Discussion What are your thoughts on how Nintendo manages it's older titles?

[oni-link]

Thread question really

I've loved Nintendo games almost all of my life, and so have been lucky in one way as I've still got a lot of systems and carts/discs from the last 25 years

That said, I love me some QoL features and having older games available on modern platforms, and this is an area Nintendo have been lacking on

I know we're finally getting N64 games on Switch, but the way we're getting them is (in my view) less than ideal

On top of that, look at just the GCN library, there are so many all time classic Nintendo games that have never been released anywhere else.

The GBA as well has 3 Fire Emblem games and two Metroids. (I know these came to the Wii U, but man does it suck they're stuck there in 2021)

I'm aware Nintendo were disappointed with the VC over the long term, but for me, It's been all downhill since they scrapped the VC, and I'd love for it to come back at some point in the future

I will always be mad I can't re-buy a 1080p F-Zero GX on Switch

 

[Polyh3dron]

I'm not paying for the second tier of Switch online, I'll tell ya that.

Tired of their drip feed nonsense.

 

[oni-link]

I'm not paying for the second tier of Switch online, I'll tell ya that.

Tired of their drip feed nonsense.

I'd really appreciate a way of just buying some of the N64 games outright as well, even if they want to slap a £10 or £15 price on them to make the sub seem more appealing

 

[Polyh3dron]

I'd really appreciate a way of just buying some of the N64 games outright as well, even if they want to slap a £10 or £15 price on them to make the sub seem more appealing

didn't you already do this on the Wii, and then the Wii U after that? How many times are you willing to re-buy the same game?

 

[Saturday]

Mostly shit.

Nuance is hard to apply here, for me.

 

[Lampa]

On one hand, I am grateful for them currently re-releasing Wii U games on the Switch, on the other, I would prefer new entries in these franchises, and BC with older consoles, instead.

I am not a fan of rebuying Wii U games for brand new AAA game prices, I got Tokyo Mirage Sessions on Switch for about $30 the other day, and while not a Nintendo franchise technically, I would be more inclined to buy these re-releases day 1, if they were priced about at $30-$40.

 

[Terrell]

I agree that it's been rocky since Wii, but let's face facts: a subscription model for retro titles is what fans were clamouring for and NSO gave them what they wanted. Some might be disappointed in the lineup, but... if anyone thought they'd dump the entire lineup on day one, especially with 3rd-party games, I really don't know what to say to that. Don't make wishes on monkey's paws, I guess?

 

[Donnie]

A very, very mixed bag.

+ Generally, I feel like when they actually take the time to remaster something they put out a really good quality product. Remasters like Wind Waker HD, SSHD and Xenoblade Definitive, the Wii U re-releases and even Mario 3d All-stars sticking closer to the original release forms and so on, I think those are all great.

+ I love the mini console approach. The Nes and Snes classic mini consoles are cool as hell and you can very easily do even cooler things with them. I don't have the Game & Watch Mario edition but it looks very nice.

+ What is actually on NSO is great and a subscribe to access the back catalog offering is a great idea...in theory.

- The NSO catalog is just not there content wise and while they're making moves to expand that, it's nowhere near quick enough and the pricing structure just got way murkier. It's went from practically being a steal to well, maybe best not to do that here when there are other threads.

- NSO , mini consoles etc should not be a replacement to just being able to buy the titles for a monetary value and have ownership imo. I appreciate the business sense but as the actual player on the end of the line, I really should be able to build a library of their classics to take forward at this point imo.

- Also I think letting the 3ds go out of production without any idea how to honor the legacy of those titles (and the ds) that will need quite specific hardware beyond emulation one day was a bad move since at least within the context of the other points, it seems likely those games will just be unavailable eventually.

 

[oni-link]

didn't you already do this on the Wii, and then the Wii U after that? How many times are you willing to re-buy the same game?

It depends on the price and the convivence factor. I can't play OoT on a handheld using my N64 or Wii U version

Also, paying a sub every month/year is basically the same as buying the game for a small price every single month, and then losing it when you unsub or the service is shut down, so I'd rather just buy it to keep

 

[Galgavias]

I've long felt that making full use of their extensive back catalogue would be a huge boon to Nintendo as a company and they are not utilising it to the extent to which they could. A gamepass-esque service featuring a huge archive of old games would be extremely appealing to a lot of people, which I think is what they're aiming for with the Switch online expansion. But they don't want to commit to it, instead playing safe and drip feeding games out over a long period of time.

