You sure that hasn't always been there? The ability to search for 3DS games and eShop games on the 3DS/etc has always been there.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Wii U Virtual Console - News and Releases
- Thread starter GulAtiCa
- Start date
You sure that hasn't always been there? The ability to search for 3DS games and eShop games on the 3DS/etc has always been there.
Gonzo The Great
Banned
Don't waste your time, they won't listen.
The Wii ecosystem most certainly did not "die" in 2010. Successful games like Super Mario Galaxy 2, Kirby's Epic Yarn, and Donkey Kong Country Returns prove otherwise.
MaverickHunterX
Member
Has anyone said anything about Sega, PCE, or Arcade titles yet?
Carpe Libertatem
Member
There's a lot of armchair CEOs on GAF. Well, there's a lot of "Armchair X" in general. GAFers like to think that they're experts on just about everything and that their word is definitive.
Gonzo The Great
Banned
Oh the irony.
3DS eShop/retail games have always been there, but you couldn't look at 3DS Virtual Console games before.
It certainly wasn't healthy.
Carpe Libertatem
Member
Yep, it's ironic that I'm explaining a company's business decisions based upon them actively repeating the same strategy across their platforms (Wii, 3DS, now Wii U). You may dislike it, but it's clearly working for Nintendo. If it wasn't they wouldn't doing the same thing over and over again. That's how a business operates.
I'm not the one who is saying their business strategy is wrong and that they need to release all of the games at once - that would be you. I'm not actually suggesting that Nintendo do anything in particular - I'm merely explaining why it is that Nintendo is doing what it is (as well as offering speculation as to why it is profitable for them to do it).
Case in point: You're the armchair CEO, not me
BruiserBear
Banned
Clearly working, or they wouldn't repeat it? lol
Carpe Libertatem
Member
Some examples would be helpful here, drive-by posts with zero content aren't particularly useful or contributive
To be fair, they are redoing the emulators. The Wii emulators didn't give you the option to change buttons for example (it's a godsend for the NES games, since I prefer to Y/B instead of B/A).
Don't give them TOO much credit for this, though - after all, nothing stopped Nintendo from already having redone all of the emulators (the uniqueness of which are overblown, as Nintendo still works from a master emulator, and then tweaks for each individual game). Also, Nintendo's not going to get any kudos from me for including features which emulators were doing more than a decade ago.
Carpe, I don't know what else to say to you. You keep going back to the well of if Nintendo is doing it, then it must be right. How you can make this argument with a straight face, in the face of the incompetence of Nintendo management (they don't keep making public apologies for doing things right, after all), is mind boggling to me. Let me suggest to you that Nintendo is choosing an identical strategy (drip release, no account based system) as they have for the Wii and the 3DS, and the decision has not gotten any better than the first time they chose that strategy, with the Wii. Let me suggest to you any fool can keep trying the same strategy over and over again, even though that strategy hasn't worked, isn't working now, and will never work.
Carpe Libertatem
Member
I'm not making that argument at all, but keep reading my posts in the first way that jumps into your mind.
Do you have any proof that it hasn't worked - other than that you may not personally like it?
Nintendo is a multi-billion dollar business. If their drip strategy did not work for the Wii and 3DS then they would most certainly not do it for the Wii U. But they are - which means that strategy must have worked for both the Wii and 3DS.
And this something that is much more observable than say, the launches of the Wii U and 3DS. Nintendo has data on the sales of the virtual console on both the Wii and 3DS (more than we have, certainly). And that data probably suggests that the trickling strategy is both profitable and beneficial to them. Nintendo doesn't quite have the same data on something like the Wii U and 3DS launches. They're making mistakes in other places, certainly, but it's not quite the same.
But Nintendo does not have access to data that would be decisive in this debate. The question is, should Nintendo continue to drip feed releases, or should they set up an online marketplace in the manner of every other successful online marketplace (Steam, Apple, GoG come to mind). Nintendo does not have data on how a marketplace full of content from the beginning would have performed on the Wii - they only know how their strategy performed. Now, if we were arguing how Genesis games performed compared to Nintendo games, or if charging an import tax affected sales, maybe then we could say, well, only Nintendo knows.
