Restricting the release of quality software so that lower-quality titles can sell is a terrible and backward way to do business. If Nintendo believed that, they wouldn’t be releasing the SNES and NES classics. Scheduling is obviously a thing, but Nintendo would be a ridiculous company to do something like block the release of a Final Fantasy so some indie RPG could sell. On the Wii, when there were gaps in the release schedule, Nintendo did a good job of filling those with VC titles.

People are not buying a game they don’t want because of the lack of a game they do want. Instead, they’ll look on other platforms.

You know what? There was a company that limited competition in the 80's. They made it so that certain companies could only release a limited number of games within a time period. Also, companies couldn't release games that directly competed with their  newly released offerings for a limited amount of time.

They were called Nintendo.

I think a subscription service (maybe as a part of the Switch's online service or even separately like the Xbox Game Pass/PSNOW) that lets you access the VC games will mitigate this. As paying $20-30$ or so per year to access the entire VC library as opposed to individually purchasing the games might give people more funds to invest in Indie games and smaller titles. Although, the downside to this will obviously be that many users will not be satisfied with the subscription option and may desire to own their VC library.

It will be a hard act to balance, just looking at the Wii U and 3DS eShop charts, one can see how VC has somewhat stifled other software. Also, contrary to what others say about how Nintendo's quality VC titles should not be held back to accommodate low-quality Indies, I do want to point out that the reason why these VC games tend to sell well is partially due to familiarity and price. When you give people something they are familiar with and like as opposed to something they are unfamiliar with, particularly when people have limited resources or a set budget, they will got with what they find familiar. Another factor is that these indie titles and VC titles are typically priced similarly; this automatically puts Indies at a disadvantage because their pricing reflects a new game that was created with budget constraints and meant to be sold at a lower price on the other hand the older titles in the VC library were designed to be sold at full price and had much higher initial budgets. These VC games, unlike their indie counterparts, have most likely already been profitable on the original system they were released so they can be released for a lower price. Quality does not play a huge role here. One thing that may help increase exposure and familiarity with these indie titles is to A) redesign the eShop with a front page that features these games (as opposed to only showing the latest games and letting older games fall into the abyss) and B) partnering with Indies to increase exposure to their titles. This can be done by offering discounts or even access to select indie games on a time limited basis through the Switch subscription service (which is supposed to have game discounts included).

That's still true today without Nintendo enforcement.

OT- I hope they put NES and SNES Mini on a cartridge.

you make a very good point actually.

personally, i have no desire for vc on switch. i already have all of nintendo’s past games, so my desire to play them on switch is stifled somewhat.

this is especially true since i already have so many games for switch i have yet to complete.

That's silly. Legacy support doesn't hurt Indies on other platforms. It didn't hurt Indies on Wii U. No reason why it would suddenly hurt Switch Indies.

People don't just buy games because they have extra money. If someone doesn't want an indie game, the lack of VC isn't going to change that.

I think it has something to do with paid online as well as re-purchasing games so they want to hold off on that

The cream usually rises to the top. Stardew Valley has been one of the Switch's top sellers even with Vs. Super Mario Bros available. I would like my Switch to have both classics and originals, an all-comprehensive gaming machine.

Thank you so far a lot of people have brought up some good points and it has started a positive debate. I Want to touch on few points.

I think that a small number of indies had modest success on wii and wii u, and that success pails in significants to what they are achieving on switch. As some one pointed out look at the 3ds charts and you can see VC has had a negative impact.

I agree that Nintendo as a business would be stupid to leave VC money on the table. As a hard core Nintendo gamer i have always wanted a Nintendo console with all its back catalogue available to me.

Nintendo has probably a core of 50 million fans that will buy a handheld or console. I feel they have done their job on selling the switch to us, a lot of us have purchased the switch or at some point in the future will buy one. The old narrative is that we only buy Nintendo games. On the switch this is not happening indies are thriving and this could be a positive sign that might make say Rock Star take a risk with GTA. Once that starts happening Nintendo may start to legitimately attract new cor gamers. Maybe VC damages this??

I agree i think at the moment the classic line has worked so well for them and has been part of the Nintendo rebirth that they will continue with the classic 64. VC will hopefully be part of the online subscription service.

One last point what if instead of VC Nintendo start to do a preservation project, alot of these game especially the NES games are starting to feel really tired especially on new 4k screens. What if we start to get HD remakes? Say start with the HD black box collection, the hd mario collections??

Fuck that. They better have 3ds VC. I need that Majora's Mask.