If they went all out with a comprehensive back catalogue for this new expansion, including games from NES right up to, say, Wii titles, then I think people would be more positive about recent announcements, but people don't want to pay more on the off chance a game they want to play comes out at an unknown time. The uncertainty their current plan causes is the biggest flaw in their strategy right now.

 

[Kano]

VC was a bad business model for me, on all the systems it's been available for. In theory the NSO subscription is a much better way to do things, but they are fumbling the potential of it by drip feeding games to a crazy degree.

 

[Lampa]

About NSO, I am currently not subbed, because I would not utilize it enough, but I would be if two things happened,

• Drop the Expansion pass system, make all BC games available as part of a single NSO subscription, perhaps at a higher price point. If the rumors about the price being higher due to SEGA are right, then just limit it to Nintendo catalog
• Add new games faster. I know there is some dev work in making it work smoothly and all, but man do they take their time with new additions

 

[Terrell]

A very, very mixed bag.

+ Generally, I feel like when they actually take the time to remaster something they put out a really good quality product. Remasters like Wind Waker HD, SSHD and Xenoblade Definitive, the Wii U re-releases and even Mario 3d All-stars sticking closer to the original release forms and so on, I think those are all great.

+ I love the mini console approach. The Nes and Snes classic mini consoles are cool as hell and you can very easily do even cooler things with them. I don't have the Game & Watch Mario edition but it looks very nice.

+ What is actually on NSO is great and a subscribe to access the back catalog offering is a great idea...in theory.

- The NSO catalog is just not there content wise and while they're making moves to expand that, it's nowhere near quick enough and the pricing structure just got way murkier. It's went from practically being a steal to well, maybe best not to do that here when there are other threads.

- NSO , mini consoles etc should not be a replacement to just being able to buy the titles for a monetary value and have ownership imo. I appreciate the business sense but as the actual player on the end of the line, I really should be able to build a library of their classics to take forward at this point imo.

- Also I think letting the 3ds go out of production without any idea how to honor the legacy of those titles (and the ds) that will need quite specific hardware beyond emulation one day was a bad move since at least within the context of the other points, it seems likely those games will just be unavailable eventually.

See, I didn't like the mini console approach per se. They ended up being adorable curios for collectors, that's about it.

Where I did appreciate the idea here is dedicated hardware. I think the solution to the problem has always been a dedicated retro game device, where you could purchase the games outright and play them to your heart's content, thus allowing the library to amass without having any of the complications associated with new console hardware every 6-10 years. I think the time for that has unfortunately come and gone, though, but I think that's what should have been made instead of NES and SNES minis.

 

[Zellia]

Remasters of older games are fine, if pricey. I do wish they'd bring over the Zelda HD remasters from Wii U to Switch though.

NSO feels like wasted potential since it's just missing too much and the drip-feed isn't near quick enough.

 

[oni-link]

See, I didn't like the mini console approach per se. They ended up being adorable curios for collectors, that's about it.

Where I did appreciate the idea here is dedicated hardware. I think the solution to the problem has always been a dedicated retro game device, where you could purchase the games outright and play them to your heart's content, thus allowing the library to amass without having any of the complications associated with new console hardware every 6-10 years. I think the time for that has unfortunately come and gone, though, but I think that's what should have been made instead of NES and SNES minis.

What your describing here is pretty much what people with a Mister or Retro Pi have, it's just not something Nintendo see any returns on

It feels like they're leaving money on the table, but honestly I have no idea if they are or not.

 

[Donnie]

See, I didn't like the mini console approach per se. They ended up being adorable curios for collectors, that's about it.

Where I did appreciate the idea here is dedicated hardware. I think the solution to the problem has always been a dedicated retro game device, where you could purchase the games outright and play them to your heart's content, thus allowing the library to amass without having any of the complications associated with new console hardware every 6-10 years. I think the time for that has unfortunately come and gone, though, but I think that's what should have been made instead of NES and SNES minis.

That certainly could have been a solution! I think with the advent of the switch and a proper account system etc. that you're right, the time for that might have passed. I think players would (quite rightly) just ask why they can't have the games on their switch and portable if they were going to to purchase them individually anyway. I still look at the DS + 3DS as an issue though (and didn't reaaaaally consider what they tried on the Wii U as a great solution lol), I kind of think there might still be an avenue there? I think a lot of what's great about those systems is actually having the hardware in your hands, beyond emulation of the software itself.