But we're arguing a hypothetical case. There's no data to tell the answer (which is why no one can provide the data and causation you demanded earlier). We are left with arm chair analysis, informed by publicly available data - which is really about the same position as Nintendo.
Your theory is that Nintendo's strategy has been wildly profitable, and that they have data confirming their strategy is better than a wide release of titles. But, as I pointed out, there's no such comparative data. So really we're left with, Nintendo made this judgment, and because they've made this judgment repeatedly, it must be working out for them. That's your argument, boiled down. Here are your words, slightly edited: "If [Nintendo's] drip strategy did not work . . . than [Nintendo] would most certainly not do it for the Wii U. But [Nintendo is doing a drip release] - which means that [drip releasing] must have worked."
Let's get back to the fact that the question isn't whether the strategy is working for Nintendo - it'd be hard to not profit off of selling the most popular games of all time at virtually no cost to themselves. The question is how would they have performed if they had set up a vibrant ecosystem chock full of titles, from the beginning. People who have defended Nintendo have said this would harm sales, because people would buy the best and leave. Of course, there's no proof of this - it's all hypothetical. The obvious counterargument is the App Store and iTunes - real, actual virtual stores which seem to be doing okay. But of course I can't mathematically prove Nintendo would do better adopting this strategy - no one can, just as no one can so prove Nintendo is doing better with a drip feed strategy.
I'll leave you with this speculation, which is completely unfounded except based upon my observations of how Nintendo has treated the Virtual Console. I suspect that when the Wii was being planned, Nintendo was brain storming everything possible to hit it out of the park and avoid a second Gamecube. Having a history of including their old games as bonus features on new releases, someone at Nintendo championed the idea of setting up a virtual marketplace for these old titles. They then got the idea for not just Nintendo titles, but third party titles too. Nintendo was enthusiastic! So Virtual Console was born, and part of the initial pitch of the console to the public.
However, when it came down to brass tacks, the person in charge of spending money at Nintendo was not actually that enthusiastic. Creating per game emulators takes programmer time, which means money, and that was money that could be spent developing new titles. And with the release of the Wii, and the DS, games needed more time and money than ever (compared to Gamecube and GBA - this of course holds even more true today, with Wii U and 3DS). Not to mention acquiring the rights for a bunch of third party titles proved more difficult than they thought at first - lots of legal contracts and licensing concerns to work out. That means more money. So Nintendo put it on the back burner. They would still do the Virtual Console - after all, once the Wii came out, look how many people were eager to give Nintendo 5 bucks for SMB3! But the decision was made - Virtual Console is just for spare time, to make some extra cash on the side. That decision has never changed, as far as I can tell.
You can see, from my theory, that drip-releasing isn't really a "strategy" at all, and if Nintendo has ever said as much, I would guess that's just rationalizing away how they undervalue the service. Nintendo just doesn't care that much. The drip feed is the necessary consequence of not putting any money into developing the service.
I'm wondering if it might make sense to combine the various VC threads into one to get it all in the same place. Wii, 3DS and Wii U. It seems that the topic of digital sales is getting a bit broad but there's a lot of day-to-day, week-to-week VC discussion that takes place in a number of different threads making it harder to follow. While the 3DS and Wii U VC are separate for now I do think there's value in combining them because NES games for 3DS can be early warning signs for Wii U and perhaps vise-versa. Same with publisher support. Thoughts?
lunchwithyuzo
Banned
Not yet, though I expect at least Sega (SMS, Genesis) and D4 (NeoGeo) to transition eventually, and maybe some of the others with their Arcade/MSX titles (Capcom, Namco Bandai, Tecmo Koei, Hamster, Konami, etc).
I think the real question mark is TG16, since Konami killing Hudson also seems to have killed their retro digital initiatves (PSN Classics halted, 3DS VC still MIA). Commodore I think isn't going to happen again either.
Carpe Libertatem
Member
Nintendo has far more than public data. They absolutely have the data that would be decisive in this debate, because they have access to all of their sales figures. We don't. Are you seriously suggesting that Nintendo only has access to the same data we have access to?
