I wonder why suddenly now everyone is saying VC games sold bad. When the Switch was announced almost no one said that and there were multiple discussions about GameCube and other systems coming to VC.
A subscription based system is nice but since you don't own anything there is a good chance you won't be able to play those games 10 years from today.
I understand VC games started selling worse and worse because they released the same games every single time. How many versions of Ocarina does someone need? They were also priced strange and of course companies like Square and Capcom started their collection.
There are however still many Nintendo gems hidden in the Nintendo vault that will probably stay there unfortunately
Lots of VC games did poorly as not many are going to go out and buy obscure stuff. It was especially bad the second go around with the Wii U where people didn't want to have to repurchase their games again, even with the small upgrade fee. Nintendo poured a majority of their library into Wii U VC by the end of life that I remember someone actually made a list back on the old site that there were not that many more games they could even release as they were scraping the bottom of the barrel for some of the platforms on VC. And for 3rd parties on VC, there were hardly any, this was the beginning of the shift for 3rd parties making their own classics collections that we're still seeing now.
who's "everyone". Outside of games like MCC which relies heavily on multiplayer, it seems like Microsoft is simply making their old catalog playable and instantly upgraded in graphics with their push for backward compatibility. I get that's impossible for the company that used so many differing media types, but they could do better.
Microsoft's method is also incredibly unique because Microsoft was smart to adopt the standardized ID methods that movie and music CDs/DVDs/Blu-Ray use to identify things. So all it takes is working on the software side and getting license to use on the new system and then having the disc so it can get the proper ID to authorize a virtual copy of the game free of charge. All intents and purposes, Microsoft future proofed their stuff. Their method is like a hybrid of BC and VC since they give you the option to purchase them digitally if you don't have the disc. Also a really nice thing about Microsoft's method that I really, really like is that when my brother buys a 360 game digitally for his Xbox One, that game will also be playable on his account on my 360 (we share our systems). Microsoft just has the account system nailed in how things should work and I fully expect all the BC they've done will be easily transferred over to the next system.
Sony's in the same boat as Nintendo though regarding VC. Sony's pursuing subscription service as a way to play their classics as they simply stopped their PS Classics stuff before it even got started on PS4. The shocking thing about Sony's method with PS Classics though was that nothing you owned on PS3 carried over for PS4. So if you had that classic game on PS3, you had to pay full price again for the PS4 version. Unlike Nintendo, they had a proper account system on PS3 so this really shouldn't have happened. At the very least a small upgrade fee should have been a thing considering how much time obviously went into upgrading those games for trophy support.
As for Nintendo, well, we all know the story, and Nintendo is the most criticized company for their VC content or lack there of. Even investors have called them out for their drip feed pace and lack of additional system, and have commented that they have a vast library of games that is hardly available and that they should be more available. I definitely agree they should do better.