 

[JazzPotatoes]

I'm ok with the more recent games being re-released with expansions (a la Bowser's Fury). I'd still love a way for us Wii U and 3DS owners to just carry our content over to Switch, the same way the little Pikmin helped us carry over our content from Wii to Wii U, but I get that these remasters have additional content, so I can't get too mad about that. That being said - I can still link all my game purchases across consoles to the same Nintendo account. Some form of acknowledgement or discount for purchasing the same game twice wouldn't exactly be impossible to implement, even if there is an expansion to consider.

What I am upset about is that Microsoft have absolutely set the standard on offering backwards compatibility over multiple generations of hardware, and even across different architectures, and Nintendo don't even seem interested in competing. Instead, we've had an absolute drip feed of older games which has not only been slow, it's been frustratingly irregular. It's as if Nintendo didn't have any sort of roadmap for NSO outside of the first year, and games are now just added to it whenever they remember that it's still a service they're charging for.

And again - They can already track what purchases people have made on the 3DS and Wii U eShop through their Nintendo account. There is no reason to get an emulated version of Super Metroid working on Switch, but then mandate that people have to pay for NSO to play it, rather than allowing them to migrate across the Wii U version or 3DS version. There's no reason to say people have to pay yet again to play the same emulated N64 version of Ocarina of Time.

What makes things even more confusing is that Nintendo did a time limited release of Mario 64 as part of the Mario All Stars package... and they're now just putting that game on the NSO expansion pass. Why did they get people excited for a limited release of Mario 64 that cost $60 (admittedly alongside Galaxy and Sunshine) if they knew they'd be putting it on the NSO expansion library further down the line?

Very frustrated about this. Rather than looking to streamline and incentivize players to play older games, it really feels as though they're trying to maximize as much money from players as they can, and doing it in a haphazard fashion.

 

[Ramune]

My biggest concern is 3DS and DS titles. We know they’re happy to dump NES and SNES games in some capacity every generation, and they seem similarly willing with a lot of N64 titles, but the unique displays of the DS consoles will require retuning for any ports and I worry they won’t consider it a worthwhile time/money investment. My 3DS is already shaky, who knows if I’ll even finish my backlog before it conks out.

It feels like they're leaving money on the table, but honestly I have no idea if they are or not.

I wonder if they think too much old content would eat into sales of more expensive newer titles? It would at least make the eShop annoying because looking at the charts it could be the same classics hovering around numbers 10-20 for months/years I’d guess. We’re also far enough into digital that the onus will be on them to honour those purchases and carry them over to subsequent systems (we hope) and so it may be they see it as a choice between getting a final sale on these games where they’ve previously been able to get you to buy them repeatedly, or moving them to a subscription service where they get your money every month.

I don’t think the financial incentive is there for Nintendo (or most publishers) to port their back catalogues en masse. Even Capcom drip feed it in big name collections, and others have the “who even wants to play this”/“it’s only used by a minority of the customer base” stuff.

In an ideal world they’d dump everything for us to buy, but that would end with their biggest IPs selling and their smaller ones selling very little to a very dedicated niche fanbase who want additional copies. I don’t think everything will ever be available on contemporary hardware unfortunately. And I say this as someone who plays a lot of older stuff very often so wish it would be.

 

[Mazzle]

I like how they archive everything internally. Like some dev can pull out some old prototype or other companies can
reach out to Nintendo and they still have that ROM from 30 years ago, because it got approved by them for production.
They do take care.

But when it comes to releasing their stuff, they are bad, like most publishers are.
This constant drip feeding, this constant double and triple dipping is annying and costly

 

[Jersh]

It's an interesting question.

In terms of platform support, at a technical level I can understand why GCN onward isn't on the Switch in any meaningful capacity. In that sense, the only platforms I feel are "missing" from NSO are Game Boy (Color) and Game Boy Advance. They could totally do DS (and 3DS) the same way they did on the Wii U when playing with just the GamePad, but as someone who didn't really enjoy that it's not particularly bugging me that it's not an option right now.

In terms of NES and SNES library, I'm also pretty fine with where they're at. Pretty much everything first party I care about is there. Unlike Xbox, Nintendo doesn't have the luxury of an easy way of verifying purchases from every console they've ever produced. I get that third parties aren't really playing ball, and there's not much they can do about that - other than throw more money at them, which is seemingly what the Expansion Pack is funding. It is unfortunate that Virtual Console purchases don't carry over, and WiiWare purchases won't when the time comes for that. Separating those purchases from the eShop is definitely on Nintendo.

