• Hey everyone, staff have documented a list of banned content and subject matter that we feel are not consistent with site values, and don't make sense to host discussion of on Famiboards. This list (and the relevant reasoning per item) is viewable here.

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

JazzPotatoes said:
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.
Click to expand...
To be fair, a lot of third party games are available for purchase on Switch outside of NSO. Plenty of collections and retro ports exist, it's just not called the Virtual Console. If you combine those with NSO it's a different story for retro gaming.
 
I believe the concept of a "Netflix of Retro Nintendo Games" is such a great idea, but NSO is not the version of it that I find particularly appealing. Its way too limited with content updates being way too infrequent and honestly uninteresting in terms of games.

Like imagine a version of the service that had the majority of of NES, SNES, N64, GB/A games with regular monthly content updates. I realise that licencing makes this a pipe dream, but I'd love to see them even attempt it (and they seem to have no trouble getting around licencing issues with Smash, so why not put some of that effort into actual games?).

As things stand, I'd actually prefer a Virtual Console service to NSO. At the moment I'm paying an admittedly small amount for games that I'm mostly not interested in. Unless the library is going to be massively expanded, I'd rather just have the option to pick and choose the games I want.

Also this is my very first post here so hi everyone!
 
plinkerton said:
I believe the concept of a "Netflix of Retro Nintendo Games" is such a great idea, but NSO is not the version of it that I find particularly appealing. Its way too limited with content updates being way too infrequent and honestly uninteresting in terms of games.

Like imagine a version of the service that had the majority of of NES, SNES, N64, GB/A games with regular monthly content updates. I realise that licencing makes this a pipe dream, but I'd love to see them even attempt it (and they seem to have no trouble getting around licencing issues with Smash, so why not put some of that effort into actual games?).

As things stand, I'd actually prefer a Virtual Console service to NSO. At the moment I'm paying an admittedly small amount for games that I'm mostly not interested in. Unless the library is going to be massively expanded, I'd rather just have the option to pick and choose the games I want.

Also this is my very first post here so hi everyone!
Click to expand...
This is an entirely different situation. Getting characters in Smash is completely different from releasing games. Putting Sonic on NSO for example, means Sega has to give up sales of said Sonic game on the eshop and will have to be compensated for that. Putting Sonic in Smash takes nothing away from Sega. Now imagine doing that for entire libraries, with companies that are actively rereleasing their old games like Sega, Capcom, Konami and Square. I don't think getting the license to do this is the issue, it's the cost that will inevitably be passed onto the consumer. Plenty of people already think we should have Nintendo's entire catalog for 20 a year, or for free even. This would just get so costly if Nintendo has to pay every third party on board.

Still would be nice. Also, welcome.
 
Nintendo's main aim is to maximise profit. Thats my only thought honestly on it. If people keep buying, Nintendo keep selling.

The big Q is will the subscription service bring games cross-generations. Thats a much better offer for the customer.
 
0
KC Hazel said:
To be fair, a lot of third party games are available for purchase on Switch outside of NSO. Plenty of collections and retro ports exist, it's just not called the Virtual Console. If you combine those with NSO it's a different story for retro gaming.
Click to expand...
This is true, and I hadn't considered that.

On the flipside though, scrolling through the virtual console offerings on the eShop, its clear that Nintendo started releasing more niche and interesting first party and third party games that have since gone back into the Vault. Games like Ogre Battle, Excitebike 64, etc.

There are solutions for this outside of just resetting the library and drip feeding games to users all over again.
 
Disney vault + subscription model is a nasty combination that's for sure. Even Disney knew better lol.
 
I hate that I transferred all of my VC purchases to Wii U.

While the NSO price hike is a little steep, if they were to charge $10 per N64 game again, I would definitely spend more than 50$ on games, so I guess it's kinda fair? But I'd much rather have the options to purchase the titles. Maybe a small discount on them if you're subbed to NSO.
 
IMO, they should have 3 tiers:

Basic - Nintendo only. Limited to 2 systems and rotates between them. For example, take NES out and add GB/GBC.

Advance - Nintendo only. All released platforms available here. Any new platform is added here first (except for the GB/GBC in the example above) before replacing another in the Basic on the next year.

Expansion Pak - All licensed games/consoles would be here. There will be a rotation of games, since otherwise the price would have to keep increasing to cover licenses for added games.

Once a platform has been 4 years in the NSO, they can sell the app in physical media for $60. At that point it won't be moving many subscriptions anyway.
 
0
JazzPotatoes said:
This is true, and I hadn't considered that.

On the flipside though, scrolling through the virtual console offerings on the eShop, its clear that Nintendo started releasing more niche and interesting first party and third party games that have since gone back into the Vault. Games like Ogre Battle, Excitebike 64, etc.

