By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Nintendo Is Stupid For Ignoring Virtual Console on Switch

burninmylight on 11 October 2018
mZuzek said:
Ka-pi96 said:

I literally only bought 1 VC game on 3DS (Pokemon Yellow, although maybe I'll buy Gold or Silver one day as well). It doesn't really matter how much the yearly subscription would have been, it would have still cost more paying that way than just a one off payment for me.

And a product that stops working as soon as you stop forking over money is definitely a lesser product than one that just keeps on working no matter what.

So yeah, pay more and get less. That's just bad.

Technically you're getting a lot more for your money. If 99% of it specifically doesn't interest you, it's not a worse product because of it, it's only specifically worse for you. Personally I think most people are interested in at least half a dozen games or so, and if you're getting that many it's far more expensive than getting the family plan on Switch.

That said, I do think it'd be nice if they allowed you to buy games outright. Say, every user has access to the retro game app, and from then in order to access any given game you have to either pay the subscription or purchase the game individually. That would be the most user-friendly solution for sure, but, you know, companies and such.

That's the way Sony does it with PS+. If you have the service, you get many of the games you would have paid for as part of the service. But if you want to just own the ROM of the games without needing the service, you have the ability to buy them outright too. This is exactly what I was hoping for from Nintendo.

As far as whether Switch Online is or will be ultimately better than VC, one of the answers to that comes years from now when the Switch's successor launches. If that console has to start all over YET AGAIN with zero retro games available and a slow drip feed of NES games that slowly lead into newer systems, then what will have been the point? If it can can carry over everything from the Switch and pick up where the Switch leaves off, well now we're talking.

Because of ESRB restrictions though, I'm not betting on the latter. So I'm with Ka-pi on this one. I got Chrono Trigger on the Wii VC. It has yet to be made available on any other Nintendo console's VC or retro gaming service. If the Wii had a subscription service that would definitely now be defunct, I'd be pretty upset that I no longer have access to CT.



Around the Network
Helloplite on 12 October 2018

It sounds like they run into licensing issues. Not long before Switch was launched, Nintendo was sending ambiguous messages about VC. It is likely that with the advent of indie and retro gaming revolution, developers were more reluctant to sign off their games for the platform or asked for increased revenues for participating in the service. The Switch would have been amazing if it had it, as it makes more sense to be there than on Wii and Wii U. Sadly, that's not to be. . .



nemo37 on 12 October 2018

Once they are done with the NES games, I think they should sell them as a bundle for none-NSO Switch users, while providing it for free or with a discount for existing NSO users. After that they should move onto the SNES (again bring the games early for NSO users and then once all the games they plan on releasing are finished they should release the full collection for a fixed price for non-NSO or discount/free for NSO users and move onto doing the same for N64 or GB/GBC, etc.).



Wyrdness on 12 October 2018
mZuzek said:
Ka-pi96 said:

Isn't it like $30 a year though?

Besides, why should those of us that only want to play a select few games have to subsidise a service for people that want to play everything?

Technically $20 a year, but if you buy a family subscription ($35) and share it among 7 other friends/family/whatever, it is around $4 for each person. And there is no restriction or limitation as to who can be in your family plan, not currently at least. (edit: well and of course you're also paying that money to play online, so it's not like you have much of a choice...)

So, yeah. Why would any of you that only want to play a select few games rather pay $5 for each one instead of $4 yearly... I don't know. Even I don't care much about most games, but I'd rather pay the $4 yearly for a service that offers me loads of games, including those I'd otherwise pay specifically for. And yeah, as I said before, the current service doesn't offer me the games I want at all, but I feel it has potential to be much better than what the VC ever was, and even then the VC was also very sluggish when it came to adding new games, at least on 3DS and Wii U.

Yeah I kind of agree with this as like Netflix it'll start off slow but if they add their library onto the service it would be better than VC.



DarthMetalliCube on 12 October 2018

Nintendo is jumping on the "everything as a service" bandwagon. I'm not crazy about it as I'd rather own these games, but as long as the service remains as cheap as it is per year, I don't care too much. I am really looking forward to SNES/N64 games though, as I don't really care about much NES stuff, especially when it comes to multiplayer online.



 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident - all men and women created by the, go-you know.. you know the thing!" - Joe Biden