But I have to be blunt here: I greatly prefer the subscription model to the Virtual Console service as long as I can continue to pay Family Plan pricing. Split 8 ways like I am, NSO + Expansion Pack costs me the same amount per year as Nintendo was charging for a single N64 game ($10). Up until now, I was paying less per year than they were charging for a single NES game ($5). By having everything under one umbrella, I've discovered some games I love that I never would've tried otherwise, like Kirby's Dream Course. I really appreciate that I didn't have to pay $8 a pop when I decided I wanted to play through the DKC trilogy. My only qualm with the situation is that retro content is inherently a bad fit for a live service; Nintendo is simulating content updates by withholding games and platforms, and that sucks. Personally, I don't need game updates every month. I'd stay subscribed anyway. I get why they're doing it, but that singular aspect is frustrating to me.

So overall, I guess you could say I'm happy with it. It does help that I can fill in some gaps via the 3DS and Wii U right now if I really want to. But I expect that within a few years, NSO's retro offerings will have me happier than Virtual Console ever could've.

Tangentially related, I also really appreciate that they offer the original controllers for everything now. I haven't bought any yet, but I plan to buy at least one N64 controller, and I'll probably get a SNES controller and the NES pack at some point as well.

 

[dingbat]

I'm not a fan of the subscription model. If I’d have stayed subbed, it’d end up costing me as much or more in the long run than if I'd have been able to purchase the games I cared about (at VC prices and I don't do Family Plan shenanigans). I also think this N64 stuff is coming far too late when it's something I wanted in Y1-2 already. What I'd like is for the old games service to exist outside of their hardware as well so that it can keep being improved on instead of being reset come the next hardware.

 

[Terrell]

What your describing here is pretty much what people with a Mister or Retro Pi have, it's just not something Nintendo see any returns on

It feels like they're leaving money on the table, but honestly I have no idea if they are or not.

Yeah, except... y'know, totally and completely without the legal grey areas.

That certainly could have been a solution! I think with the advent of the switch and a proper account system etc. that you're right, the time for that might have passed. I think players would (quite rightly) just ask why they can't have the games on their switch and portable if they were going to to purchase them individually anyway. I still look at the DS + 3DS as an issue though (and didn't reaaaaally consider what they tried on the Wii U as a great solution lol), I kind of think there might still be an avenue there? I think a lot of what's great about those systems is actually having the hardware in your hands, beyond emulation of the software itself.

Well, I think that we're at a point where the average consumer isn't terribly interested in retro gaming (at best, around 10 million consumers or so worldwide express interest in retro games), so the idea of "why can't I have this on X new platform" means that they'd prefer the status quo, where every generation, the whole thing resets so emulation can be properly optimized, whereas dedicated retro hardware kinda sidesteps that whole thing for the few people this matters to.

But again, we're talking as if that's going to happen. People wanted subscription services to play retro games on their pre-existing game hardware, they got them.

 

[Clov]

On the whole, it's pretty poor!

Things I think are nice:
-It's nice how Nintendo has made almost every major first party Wii U release available on Switch, given that barely anyone bought a Wii U
-It's nice that they translated the original Fire Emblem
-It's nice that the SNES Mini exists, and is super easy to add more games to... the mini consoles and new Game and Watches are pretty neat!

Things I think are not nice:

• NSO line-up and frequency of releases is poor; updates are infrequent and numerous titles are missing
• The limited time availability of releases like 3D All Stars and the localized version of the original Fire Emblem... at least with 3D All Stars, you can track down a cart. That first Fire Emblem game is simply not available anymore!
• Unclear when, or if, platforms like GameCube, Wii, DS, etc will be available
• Complete unavailability of titles from more obscure platforms like Virtual Boy, Satellaview, and N64DD
• Subscription model means that on NSO apps, you are renting the titles rather than owning them

 

[9-Volt]

Compared to Playstation and Xbox? It's much better honestly. Those two straight up ignore their legacy. What Nintendo is doing right now, even though it's insufficient, is more than what Sony and MS do.

Compared to Sega? Still better. Sega is just too obsessed with bringing back Mega Drive over and over, they forget Saturn and Dreamcast even existed.

