RadarScope1
Member
Exactly. Read between the lines, folks. It's their version of "If you want to play Xbox 360 games, we have a product for you..."
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Do you think VC on Switch will come out this year?
- Thread starter hatchx
- Start date
Exactly. Read between the lines, folks. It's their version of "If you want to play Xbox 360 games, we have a product for you..."
When you guys say "Netflix style service", you're talking about streaming right? Because if it's anything like PSNOW, then yeah, screw that. Streaming leads to awful compressed graphics, and lag so bad it makes games unplayable. Streaming isn't something that I think is viable for games right now. Too many issues.
NinjaCoachZ
Member
TheBaldEmperor
Member
I don't like the way that reads.
There is no sense in streaming what is effectively an emulator using rom images. That would be a colossal waste of bandwidth. I believe that what most people think about when they talk about Netflix style VC is a subscription model in which you get the access to games as long as you pay, but: you do not own anything and the games may be in some kind of rotation, in other words, there is no guarantee that a given game will be available all the time.
Ok, so they're replacing VC with classic systems. Why not make more systems available then, rather than these ultra limited releases? Also, why not make more games available to purchase than what's on the system? Surely they would make more money from software purchases, or even a subscription service? What you're proposing makes no sense. Oh, and you can play Xbox 360 games on X1 now, y'know...
The Last One
Member
Probably not and this makes me mad. SNES mini is in no way a substitute of a VC in a console that you can play on the go.
Yeah, that doesn't sound so bad. It would sort of be like Nintendo's version of PS+. I'm not sure I understand the logic of replacing a standard VC with this, though. Why wouldn't they also allow you to buy games al la carte though, in addition to the subscription? It seems like that would be leaving a lot of money on the table, to me.
CuckFupertino
Banned
Me either. Is Switch was just a home console and not a hybrid I wouldn't care, but I want the versatility to bring VC games with me.
Also, Nintendo seems wed to the idea of making these Classic consoles very hard to find. In addition to my money, they seem to want me to put my blood and sweat into getting their old games.
And that's exactly why it's a Nintendo style move. I don't think they're a replacement, but Nintendo has made crazier decisions.
Godzilla's Left Toe
Member
They are going to get a lot fan backlash soon.
MercuryLS3
Junior Member
Online enabled VC games is the most exciting thing ever, I hope they launch it this year but I also hope they do it right. If it takes time to nail it, so be it.
mindatlarge
Member
Not after the SNES Classic announcement. Maybe early next year?
I'm guessing that VC will have to rebuild its whole library again and a slow trickle of games will release that require upgrade fees for people that own them on Wii U. They are probably just trying to put the announcement off for as long as they can since they will already be trying to warm people up to their paid online.
Online enabled NES games. Not "online enabled VC games."
It wouldn't be sudden. It would be part of the trend to ignore consumer demand.
RadarScope1
Member
I am not in any way, shape or form talking about what makes sense. I am talking about Nintendo business strategy. The Venn diagram on those two concepts doesn't contain a ton of overlap. And that is not a snarky forum comment. It's two-decade historical fact.
When your only argument to justify your point is that "Nintendo is dumb and can only make stupid decisions", you're doing it wrong.
Again, if they'd deliberately take the decision to make less money than before, they wouldn't have lasted 130 years in the market.
Maybe they're doing something like this:
- NES Classic came out: Limited time run (already discontinued)
- SNES Classic comes out: Limited time run (this calendar year only)
- Classic Game Selection launches with online NES games, alongside online subs (2018)
- N64 Classic comes out: Limited time run, sometime in 2018
And then... With the Classic line discontinued, and with a fair number of online-enhanced NES Classic games available for the Classic Game Selection... That's when Nintendo rolls out a Switch Virtual Console offering all of these titles some with online enhancements available piecemeal.
And perhaps throw in GCN titles and localized Mother 3 to sweeten the deal.
- NES Classic came out: Limited time run (already discontinued)
- SNES Classic comes out: Limited time run (this calendar year only)
- Classic Game Selection launches with online NES games, alongside online subs (2018)
- N64 Classic comes out: Limited time run, sometime in 2018
And then... With the Classic line discontinued, and with a fair number of online-enhanced NES Classic games available for the Classic Game Selection... That's when Nintendo rolls out a Switch Virtual Console offering all of these titles some with online enhancements available piecemeal.
And perhaps throw in GCN titles and localized Mother 3 to sweeten the deal.
RadarScope1
Member
I don't think I was being clear. See my post at the bottom of the last page. I don't think they'll make less money. They have crunched the numbers and I believe they see they can make more money selling fewer, more expensive Classic consoles to one segment of the market while ALSO offering a PS+ style sub option for another segment (Switch owners). It LOOKS dumb from the outside and it seems bad for consumers in some ways, but it's good for Nintendo and that's what matters to them.
So, you mean that virtual console would still exist but in the form of a paid service like PS+, in addition to classic consoles ?
That's a fairly safe assumption. That's also how I expect them to do it. I don't think it would be bad for consumers if done correctly.
RadarScope1
Member
Right, right. I think they are foreseeing different strategies for the different devices - or will be pursuing them for now. If one or the other doesn't work, they have options -- including one they know works (a la carte VC on the flagship console). It's not unlike the days when the DS launched as a "third leg." When it worked, the second leg quickly got cut off.
PyroPaperPlanes
Member
No.
and it will never come.
