"No Nintendo are blind to the billions they will make because I bought several VC games and so did two of my friends! What I want is what everyone wants, and the plural of anecdote is data!" 😂
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
The Nintendo Switch Online retro game offerings will continue to disappoint some because of third parties
- Thread starter ggx2ac
- Start date
If Nintendo really cared, they will make sure that those games are present on the service. they just don't care. they only look at their own offerings first and foremost.
Square released Final Fantasy, Final Fantasy II, Final Fantasy III, Secret of Mana and Chrono Trigger on the Wii VC but not the Wii U VC in the US. Why do you think that is?
Why should Nintendo 'care' about Capcom and Konami's games?
I guess is Sega 'really cared' they could release a new console that had all Sega, Konami and Capcom's arcade classics on it. If they paid Konami and Capcom enough I'm sure they'd agree. I guess Sega just doesn't care, what a bunch of assholes.
a lot of nes games are just unplayable to me, I don't mind much
they won't even give us first party (?) NES games like earthbound beginnings or fire emblem which is the bigger bummer
first party SNES games on the other hand are definitely awesome and enough to carry a service. I really hope that happens one day
they won't even give us first party (?) NES games like earthbound beginnings or fire emblem which is the bigger bummer
first party SNES games on the other hand are definitely awesome and enough to carry a service. I really hope that happens one day
Wouldn't surprise me if we get SNES games next month. The online service launched last September iirc so the vast majority of online subscribers will have to either re-up or decide to let their service expire. Nintendo knows they need to continue to add value to the service to incentivize re-ups and adding some SNES games could result in the majority of subscribers re-uping their subscription in September. If Nintendo doesn't add anything more than a couple basic NES games in September then it may make it easier for customers to make the decision to not re-up.
Do you understand what a rhetorical device is?
Seems pretty likely. If so it will be Mario World and F-Zero though, and games dropped throughout the year.
Because they are business partners, because the competition care about having Capcom and Konami games and Nintendo is not alone in the market, because how else can you expand your audience, because more options for your pathetic online service.
Reasons are endless.
It would help if the eshop had categories to search under such as "retro games".
NSO is not an adequate replacement for the what the virtual console offered.
NSO is not an adequate replacement for the what the virtual console offered.
I'm just disappointed it's still NES games. Like damn, if the scene from back to the future 2 was every extremely apt. It's me looking at the NSO selection.
Microsoft and Sony don't have a Virtual Console service either. There would be no issue Microsoft having a '8/16 bit classics' service, there are SNES and NES games already for sale on Xbone/PS4 via collections. But they don't have one either.
So how exactly do 'the competition care about having Capcom and Konami games' but Nintendo do not, if VC is your definition of 'caring'?
Some people just invent things to complain about.
This, allow each publisher to do their thing. Nintendo should just help them with the emulating, I don't why each publisher should waste resources to make their own emulator, I suppose that was a benefit of virtual console. But as for the model, I prefer collections instead of subscription.
I mean, if Nintendo would commit to using their own back catalogue there's more than enough from just Nintendo to get $60 a year from people.
NES
SNES
N64
Gamecube
DS
Wii (where compatible)
Heck if all the games were available up front you could probably charge $8 a month for that. Then work in deals for third parties to rotate in and out.
NES
SNES
N64
Gamecube
DS
Wii (where compatible)
Heck if all the games were available up front you could probably charge $8 a month for that. Then work in deals for third parties to rotate in and out.
Konami and Capcom already have emulators for NES and SNES because they have already released games using these on Switch. They don't need any help, they just need to release them on the eShop. Hamster has for example outright spammed the eShop with Neo Geo games.
But Konami and Capcom have not. Nor has Namco, Tecmo, almost anyone else outside of Hamster (Psikyo have a few arcade games which are also available physically, Sega are doing premium priced Sega Ages releases). Why not? Surely someone outside of Hamster would have done it if there was an obvious huge demand and return to be had for almost no effort?
There is no need to throw accusations, I don't invent things to complain about, and in general I'm a positive person more than negative.
Sony and Microsoft don't have a library of 8-16 bit games, and even if they did, the way they work is they always focus on the (latest and greatest), which is not the case with Nintendo. but when they build a service like PS Now or Game Pass, they make sure that everyone is presented.
I understand that Nintendo is a very selective company, and I understand the differences in their working model, but they have always been disappointing when it comes to third party content, in one way or another. and they have always been losing customers left and right to other platforms because of that, even though they bring new people to this hobby more than anyone else.
Why Japanese companies are not releasing their big games on Switch? there is no demand for sure, other than that they would've!
Huh?