 

[JazzPotatoes]

So overall, I guess you could say I'm happy with it. It does help that I can fill in some gaps via the 3DS and Wii U right now if I really want to. But I expect that within a few years, NSO's retro offerings will have me happier than Virtual Console ever could've.

I'm not going to lie: I can't understand this. The Wii U VC offered everything from Gameboy through to DS and Wii virtual console games. The only glaring platform omission was Gamecube, which I assume must have had something to do with lack of analog triggers on the standard Wii U controllers.

With NSO, there's an ongoing debate about whether we're going to even get Gameboy or GBA games. The scope of platforms has been reduced so much from the previous gen that it's shocking.

Compared to Playstation and Xbox? It's much better honestly. Those two straight up ignore their legacy. What Nintendo is doing right now, even though it's insufficient, is more than what Sony and MS do.

Sorry, but I really don't think this is true: While Microsoft is not yet offering full platform BC for OG Xbox or 360, the efforts their backwards compatibility team have put into supporting older titles on their newest hardware are unmatched. Not only can you use the same discs for many OG Xbox games such as Ninja Gaiden Black or Crimson Skies, they have put in work to upres many of these titles into actual HD or even 4K.

There's always more that they could do, but they're way ahead of Nintendo on this topic.

 

[oni-link]

Compared to Playstation and Xbox? It's much better honestly.

 

[Linkstrikesback]

Compared to Playstation and Xbox? It's much better honestly. Those two straight up ignore their legacy. What Nintendo is doing right now, even though it's insufficient, is more than what Sony and MS do.

PlayStation, maybe. Xbox runs circles around them right now with full Xbox one backwards compatibility and hundreds of 360 titles playable right now digitally and licenses granted if you have the disc. Now, that's nowhere near comprehensive for Xbox 360 backwards compatibility, but ~1/4 of the Xbox 360 library playable on their console is far better than Nintendo has ever done with its past gen support.

Obviously they're having more trouble with the original Xbox, both because of lesser demand and such, but still

 

[9-Volt]

No reason to be surprised, once Sony kills PS3/Vita storefronts completely, it will be impossible to access PS1 and PS2 titles legally. And according to their current strategy, old games are "worthless", per Jim Ryan.

MS just relies on Backwards Compatibility for their legacy titles yet only a small fraction is accessible. No further efforts given from their part. They're just too focused on making Xbox One games playable on Xbox Series rather than revitalizing OG Xbox.

What Nintendo is doing with NSO is much better than these two. Not perfect, but at least they're not making us re-buy games after the last generation ended.

 

[Leo]

I don't see Nintendo going back to the VC model unfortunately because they've realized the market just won't accept paying for the same games over and over anymore. If they brought VC back, they would need to have these titles available in their platforms going forward, which means they would lose their value for them. With the subscription model, they can keep capitalizing on the titles indefinitely.

 

[Donnie]

MS just relies on Backwards Compatibility for their legacy titles yet only a small fraction is accessible. No further efforts given from their part.

This is getting off of the OP's intended topic but imo this is wildly inaccurate. The effort they've made to go from no BC at launch on xbox one to have games (including those you own digitally and on disc) run at higher resolutions and framerates without the need for the developers to come back and touch the game, entirely replacing the FMVs for FFXIII, I think a huge amount of effort has been put in there, no *just*s. It's the gold standard in looking after your back catalog right now.

 

[JazzPotatoes]

No reason to be surprised, once Sony kills PS3/Vita storefronts completely, it will be impossible to access PS1 and PS2 titles legally. And according to their current strategy, old games are "worthless", per Jim Ryan.

MS just relies on Backwards Compatibility for their legacy titles yet only a small fraction is accessible. No further efforts given from their part.

What Nintendo is doing with NSO is much better than these two. Not perfect, but at least they're not making us re-buy games after the last generation ended.

The entire Xbox One library is compatible with the Series consoles, and Smart Delivery ensures forward compatibility as well as long as games are released on both platforms.

As mentioned above, a quarter of the 360 library is playable on Series consoles, 577 games.

There are 42 original Xbox games that are backwards compatible. A small fraction of the OG Xbox library, to be sure, but also more games by itself than the combined number of N64 games in the NSO Expansion Pass.

Nintendo may not be making us rebuy the games, but that's a technicality - We're still having to repay to access them.

 

[oni-link]

No reason to be surprised, once Sony kills PS3/Vita storefronts completely, it will be impossible to access PS1 and PS2 titles legally. And according to their current strategy, old games are "worthless", per Jim Ryan.

