You raise a couple good points, mainly the only back up system being behind a pay wall. However, I still equate it to an annual price point compared to the competition. Sony and Xbox are charging 59 a year for their online service (Albeit much more refined) and then an additional 9.99 a month for gamepass on Xbox One (With some cross play features) and PS Now which is a horrible service and needs to follow MS's footsteps.
I guess I am more easily appeased when seeing them try to merge 2 services into one at a fraction of the current market price. Again, it isn't apples to apples across anything really since so far, they will have a limited 20 game NES collection, but they did add online play and some other features to those games.
I just look at it as if I compare this to Xbox One X. Sure, I can have another save game alternative. I am Paying $59 a year for Live and a couple throw away games a month. I am also paying 119.88 a year for Gamepass with some pretty medicore games on the service, but won't complain much because it's a better system than Sony's and will cover new Microsoft 1st party games. But that is $180 a year compared to 20. So if we compare what we are seeing as a standard today, to the Switch offering at $160 a year less taking into account apples to oranges - I don't see the more inherent need to whine about it on this one. I fully admit, it's based on price point alone.