Simply no interest on it. I'm keep the regular plan to play Splatoon 3 occasionally
Slownenberg said:
Personally I much prefer the subscription system. So much cheaper and you get everything. Just a much more consumer friendly system than the VC. Just on the first day, yesterday, of having the expansion pack i played Banjo and FzeroX a good amount and would have had to pay $20 on the old VC model while it only costs me an extra $30 over the basic subscription to get those and all the other N64 and Genesis games plus all the extra MK8D courses for a whole year. I also played a little bit of several other games, oh and I played some of the new MK8D courses as well. I don't even want to think about how many hundreds of dollars I would have to drop under a Virtual Console system to be able to play what I'll end up playing this year for $50. VC model was cool back in 2007, but it was just soooo expensive compared to today's world of cheap subscriptions. But I agree it'd be a nice option for that niche where people want to pay extra to be able to download a few games. Like if you're only interested in a handful of games and you want to be playing them 10 years from now then yeah VC model is cheaper. And I mean it'd just give Nintendo even more money so I'm sure they wouldn't mind, but they are also lazy in building out online stuff so I doubt they'll add this alternative when the majority of people prefer to have immediate cheap access to full libraries of games. Assuming they add GB and GBA in the expansion pack, and once they get all the games out (I'm also dreaming of them adding GC when the Switch 2 is out) the expansion pack will be like the ultimate retro games subscription. I really think they should open up the service outside of Nintendo systems and just let anyone online subscribe. I could totally see them getting like 100 million $50/year subscriptions eventually if it was available to anyone. Probably lots of 35-50 year olds out there who played games in the 90s but don't buy systems anymore but would pay a cheap $50/year price to get 200-300 of the games they played as a kid available to them anywhere. |
I don't agree with this reasoning. Overall subscription is less expensive than purchasing games only if there is enough new games coming for as long as you keep the subscription going, that's why Game Pass is cheap, there are always new games coming to it
There isn't that many N64 games to be delivered (and that's only pretending I find they worth their price, which by the way I don't), means once the N64 games are done there wont be anything else to subscribe for
Also, they are delivering only few games in a desperate attempt to keep subscribers on the service for as long as they can, instead of doing the consumer friendly approach of put all the library at the same time. They don't do this because they are very much aware their content is limited, if everything was available right of the start people would just subscribe for 2 months months to play their 3-4 favorite games and then go back to the standard plan
Slownenberg said:
Nah I'm good. No need to buy a whole new system and games when I have it all right there on Switch already. |
That's a real shame, because they are the best version of those titles.
..Probably reinforces my previous statement that Nintendo needs to re-release the 3DS games as HD remasters on Switch. - The assets are much improved and if PC emulation is an example, really showcases the finer details that the 3DS low-resolution displays just can't showcase. - And the N64 versions can't hold a candle to, even on Switch.
Even with both at 4k... The better textures, poly counts, meshes... Even the replacement of sprites with full 3D models, improved lighting, shading and shadowing of the 3DS version just makes it a much better experience.
--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--
Slownenberg said:
Personally I much prefer the subscription system. So much cheaper and you get everything. Just a much more consumer friendly system than the VC. Just on the first day, yesterday, of having the expansion pack i played Banjo and FzeroX a good amount and would have had to pay $20 on the old VC model while it only costs me an extra $30 over the basic subscription to get those and all the other N64 and Genesis games plus all the extra MK8D courses for a whole year. I also played a little bit of several other games, oh and I played some of the new MK8D courses as well. I don't even want to think about how many hundreds of dollars I would have to drop under a Virtual Console system to be able to play what I'll end up playing this year for $50. VC model was cool back in 2007, but it was just soooo expensive compared to today's world of cheap subscriptions. But I agree it'd be a nice option for that niche where people want to pay extra to be able to download a few games. Like if you're only interested in a handful of games and you want to be playing them 10 years from now then yeah VC model is cheaper. And I mean it'd just give Nintendo even more money so I'm sure they wouldn't mind, but they are also lazy in building out online stuff so I doubt they'll add this alternative when the majority of people prefer to have immediate cheap access to full libraries of games. Assuming they add GB and GBA in the expansion pack, and once they get all the games out (I'm also dreaming of them adding GC when the Switch 2 is out) the expansion pack will be like the ultimate retro games subscription. I really think they should open up the service outside of Nintendo systems and just let anyone online subscribe. I could totally see them getting like 100 million $50/year subscriptions eventually if it was available to anyone. Probably lots of 35-50 year olds out there who played games in the 90s but don't buy systems anymore but would pay a cheap $50/year price to get 200-300 of the games they played as a kid available to them anywhere. |
I really don't think it's that small of a niche of people who want to download just one or two games, especially when you consider that Nintendo has been rereleasing these games regularly for about two decades in various forms. I already have pretty much all the games I like from NES/SNES/64/Genesis' back catalog. Really the only games I've played are Mario Party 1/2 since those haven't been rereleased to my knowledge.
I'm happy the subscription model exists for those who want it, but there is literally zero reason to restrict the games to subscriptions, besides the desire to bundle it so that some people wind up paying for more than they actually want.
JWeinCom said:
I really don't think it's that small of a niche of people who want to download just one or two games, especially when you consider that Nintendo has been rereleasing these games regularly for about two decades in various forms. I already have pretty much all the games I like from NES/SNES/64/Genesis' back catalog. Really the only games I've played are Mario Party 1/2 since those haven't been rereleased to my knowledge. I'm happy the subscription model exists for those who want it, but there is literally zero reason to restrict the games to subscriptions, besides the desire to bundle it so that some people wind up paying for more than they actually want. |
I think you’re right here. They already do the double methods on some of their software as well (like the Animal Crossing Expansion) And Sega gives multiple ways to get their software on the Switch, including one time purchase bundles—although, those bundles probably do more harm than good to the value of the software. But I agree that Nintendo could probably put their 16-titles up for 10-25 USD a pop, and if people want to buy them outright instead of joining a subscription service.
A business model they could use would be one much like streaming services, where they allow third parties to temporarily put products up on the service. Part of why third party film studios do that is because they’re trying to sell their products outright on the digital storefronts. One tactic they use with film franchises is splitting them up between services, and switching them around from time to time—kind of an annoying tactic, but it works for people looking to buy up the whole of a franchise. Even Disney does stuff like this with their own first party content, pulling Avatar off the Disney+ Store in the months leading up to, and during its re-release to cinema. And Disney+ is a much more closed service than Netflix or Amazon—which are more like Nintendo (except with games instead of films).
But, as far as I’m concerned, I’m all for having direct purchase and package subscription options. I think it would be smart for Nintendo to do it from a business standpoint as well. If they released their 16-bit titles in direct or remastered form, I think they could easily get up to 25 USD for some of them… The Pixel Remaster Final Fantasy games will likely be 16-32 USD a pop, and people will buy them.
Last edited by Jumpin - on 14 December 2022I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.
| Pemalite said: Haven't given it a go as of yet... Mostly because I don't see the value in another monthly fee for games I don't get to keep. |
Ocarina sure is better on 3DS. Majora's... Eh. Despite de improved visuals and the implementation of the touchscreen and gyro controls, there is a LONG list of gameplay changes that make the game worse.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
Currently Online 