MS just relies on Backwards Compatibility for their legacy titles yet only a small fraction is accessible. No further efforts given from their part. They're just too focused on making Xbox One games playable on Xbox Series rather than revitalizing OG Xbox.

What Nintendo is doing with NSO is much better than these two. Not perfect, but at least they're not making us re-buy games after the last generation ended.

Xbox are the gold stranded, you can still buy Xbox and 360 games and play them, often with enhancements

You can't play older purchased Wii/Wii U games on Switch, and while some people like NSO a lot of people think it's underwhelming

You also get given free 360 games to keep forever when you have the Xbox sub, there isn't a single aspect Nintendo do better, though of course there are areas I'd like to see improved on Xbox too

 

[Clov]

Compared to Playstation and Xbox? It's much better honestly. Those two straight up ignore their legacy. What Nintendo is doing right now, even though it's insufficient, is more than what Sony and MS do.

Compared to Sega? Still better. Sega is just too obsessed with bringing back Mega Drive over and over, they forget Saturn and Dreamcast even existed.

Playstation? Sure. Xbox? Not even close! I could get an Xbox Series S, purchase Panzer Dragoon Orta, and play it right now. No subscriptions that need to be maintained to keep it, no limited time only. Would it be nicer if they had even more? Sure! But what they do have is a LOT. More than you'll find on NSO!

 

[Guaraná]

To tell the truth, I couldn't care less about 99% of their old titles.
BUT! I think Nintendo does a bad job facilitating access to its legacy title, although I must that they are trying to improve it.

 

[9-Volt]

The entire Xbox One library is compatible with the Series consoles, and Smart Delivery ensures forward compatibility as well as long as games are released on both platforms.

As mentioned above, a quarter of the 360 library is playable on Series consoles, 577 games.

There are 42 original Xbox games that are backwards compatible. A small fraction of the OG Xbox library, to be sure, but also more games by itself than the combined number of N64 games in the NSO Expansion Pass.

Nintendo may not be making us rebuy the games, but that's a technicality - We're still having to repay to access them.

Xbox are the gold stranded, you can still buy Xbox and 360 games and play them, often with enhancements

You can't play older purchased Wii/Wii U games on Switch, and while some people like NSO a lot of people think it's underwhelming

You also get given free 360 games to keep forever when you have the Xbox sub, there isn't a single aspect Nintendo do better, though of course there are areas I'd like to see improved on Xbox too

As I said, they rely on BC, they don't go further like preserving their OG Xbox legacy. There are still a big part of OG Xbox first party library missing, probably will be so in the future. (I know I'll never get to play those MechAssault games again )

Sure Nintendo also haven't done much about GameCube library either, but Nintendo has more systems than Microsoft and with Switch they are revisiting every single one and it's taking a lot of time. The releases they have on NSO are not just simple ROM dumps, they are enhanced with more, including online multiplay. GameCube will have its turn in the future and it'll be worth the wait.

 

[Ramune]

That first Fire Emblem game is simply not available anymore!

I forgot about this. Just wild. FE fans were always gonna buy it, no need to create a frenzy by making it timed. If they'd kept it up then others may have gotten curious, but trying to get people to panic-buy a NES strategy game was...a choice.

XBox BC is absolutely a big selling point for them. Does my head in that on other platforms my physical purchases are stuck on old hardware and that digital offerings for older generations is often pretty poor (and riddled with audio-visual issues). I've never been an XBox player and as time goes on the incentive to try it out grows and grows since there's a huge back catalogue I'd suddenly have access to. If Sony lost exclusivity on some key third party titles I'd probably be gone (but they won't).

 

[9-Volt]

Playstation? Sure. Xbox? Not even close! I could get an Xbox Series S, purchase Panzer Dragoon Orta, and play it right now. No subscriptions that need to be maintained to keep it, no limited time only. Would it be nicer if they had even more? Sure! But what they do have is a LOT. More than you'll find on NSO!

Wait, wait wait just a minute. You're saying Panzer Dragoon Orta is available on Xbox Store right now but not Otogi games, Crazy Taxi 3 and Jet Set Future? This is a travesty! What the hell Sega???

