probably spend enough on extra copies of the game, that I could have bought another Switch... but I don't need the extra consoles.

 

[-Blue-]

The Switch doesn't work that way for any game though. But they could had still found a way to make it work like I said before. Like they could had you boot up the game and on the opening you could choose from 2 different island slots. Or hell they could've even made you pay for these slots on the Nintendo shop. Each island slot would cost the price of the game.

They could had done that, but they opted out because someone being forced to buy another switch is more dough in their pockets.