There are solutions for this outside of just resetting the library and drip feeding games to users all over again.
Click to expand...
Yeah I wasn't saying NSO is the ideal solution, just that people begging for the VC to return for third party stuff can buy a lot of those games already.

Obviously with a sub service Nintendo has to pace the releases out. I'm sure we'll get Excitebike 64. Third party stuff is up in the air, but it's really not up to Nintendo to rerelease Ogre Battle 64. Third parties were apparently not too happy with the VC sales and nothing is stopping them from releasing their games on Switch right now, that's not really on Nintendo.
 
0
Incredibly frustrating, but then I know nothing of how emulation works and how difficult it is in order to get these older titles on newer platforms.

Nintendo has the largest collection of classic games at their disposal. That's incredibly valuable to me. Therefore it boggles my mind that after completing Metroid Dread, I can't now go and dip into the older Metroid titles on my Switch, outside of Super Metroid. Whether they were being offered through a subscription service, or as a collection, or singular titles, I'd love to now play games like Fusion or the Prime trilogy.

Nintendo is known for preserving their stuff, quite meticulously. I know Nintendo has NERD who worked on the NES and SNES Mini, as well as the GameCube emulation tech in 3D All Stars, but it sort of boggles me how Nintendo (as far as I'm aware) doesn't have a team dedicated to backwards compatibility in each of their new systems. Microsoft has seemingly been the gold standard for this in the last few years, and it instills me with confidence that, should I purchase an Xbox piece of hardware in 2030, I'll probably be able to play my digital copy of Fallout: New Vegas on it with no issue and improved performance. I don't have that confidence in Nintendo.

I'd like to see Nintendo develop something similarly accessible. I don't mind paying £5 to play Star Fox 64 on my Wii, then paying again on my Wii U, then again on my Switch. No improvements even needed. Just don't make me sit and wait for you to maybe or maybe not add it to your BC service in three years time. Make your first-party software work right out of the gate, or at least drop it all at the same time. Third-party releases being spaced out is more understable.
 
KC Hazel said:
This is an entirely different situation. Getting characters in Smash is completely different from releasing games. Putting Sonic on NSO for example, means Sega has to give up sales of said Sonic game on the eshop and will have to be compensated for that. Putting Sonic in Smash takes nothing away from Sega. Now imagine doing that for entire libraries, with companies that are actively rereleasing their old games like Sega, Capcom, Konami and Square. I don't think getting the license to do this is the issue, it's the cost that will inevitably be passed onto the consumer. Plenty of people already think we should have Nintendo's entire catalog for 20 a year, or for free even. This would just get so costly if Nintendo has to pay every third party on board.

Still would be nice. Also, welcome.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah I get that they're different things and the issues are different. I guess I just wish there was some way around it and we could get to the point of having that Netflix-style model.
 
plinkerton said:
Oh yeah I get that they're different things and the issues are different. I guess I just wish there was some way around it and we could get to the point of having that Netflix-style model.
Click to expand...
I think the 50 dollars a year price is one of the ways we're going to get around it. It seems like some third parties are on board to an extent. I just wonder how much.
 
0
Better than Sony, worse than MS.

What a cursed existence when the least storied publisher does the most to preserve its history for others.
 
The pricing model and slow rollout is one thing, but starting from scratch each generation is what kills me. At this rate we'll never get past the N64 generation. And watch us start from NES all over again next system
 
The Gold Standard

Switch Online has a timeline for these games. Nintendo has spend their history curating their games like a museum whether we have access to it or not. The problem has always been licensing.
 
0
Lord Azrael said:
The pricing model and slow rollout is one thing, but starting from scratch each generation is what kills me. At this rate we'll never get past the N64 generation. And watch us start from NES all over again next system
Click to expand...
Nintendo systems are usually backwards compatible so I don't think we'll have to worry about that much. I also feel this will be one of the benefits of a sub service, Nintendo isn't going to just cancel 40-50 million subs and just start from scratch each gen.
 
Lord Azrael said:
The pricing model and slow rollout is one thing, but starting from scratch each generation is what kills me. At this rate we'll never get past the N64 generation. And watch us start from NES all over again next system
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's my biggest nit with their approach as well. If we were able to get 64 on Wii released 10 years apart... why do we not have Gamecube on Switch 16 years later?

Otherwise, as stupid as their inconsistency is with the way they release their legacy content... I really don't mind it tbh. If they dropped new VC titles at the same time as their big releases of the year, I'd probably ignore them. If you're all-in on their line-up, it works. If you're not... yeah I can see how it sucks.
 
0
Controversial opinion: On paper, NSO is a reasonable service. You're getting NES, SNES, Genesis and Nintendo 64 games for $4 a month.
And if they eventually add Game Boy games to the service, then there's even more value.