Maybe they have data that suggests virtual consoles dipped off once all of their heavy hitters had been released? That no one buys Ice Climbers when SMB3 is available, but will buy it when it isn't available? You are naive if you think Nintendo has not done focus groups and looked at their own data prior to their decision to pursue the "drip strategy" yet again.
Once again, Nintendo would not be repeating the same strategy for a third time if they did not believe that strategy was the most beneficial one to them financially. Nintendo - much as those on GAF like to complain - is a rational actor, like all multibillion dollar companies. They will act in the way that they receive what they believe to be the highest profit (and again, WiiU/3DS launches do not have the same type of data to support the decision as the virtual console does). We might not like how that profit is obtained, but that's how it is.
All I have been saying is that Nintendo must be quite happy with the profits they are receiving from a "drip release." I have never once claimed that this is wildly profitable or that another strategy may result in more or less profit (though I do suspect a simultaneous release results in less profits over time, but probably a more frontloaded one but that is simply speculation based on market patterns).
My argument is: Nintendo is pursuing the "drip strategy" for a third time because it has worked for them in the past and they are happy with the results. They have data on sales that we do not have and are going to make the decision that they believe will provide them with optimal profit. Whether or not you believe this is irrelevant - you are not the one with the data. Would I like all of the games on the Wii U virtual console day one? Absolutely. But I understand that what I want is not necessarily the best move financially for them
For some reason, you seem to think that Nintendo is repeatedly making poor decisions even when data on their previous endeavors is available. I have no idea why you think that. Do you have some brilliant insight that I'm missing?
You can purchase all of these virtual console games on the Wii right now. How do you think their "vibrant ecosystem" is performing right now (or even the past couple of years once all the big titles were released)? "Oh but you can't play it on the GamePad, etc" - are arguments that I don't buy. The games are available for purchase right now. They have a "vibrant ecosystem," as you so described. Why is it not doing fantastically - and not just now with the Wii U released, but the past two or three years prior to the new console (because released data does suggest that sales dropped off around then)?
iTunes is an extremely poor example because (as I've stated earlier) MP3 files are not the same thing as video games. I can play MP3 files on just about every electronic device in the world - natively, at that.
Also, it's not particularly fair to compare a new virtual store with those that have been around for years. Obviously, the new one will have less. This should not be particularly shocking to anyone.
Key part in bolded, no point in responding to this
Neff
Member
The drip strategy allows each title to exploit attention, promotion, discussion, and avoid being ignored alongside a plethora of titles. Also, the longer you wait, the more you want it. Sony played the exact same game, their PSN release of FFVII was three years late, and enjoyed a huge E3 announcement deal.
It's sucks for us, but it's sound marketing.
It's sucks for us, but it's sound marketing.
I'm fairly sure given the data we have even if they dropped everything it'd probably be about 30 games. I think the rest either aren't licensed or just not QA certified/working in the current emulator version. So we'd probably need to wait 3 months for the next batch. I think part of why they do it is also to stretch those gaps. This seemed especially true for Wii.
At the Wii's launch, Nintendo handled filler content far better. Three fillers and one good to great title per week. It was great because the filler games that only a few wanted were still released, but most people had at least their one good game to claim that week.
But the main point is.. four titles per week. Two per week just reminds us how terrible the nearly extinct 3DS Virtual Console is and how bad the Wii had it for the last few years.
But the main point is.. four titles per week. Two per week just reminds us how terrible the nearly extinct 3DS Virtual Console is and how bad the Wii had it for the last few years.
Well, Nintendo had Genesis and Turbografx-16 support back then. They themselves were releasing one or two NES/SNES games a week, with a N64 title every month or two. They don't have that luxury this time.
Edit: The Wii U VC is actually outpacing the NES/SNES output on the Wii VC at the same point.
It should be on Nintendo to convince developers to bring their content over too. If Sega views it as too much hassle to bother this time, maybe some of that blame falls to Nintendo?
They've had a long time to plan for this service as well, to get developers on board, but also to have their own content ready to go. Realising their hilarious 9 month launch window was mostly going to be empty, there really should have been a push for the service to deliver.
Yes, but their overall output is terrible by comparison. Maybe they should attempt to compensate?
FinalFanXtreme
Member
I don't mind buying Super Mario World again let me see what systems I own it for already....