But that has nothing to do with what Konami and Capcom want to do. So you're suggesting because Nintendo celebrate their own history constantly (eg Super Mario Bros is playable on almost every Nintendo console ever released) that they have more reason to drag Capcom and Konami's NES/SNES history along with them?
There is a certain logic, but it also seems like it's another of those self defeating things that promote brands they don't get much benefit from. Like how the Wii got some third party VC release... to coincide with sequels to those games being released only on PS3/360. The VC release on Nintendo's platform was essentially used by third parties at multiple points as a promotional tool for games on competitors' systems.
I think this idea that because Nintendo isn't doing it means it isn't worth while is.... weird.
This is the same company that is still over a decade behind when it comes to an online service and released the Wii U. They certainly aren't infallible. The Wii VC came well before the explosion of digital purchases on consoles and wasn't exactly an exemplary store when you consider the drip feed and complete lack of sales. Then the Wii U VC was on the Wii U so of course it failed.
Nintendo is most likely not pushing more games into their subscription service because:
1. They don't want to cannibalize new game sales, whether it be their own or indie titles.
2. They still gave a huge aversion to anything whatsoever that "devalues" their catalogue.
Personally I think both reasons are junk, but I don't think it's just because they think there's no money in it.
This is the same company that is still over a decade behind when it comes to an online service and released the Wii U. They certainly aren't infallible. The Wii VC came well before the explosion of digital purchases on consoles and wasn't exactly an exemplary store when you consider the drip feed and complete lack of sales. Then the Wii U VC was on the Wii U so of course it failed.
Nintendo is most likely not pushing more games into their subscription service because:
1. They don't want to cannibalize new game sales, whether it be their own or indie titles.
2. They still gave a huge aversion to anything whatsoever that "devalues" their catalogue.
Personally I think both reasons are junk, but I don't think it's just because they think there's no money in it.
You could get all the classic NES Castlevania and Mega Man games through their bundles on the Switch eShop for waaaaaay cheaper than like, buying Mega Man 1-6 and Castlevania 1-3 on the Virtual Console individually. So I personally can't complain.
It's Square that is really dropping the ball imo. Ironically you can get all the PS1/PS2 Final Fantasies on Switch but not the NES/SNES ones. (Though does anyone really want to play the NES ones...?).
Square is dropping the ball for reasons.
If we get any classic FF titles of the NES and SNES era, we're likely going to see them as part of a collection since they're so small in size, and not something like NSO. They're also looking into making their own subscription service dedicated to their legacy titles.
That's cool then. Hope we see it sooner than later.
Although I hope the ports are higher quality than the iOS ones but I doubt it.
I'd pay 15 euros a months for Nintendo's entire back catalog of first party games from Snes to the Wii. Call it RetroPass or whatever.
There are obviously some caveats to the sales side of the argument but I don't think you can dismiss it entirely for the reasons you've given. The Wii U numbers being low is likely due to the low sales overall, and digital sales on the Wii were possibly lower due to being before the 'digital explosion' but there are other pieces of data to look at like attach rate which we don't have but Nintendo probably do.
If those numbers are poor then from a business perspective it's probably not worth the effort to work on them going forward - at the end of the day we don't have those sales numbers so we can't say either way but from previous interviews with Nintendo it seems to be a factor (and is probably why they moved the idea of VC to an up-front subscription cost so that they're guaranteed revenue)
I'd say the main reason the're not pushing more games onto NSO right now is that they're waiting for sub renewal time. Again, it makes sense from a business perspective so that they entice people back into the service for another year - I can see SNES games being added and the process being pretty much the same as we've had so far for the NES.
As someone who enjoys their legacy content, I'd much prefer more platforms to be supported more regularly and in higher quantities and I'm hugely disappointed by the output in the first year but I can see their reasoning - it's just not very legacy fan-friendly.
Fine? I just want the games the system. I don't mind if they're part of a collection, especially as the vast majority of collections have been fantastic value and regularly on sale.
Yeah, I think people would have received it better had at least SNES games on launch and the drip feed of 2-3 per month has just been too slow (4-5 would be far more palatable), especially when some of them were just save states for previously released titles.
I do wonder what's left on the Nintendo-owned side of things on the NES for them to release though - most of the big hitters seem to be included which is probably why we've entered deeper cut territory (which is actually fun to see). Anything egregious that's missing?
Hopefully it isn't just SNES games that are added when September hits (not guarenteed, but has been hinted at and makes sense for something to include to encourage renewals), would love to see at least GB/GBC and the start of N64 but I have heavy doubts.