RadarScope1
Member
I could see this too. Maybe. But I bet they would keep prices in par with the physical ones, maybe $10 less. $50 for an NES bundle and $70 for a SNES.
Godzilla's Left Toe
Member
So like a Namco museum collection?
Tyraniboah
Member
...well then what are you reading? Is Nintendo going to leave a ton of easy money on the table? We'll get a virtual console one way or another, and no limited run collector's item is going to stop that.
Also, does the Xbox One not play 360 games?
Earthbound64
Banned
It already is out.
Are people ignoring Neo-Geo games for some reason?
Are people ignoring Neo-Geo games for some reason?
sleepnaught
Member
If VC doesn't come by time online sub comes around, I'm done with the Switch and Nintendo. Playing classic Nintendo games on an HD screen on the go was one of the primary reasons I even bothered getting a Switch. Sure as hell ain't for the 2017 lineup.
It kind of is and kind of isn't.
Neo-Geo games are ported by Hamster IIRC.
When VC's emulators are made in-house by Nintendo. (I think?)
Were the Wii's VC all made in-house?
Okami Haundo
Member
I've convinced myself there's a chance we'll get it in November. Super NES Classic launches in September and Mario is October so we don't yet have a "big" release for holiday. Neither Xenoblade nor FE Warriors have the clout. They can launch VC on Switch along side special JoyCon and controllers that retailers can bundle for Black Friday.
Please let this be the case.
Well they've already said they're not making anymore after the end of this year. Which would assume they're stopping it for VC next year.
The point isn't whether they last, but whether they leave money on the table. I argue that they have obviously done so.
1. Failing to capitalize on their huge Wii install base. My weakest point. After getting a huge install base, they let the system be filled with shovelware.
2. Stupid online/account system. Just have a simple account system and don't tie purchases to a system. Why the hell can't I play the Gargoyle's Quest game or Steamworld Dig that I bought on 3DS on my Switch? Friend codes?
3. Never putting games on sale. I engage with the system less when each purchase sets me back $60-$80 CAD before tax. I can get Shadow of Mordor, which won GOTY awards for $6 right now for christsakes. I have a Switch but don't see myself playing it outside of when entertaining.
4. Confusing system iterations that gated access to some games. DS, DSi, 3DS, new 3DS.
5. Wii U as a name. Good plan, man.
6. Underestimating demand for the Classic NES and refusing to make more. That was an easy $80 of my money that they will never get.
7. The most persnickety point and least relevant... fading grass in Animal Crossing. Yes, make traversing my town to actually play the game make my town uglier.
8. No virtual console on the Switch. I would have spent at least $20 by now. Instead, nothing. With my gaming budget being what it is and the need for a case and screen protector, I might have a game for the system in August.
RadarScope1
Member
They already have stopped it. They're out and VC is not. Again, see my post last page. Nintendo does not see it as leaving money on the table. I believe they have crunched the numbers and are seeing more ROI in these products than a VC right now. And remember, one product affects another. Demand for their $20 a year service might be eroded by a la carte VC.
It's true that MS reversed course - after getting their asses kicked. Nintendo doesn't care what place they are in. They make money and only focus on ROI.
pretty done
Member
If that's the case, fuck the indies and give me Virtual Console.
Tyraniboah
Member
I guess I'm having trouble seeing how the return on investment is higher for a miniature piece of hardware with limited access to classic games that costs money to manufacture, distribute, and stock at retail. Whatever cut they end up with dries up as soon as the console sells out, which won't take long when it's only being manufactured for a few months.
I find it especially unlikely that potential lifetime sales for virtual console titles on the Switch, which almost assuredly cost considerably less per title to plop onto the Switch and distribute digitally, would be eclipsed by these classic systems. Nintendo could even keep the pricing structure similar to Wii U and 3DS. $5 for NES (and GB/GBC?), $8 for SNES and GBA, $10 for N64, and even toss GameCube games on there for $15 or $20.
Nintendo's catalogue of older titles is so massive that the free one month rental (for which I've only seen confirmation of NES titles right now...might have read SNES somewhere though) couldn't possibly substitute access to games a la carte. Plus the sub is required for online, which people will be willing to pay at $20 per year anyway just to play Splatoon or Smash online.
By no means am I trying to be rude here, but I just don't see how withholding VC in favor of limited edition consoles and a $1.67 per month subscription makes any financial sense.
Well, one possible reason is that you could easily get the subsrciption, sample every game, buy a handful of games you liked and then cease the subscription.
I am not saying that the model in which you can also buy games is impossible, only that there are some advantages to this (because people will be paying all the time).
Scrotum Phillips
Member
Ugh, the VC situation with the Switch annoys the hell out of me. I'm never buying a mini console from them but I sure as hell would throw a lot of $ at Nintendo if they'd let me for some old games. Just never thought they'd struggle or wouldn't announce anything either way for something that existed on the last 2 consoles. Skipped the Wii U, so I guess i mostly forgot about the "random nonsensical decisions" that accustoms most Nintendo consoles.
SimpleCRIPPLE
Member
Nintendo already has a steady stream of games this year, and launching a new online network should keep them busy, so i wouldnt be surprised to see them hold onto VC until a slow period in 2018.
Except they've already confirmed that NES games are coming to Switch by way of the subscription plan, so obviously classic consoles will not be their only way of delivering retro content.
(They're also sitting on multiple finished GameCube VC games for Switch, who knows when those will drop tho)