Super Nintendo (Stand alone and Mario All Stars SNES)
GameBoy Advance
Nintendo Wii (VC and Mario All Stars Wii)
Wii U VC
I'm so stoked to pay $7.99 for a game I already own 5 times. Not to mention, since they are only releasing one game at a time, I will gobble each game up again. WOOT!
Super Nintendo (Stand alone and Mario All Stars SNES)
GameBoy Advance
Nintendo Wii (VC and Mario All Stars Wii)
Wii U VC
I'm so stoked to pay $7.99 for a game I already own 5 times. Not to mention, since they are only releasing one game at a time, I will gobble each game up again. WOOT!
El Pescado
Member
So are we definitely not getting Genesis games on the Wii U? :/
They haven't said anything about it, that is all.
I honestly don't think Nintendo ever planned on having a Wii U VC. I sorta believe that they thought people would just download Wii VC games from backwards compatibility for their retro fix, which would explain why third-party consoles aren't on board yet, since those guys wouldn't have had the time to make their emulators yet. They eventually just saw the demand and decided to go with it.
Perhaps, but I think they were rushing to get their own emulators and third-party licenses back on board.
I actually agree, although I condemn them for their terrible planning if it was the case.
And we shall never know. So sad.
On that note, I do expect Genesis and Neo Geo support to show up fairly soon (within the year).
iamaustrian
Member
You do know that you can transfer the Wii version to the Wii U and pay only 1.50$ for the updated Wii U version?
Also SMW is not included in the Wii Mario All Stars version.
I think NeoGeo support is a given. the Wii VC still gets NeoGeo games almost every second week. dunno why they don't prefer the WiiU eshop.
If you have it on Wii VC, it will only cost you $1.50 to get on Wii U VC.
FinalFanXtreme
Member
My Wii is modded and hasn't been online in several years, but I did buy the game when it wasn't modded. Also, re-buying at a discount is still high way robbery. You may be right I never opened any of the copies of All Stars Wii I bought I just assumed it would have been on there.... I'm a dummy!
This is not entirely on topic, but I got Super Mario 64 on the Wii U via the Wii VC. Haven't played the game since 2004 or 2005 on the DS (but didn't play through since I didn't feel it controlled nearly as well as the N64 version). The game is still pretty awesome but man I feel like I'm just fighting the camera constantly. That's the bad thing about free-roaming 3D games pre-dual analog sticks. It's really hindering my enjoyment of it.
iamaustrian
Member
you get an updated(gamepad-only play, button mapping etc) version. how is that "high way robbery"?
and even if don't want to update, you can still play the normal Wii version of SMW on your WiiU for free.
also it doesn't matter if your wii is modded. you are able to transfer nevertheless(also you can delete the "homebrew-channel" easily).
You're not wrong...
SM64 has not aged well in my opinion. It's still really good once you can come to grips with the quirks of its era.
Because button mapping and gamepad support is something they most likely easily implement at a system wide level. It's nice like they're meticulously going through each game, coding it to allow it to stream to the gamepad and allowing you to customize the controls. This is such a simple thing. They shouldn't charge for that. Heck, PS1 games on Vita have WAY more customization than VC games on Wii U, and Sony doesn't charge extra, nor does anybody expect them to.
I've heard some people say it's darker. It's due to the way the NES (and by extension, the Wii U VC emulator) handled color. One of the color palletes is determined by the signal your TV puts out, which explains the different luminosities on different televisions (or the 3DS).
Tbh, I'm a bit worried as to how they'll handle the situation on the PS4.
Regardless, GamePad support is handled in a game-by-basis, as evidenced by developers' words. Dunno about button customization, but I'd assume it's the same way.
They could at least make it brighter on the GamePad. I'm a bit torn here, it looks much nicer on the 3DS, but you get the big screen and a more comfortable controller on the WiiU.
You already own it five ways (like you said). No need to buy it again. Want it on Gamepad, then buy it again or transfer and upgrade. It is not difficult.
Couldn't you just turn your GamePad brightness up?
Business aren't infallible entities. They can develop and follow bad strategies and make incorrect decisions. Of course Nintendo has more data than us. But that doesn't mean they will use that data to make the best decision. Simply saying "Oh they're a business who wants to make a profit, so they will automatically choose to take the correct path" makes no sense.