 

[JazzPotatoes]

As I said, they rely on BC, they don't go further like preserving their OG Xbox legacy. There are still a big part of OG Xbox first party library missing, probably will be so in the future. (I know I'll never get to play those MechAssault games again )

Sure Nintendo also haven't done much about GameCube library either, but Nintendo has more systems than Microsoft and with Switch they are revisiting every single one and it's taking a lot of time. The releases they have on NSO are not just simple ROM dumps, they are enhanced with more, including online multiplay. GameCube will have its turn in the future and it'll be worth the wait.

Microsoft offer native HD and 4K support for the OG Xbox games they do support, with no work required by the developers.

Yes, the majority of the library is still missing, but 40 OG Xbox games is still better than Nintendo's comparable offerings: These are games where you can still put in your original Xbox disc, and get a license to play an updated version of the game on Xbox One or a Series console. Nintendo won't even allow you to migrate NES or SNES games you bought on 3DS or Wii U to Switch, even though they're all linked to your account.

And again: over 500 Xbox 360 games are now playable. That's the entire Xbox One library, a quarter of the 360 library, and about 1/10 the OG Xbox library.

We have no evidence with Switch that they are revising every previous system, as you suggest. We have NES, SNES, N64 and rumours about Gameboy. Nothing about GBA, Gamecube, Wii, DS, 3DS etc.

 

[Alent]

I think they've become pretty poor at it. NSO is a disappointment. I remember complaining how the VC managed to get worse with every console after the Wii and had high hopes for an amazing combined VC on Switch. I was prepared to put down good money for numerous games all on the same platform. But it never happened. I have a cheapass family sub to the service and only played Super Metroid, so overall i've spent a lot less money than i would have.

It's a shame because Nintendo were always good with BC whenever possible.

 

[Jersh]

The Wii U VC offered everything from Gameboy

No, it didn't have that at all. Presumably due to poor sales on the 3DS, though we'll never know for sure.

Wii "VC" was... interesting. NOA refused to brand it as VC for a while; there were no improvements, so it was essentially just a digital alternative to the discs you could still find in stores. At least they were cheap.

With NSO, there's an ongoing debate about whether we're going to even get Gameboy or GBA games.

People I trust have said Game Boy is through testing and done. What Nintendo's waiting for, I couldn't tell you, and it's silly; but there's no doubt in my mind it's coming. Maybe Game Boy Advance will take a bit, and that's weird, but there's frankly just not many original titles there I truly care about.

But there's really two points where I'm coming from when I say I'm happier with this than I would've been with Virtual Console. One, I mean what VC would've been on Switch, not what it was on Wii U. That wouldn't have included Wii games for technical reasons, and I don't just mean controls. The Switch can't do what the Wii U was doing at a hardware level. Two, I'm genuinely referring to pricing. I never bought the DKC trilogy on the Wii U because I never felt like dropping the $24 to get all 3. I played them all over the last couple months on a subscription I'm paying $4.37 a year for. Over the course of the Switch's lifetime, I'll probably spend about as much on NSO as I would've on VC, but actually played over five times as many games.

 

[Gashead]

Pretty terrible, some have been playing their games for 30 odd years. Just give us an account where once you've bought Super Mario World, you own it forever.

Plenty of ways to make more money off it. My idea would be like a catalogue, a game on a page surrounded by it's art, but because its like a book each screen has 2 pages. If you didn't want a nasty blank page next to Super Mario World and it's art, well then you're going to have to buy Yoshi's island as well.

 

[Jersh]

Plenty of ways to make more money off it. My idea would be like a catalogue, a game on a page surrounded by it's art, but because its like a book each screen has 2 pages. If you didn't want a nasty blank page next to Super Mario World and it's art, well then you're going to have to buy Yoshi's island as well.

The vast majority of people aren't gonna fork over $8 due to a blank page of all things.

I get being frustrated you can't purchase individual titles, but to suggest Nintendo is throwing money away by doing so is a pretty shaky argument from everything we've heard. There just really wasn't cash to be made in Virtual Console.

 

[CyberWolfBia]

NSO bums me out because I never really was on board on the "Netflix" style; I much rather buy the games I want individually. But when comes to NES and SNES (and now N64) they are mostly covering the basics, which is fine.

I own a Wii U, and while it sucks that most of the platforms/games aren't avaiable on Switch, I guess I shouldn't complain while the VC and the eShop are still active and avaiable for purchase... so... it's not like there's lack of options

 

[storres]

Pretty terrible, some have been playing their games for 30 odd years. Just give us an account where once you've bought Super Mario World, you own it forever.