Yeah thats all well and good but it striked me that the reason Nintendo and third paerties don't want to bring back the old style VC and selling games one at a time is that, in many cases, they have already sold them to you that way. If they brought them back i would fully expect to be able to use previously purchased VC games for free (remember the upgrade fee for games from wii to wii u)
compilations of classic games allows them to avoid honouring previous purchases
it absolutely stinks and, I note, Sony have the done the same by makig PS1 classics inexplicably unavailble on the PS4
its just greed and trying to find new ways tos ell exactlytyhe same thign we already own to us again
compilations of classic games allows them to avoid honouring previous purchases
it absolutely stinks and, I note, Sony have the done the same by makig PS1 classics inexplicably unavailble on the PS4
its just greed and trying to find new ways tos ell exactlytyhe same thign we already own to us again
I would love for some weird shit to appear on snes online! One of my favorite games back in the day was a JALECO beat em up!
Too bad lots of the weird shit I loved were licensed stuff like Stone Protectors, Bike Mice from Mars and Sanrio Smash Ball
Maybe we can get Konami to give us a Sunset Riders?
Too bad lots of the weird shit I loved were licensed stuff like Stone Protectors, Bike Mice from Mars and Sanrio Smash Ball
Maybe we can get Konami to give us a Sunset Riders?
Weird that third parties is where OP draws the line on a Nintendo platform of all things. If this service were slightly more expensive but offered an all star line up of NES, SNES, N64, and Gameboy games (with Gamecube and/or Wii in the future) a vast majority of people would not be disappointed. Third parties is hardly the hang up here.
I mean wasn't that the reason for discontinuing the Virtual Console service to give publishers choice on how they rerelease their old games? Seems like most publishers would rather handle it on their own then rely on Nintendo's branded services and likely steeper cut, not to mention more work on Nintendo's end with having to figure out the release schedule and assist with publishing. VC made a lot of sense on Wii, when digital distribution on console was kind of in its infancy, but in the era of self publishing on all major console platforms I don't think it really makes sense.
Why do people constantly say garbage like this that is not exclusive to the NES? If you find NES games too archaic to go back to, fine, but NES is a fantastic system with a ton of variety.
I'm glad third party are releasing their own collections. I hope the trend continues.
There's way too many classics still stucked on the eshop for wiiu/3ds/Wii vc.
There's way too many classics still stucked on the eshop for wiiu/3ds/Wii vc.
What are you talking about?
People would be infinitely less mad about Switch Online if we got Super Metroid and Mario 64.
People would be infinitely less mad about Switch Online if we got Super Metroid and Mario 64.
I honestly prefer third parties offering their own bespoke collections. They can come on physical media, feature behind-the-scenes information and galleries, and won't be inevitably pulled one day like the NSO games. Even collections you've downloaded will still be there even if the Switch eShop vanishes.
A Nintendo subscription service that's 99% Nintendo first party games could be awesome by itself anyway, if they put out other systems and didn't drip feed two games a month.
A Nintendo subscription service that's 99% Nintendo first party games could be awesome by itself anyway, if they put out other systems and didn't drip feed two games a month.
I may be in the minority, but I'm actually pretty satisfied with the NES stuff on Switch. I agree the distribution is kinda laughable, but I can't be too upset about no Mega Man or Castlevania on there when there are more fully featured collections available separately. I also find stuff like that Vice Project Doom that they're adding this month to be of much more worth to me; I had never even heard of the game, and it sounds like it's some kind of hidden gem on the system that's never been re-released, which is much more exciting to me than playing Mario 3 for the thousandth time.
SNES will be different because I think Nintendo put out much better first party games on the system than on NES. Also, having played Castlevania 4, Bloodlines, Mega Man 7, Sonic 1 and Mania, etc. already on the Switch, 16-bit games look a treat on that screen in a way that 8-bit ones don't.
SNES will be different because I think Nintendo put out much better first party games on the system than on NES. Also, having played Castlevania 4, Bloodlines, Mega Man 7, Sonic 1 and Mania, etc. already on the Switch, 16-bit games look a treat on that screen in a way that 8-bit ones don't.
Nintendo really created the PERFECT SNES emulating software for the SNES Classic and are seemingly hesitating to to use it on what will likely be their greatest console ever.
The only hope for Nintendo putting some effort towards more modern retro titles on NSO is when PS5 and Scarlett release. Those consoles being backwards compatible may influence them.
The only hope for Nintendo putting some effort towards more modern retro titles on NSO is when PS5 and Scarlett release. Those consoles being backwards compatible may influence them.
Agreed. In my opinion, most collections on Switch have provided a much better value than paying for each game individually (ex: Wii Virtual Console).
Mega Man Collections
Castlevania Collection
Contra Collection
Sega Genesis Collection
Street Fighter Anniversary collection (Street 1, 2, 3, the Alpha series)
Capcom Beat Em Up Collection
SNK Anniversary Collection
Namco Museum Collection
And the NES online app has provided a much better value than paying $5 for each NES game individually. (Wii VC days)