And it definitely doesn't make sense to say "Well the Wii was a success, and the Wii VC had a drip feed of releases, so the drip feed method must work well."
We can only discuss the strategy as we see it, and put forth reasoned arguments for why we think it is a good idea or a bad idea.
I think it's a horrible idea.
I'm a Nintendo fan. In fact, there's a chance the Wii U may be the only console I buy this generation (I do 90% of my gaming on my PC). I'm actually right in the middle of debating with myself as to whether I should import a basic unit off Amazon UK for 150 pounds, which is really cheap for a console in Australia. But I look at the system and see one game I want to play (NSMB U) and a few that may or may not come over the next six months. I can guarantee you that if the Wii U currently had a substantial Virtual Console library available for reasonable prices (30% lower than the current prices), I'd buy the thing right now. I wouldn't hesitate a second. So I can look at it and say for me, the strategy isn't working.
The thing is, I can then take those reasons why I don't think the strategy isn't working, and expand it out to the general market. There's a ridiculous lack of content on the Wii U right now. There was one game released in the last two months. One game. Nintendo is sitting on a legacy catalogue matched by no other publisher. They could use that to offset the content draught they are facing. Chuck up 100 titles at reduced prices, offer bundles for franchises ('buy ALTTP, get Zelda 1 for free'), offer a subscription service (Pay $50 a year, get access to the whole VC library), cross-buy with the 3DS. Anything other than releasing NES games at a rate of two per week for the exact same price they did six years ago.
See, this would be a valid argument if this were the first time Nintendo has done this. We're on go-around #2. Wii VC started strong (100 titles in the first 8 months) and then turned into what can only be described based on the comments in this thread as sheer AGONY of the trickle. They then repeated this trickle strategy right out of the gate. And then did it again.
At what point do we give up the pretense that this is hurting Nintendo instead of the reality that it only hurts certain subsets of gamers?
lunchwithyuzo
Banned
I dunno, pre-trickle Wii VC was continually beating Nintendo's targets and they were crowing about the millions of sales every quarter (over 10 million games sold in the first year alone). Then in mid 2008 Nintendo started throttling the release schedule, partly due to fewer of their own major releases being left in the pipeline but largely in service of refocusing on the new WiiWare initiative and providing a bigger window and opportunity for those games. Once this happened we never heard a peep about VC's overperformance again and indeed Nintendo's own data shows their overall digital revenue remained flat, basically with two services now bringing in the same amount of money that just one used to on it's own. Digital didn't really grow again either until DSiWare another 1.5 years later.
I think a case can definitely be made for a more aggressive release schedule being more beneficial given what we know of how Wii VC performed. That said, I don't think Wii U is quite as awful as it could be (ie: as awful as 3DS has been) but we'll have to see what the weeks ahead are like. I hope it's a 16bit Summer.
I think a case can definitely be made for a more aggressive release schedule being more beneficial given what we know of how Wii VC performed. That said, I don't think Wii U is quite as awful as it could be (ie: as awful as 3DS has been) but we'll have to see what the weeks ahead are like. I hope it's a 16bit Summer.
Nintendo likely wasn't talking up VC after a certain point because while it was doing great numbers as you say, it wasn't off the back of WiiWare, which was floundering miserably. So like every company in this industry, they started not talking about downloadable purchase numbers, because they knew they couldn't hide weak WiiWare numbers behind stronger VC numbers without making VC look weaker than it was or over-inflate WiiWare sales into a blatant fabrication.
Or the other possibility is that sales leveled off after the people who went "OMGWTFBBQ" about VC when it was announced had their fill, came back down to earth, stopped looking at it as the 2nd coming and didn't come back to it in the same volume, no matter what or how many good titles Nintendo threw at the service. Wouldn't be the first time that story's played out in the games industry, the positioning of launch titles to capture gamer frenzy is well-documented, but what's also documented is that such a sales rush is unsustainable long-term. I can't imagine VC being much different.
Either scenario is a strong possibility.
They aren't doing it now, haven't said they would, and as far as I can see, I doubt they will.
You have to pay full price again. It's 2006 baybie.