Plenty of ways to make more money off it. My idea would be like a catalogue, a game on a page surrounded by it's art, but because its like a book each screen has 2 pages. If you didn't want a nasty blank page next to Super Mario World and it's art, well then you're going to have to buy Yoshi's island as well.

Honestly, I get the VC nostalgia, but NSO is shaping up to be way better.

 

[kimbo99]

Not accessible enough and I think their lack of investment into new technology is to blame. If they had some type of dedicated servers for streaming/hosting, they could easily open up their "Disney Vault" and have more content. That, and I think their 3rd party games on old platforms cost too much from a licensing fee standpoint.

Gonna wait until NSO has more content before I jump in for the higher tier.

 

[KC Hazel]

Not accessible enough and I think their lack of investment into new technology is to blame. If they had some type of dedicated servers for streaming/hosting, they could easily open up their "Disney Vault" and have more content. That, and I think their 3rd party games on old platforms cost too much from a licensing fee standpoint.

Gonna wait until NSO has more content before I jump in for the higher tier.

Just curious but why do you think streaming tech has anything to do with how much content is there? Nintendo could have probably put like 200 titles up on the first day if they wanted to. They simply don't want to.

 

[JazzPotatoes]

The most frustrating thing is that Nintendo clearly archive their software better than almost anyone else in the biz. They pulled Starfox 2 out of the cupboard to release with the SNES Mini. They handed over the source code for Trials Of Mana to Square so they could re-release it. They've been doing updated versions of Zelda games such as Master Quest forever.

The issue is that actually getting them to release anything in a consistent manner is a nightmare. It's the definition of keeping stuff locked away in the Vault.

 

[Gashead]

Honestly, I get the VC nostalgia, but NSO is shaping up to be way better.

VC was too expensive, Super Mario bros was made for a specific budget back in the 80's and it would have massively made returns on that, there's minimal cost on having it available for a $ on the eshop that is up to sell current $60 games. The game costs are done, the infrastructure costs are done, it's surely pure profit no matter the price.

Subscription services have the risk of being stopped, and if you allow the purchasing of the games you want from the service then it cheapens the overall deal, so I don't know if there can be a happy medium between ownership/permanence and wide variety due to lack of sales of most games.

My fear is that the new NSO doesn't improve beyond N64 and genesis so we've go from paying for Mario 64 every console which was annoying to paying for Mario 64 every year which is terrible.

 

[Galgavias]

I think one problem facing an online collection of old games is that for all publishers, not just Nintendo, it is seemingly more lucrative for them to simply remaster games from the GC/PS2/OG Xbox era onwards and re-release them at retail price, than it is to bundle them all on a Gamepass-esque service. Just look at the new GTA collection or Mario 3D Allstars for evidence of that, not to mention stuff like the Master Chief Collection or even the recent HD Zelda remasters.

When Nintendo themselves are reluctant to utilise games from the Gamecube onwards because they feel they would be losing an opportunity to re-release them for many monetary units, you certainly can't see third parties joining in with a hypothetical online collection either. Unless Nintendo paid them squillions. Which they're unlikely to do.

 

[JazzPotatoes]

So I'm on the webpage version of the eShop at the moment, and having a look through how many Virtual Console games are playable/purchasable from different systems to get an idea of how it compares to NSO:

NES: 0
SNES: 75
Gameboy/GBC: 0
Gameboy Advance: 70
N64: 26
Gamecube: 0
DS/DSi: 31
Wii: 549 (Most of these weren't released as VC, but are simply backwards-compatible Wii games available through the eShop).

Let's have a look at the 3DS (for simplicity sake, I'm including all 3DS family consoles, including the New models):

NES: 0
SNES: 31
Gameboy/GBC: 79
GBA: 0
DS/ DSi: 745 (again, these are backwards compatible titles available off the eShop rather than being released as Virtual Console)


Whilst there are gaps in both lineups, and NES games are now available where they were not previously, it's still hard to feel like NSO is anything but a massive step backwards from what was previously on offer. Even excluding Wii games, Wii U VC had an offering of nearly 200 older titles, and 3DS was well over a hundred if you exclude the DS games.

Nintendo could have literally set up their own separate digital storefront on Switch for these older games (they could have called it something like the Virtual Console), and they would have had enough content to keep people happy for years. Instead, we've regressed backwards in terms of number of games available, breadth of platforms, and long term support of purchases.