The better example would be a limited print run, which is what these specific games would be if not for a digital storefront.With the difference, that I can still buy used copys of Super Mario World and play it on my gaming system. This is impossible with digital games.
Sure, you could get the game... if you have $200 to spare for it.
Virtual Console having Ogre Battle and now Earthbound has saved me at least $300. So seriously, if delisted licensed titles is the trade-off I have to make not to be ripped off by eBay resellers for limited-print legacy titles, SO BE IT.
Well said.Hahaha. No.
The entire reason this happens is because of licensing and royalties. Disney-Marvel and the creators of The Simpsons have become much harder to work with, expecting far more restrictive contracts and far higher royalties than they did at the time the games were made.
If Capcom/Konami were to make an "Arcade Collection" they would specifically exclude these games from it to avoid having to deal with the licensing issues and having to pay a significant portion of the revenue to these companies. What you have stated is actually far less likely to have been the outcome than stand-alone releases of these games.
These games failed to see a retail release on three bloody generations of consoles in physical media form. It was never going to happen. Digital gave people a chance to play something they almost certainly never would have had otherwise. I have no idea why you want to twist this so hard to make it some kind of condemnation of digital game sales.
Hell, even if Capcom/Konami didn't have to put up with the licensing problems, I doubt they would have done a physical re-release of these games because they would have been too nervous about the overhead on printing discs for games selling at a low margin. Especially Konami. Motherfuckers don't even use their best IP these days, you think they're going to go out on a limb for fans?