NSO isn't a big "ripoff".
Virtual Console was a bigger ripoff: Nintendo charged $10 for each N64 game. $5 for each NES game. And then they charged you an additional fee to transfer those games to the Wii U VC.

There's only one problem I see: Nintendo isn't providing an option to purchase/own games individually. Disney may have the Disney+ service, but they still make their movies available for purchase on iTunes, Vudu and Amazon Prime. People should have the option to own games on Switch, instead of just renting them.

Lord Azrael said:
The pricing model and slow rollout is one thing, but starting from scratch each generation is what kills me. At this rate we'll never get past the N64 generation. And watch us start from NES all over again next system
Click to expand...

I definitely agree that starting from scratch each generation is beginning to get tiring.

In my opinion, the biggest obstacle with GameCube is Nintendo believes they can squeeze more money out of people with HD remasters and remakes. Instead of simply dumping $10-$15 roms on the service, they can charge more for a high quality remaster.

Example:
  • Mario Sunshine HD (3D All-Stars)
  • Wind Waker HD (Wii U)
  • Twilight Princess HD (Wii U)
  • Metroid Prime HD Remaster (Switch)
  • Luigi's Mansion 1 remake (3DS)
Technically, we do have some GameCube games on Switch: Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles, Pac-Man Vs, Resident Evil 4, Resident Evil Remake, Resident Evil Zero, Cel Damage, Ty the Tasmanian Tiger. So Switch owners haven't been completely starved of GameCube content.

The lack of F-Zero GX on an HD console is a crime though. It really needs to be re-released.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wii U VC was great and NSO has potential, but it's been slow.

I don't mind the new pricing tier, especially if they add GBA to it down the line. If NSO lives to its potential I'd be happy.
 
0
9-Volt said:
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.
Click to expand...
I don't have a playstation so I can't really talk about Sony BUT

Gamepass has a ton of Xbox games from the 360 onwards, including most if not all first-party games. You can buy Xbox games from 20 years ago in the Xbox store. You can even buy original Xbox and 360 discs and put them on series X and S and they'll work, and they look better than ever on Series X. They recently (a couple months ago) added even freaking BLINX. Games with Gold routinely offers Xbox 360 games to keep to its subscribers. How is this worse than what Nintendo is doing? Even when they remaster their old content to sell or put on gamepass, the remasters are a lot better that what Nintendo does.

With Nintendo you're getting (for now) 15 N64 games plus the same NES and SNES we've been seeing for the last 15 years, since the Wii.

NSO has some cool features, adding online to old Nintendo games is a big deal -although it should've been there since 2017 at least- but there is no way this is a better treatment to their Legacy content than what Microsoft has to offer, especially considering the legacy content that each of them brings to the table.

It's exasperating because Nintendo is the greatest company in terms of legacy content. NSO is completely missing the portable history of the company (30 years of history that can't be accessed on your latest portable!) You can't play GameCube or Wii games on switch unless they are ports. When the servers for 3DS go down, there will be no way to play DS and 3DS games on current hardware.
 
0
I wish we could atleast seperately buy the nintendo online games to keep forever. Nintendo sits on a gold mine classic games wise, it's a real shame.
 
0
Love how they make them available for every system. Hate how they milk the customer every time.
 
0
KC Hazel said:
Nintendo systems are usually backwards compatible so I don't think we'll have to worry about that much. I also feel this will be one of the benefits of a sub service, Nintendo isn't going to just cancel 40-50 million subs and just start from scratch each gen.
Click to expand...
Wii U was backwards compatible with Wii and yet they still released the same games over and over.
 
I'm... okay with the subscription model, at least for the current platforms. There are some less than ideal aspects of it, but it works, and the emulation quality itself is some of the best Nintendo has ever had.

However, it's way too slow. There's a very real chance we won't get a single emulated handheld platform before the Switch is 5 years old. Even for the NES and SNES, first party releases have entirely stopped despite there being a ton of games left without obvious license issues. I know Urban Champion is a bit of a meme, but that just makes it all the weirder that there's no official way to play it on Switch. Thankfully I don't think another reset is likely anytime soon, but it's going to hurt a lot if one ever happens.

For platforms that have yet to be added/announced, either for Switch or beyond, ideally all the handhelds through DS will be available on NSO. Past that, things fall into two categories for me:

GameCube and Wii: personally I think these would be better off handled more like VC was. I'm not inherently opposed to the subscription model (if they solve the data management issues) but I have to wonder if Nintendo would want to push things that far. Regardless of how they're sold, however, for both of these platforms, a way to play them with their original controllers should be provided (there's already a GCN adapter, and Wiimotes are just bluetooth after all).

WiiWare, DSiWare, Wii U, and 3DS: If/when any of these platforms arrive, I feel fairly strongly that they should be integrated into the Switch eShop and existing digital purchases should be honored. All of that information should be available via Wii U and 3DS, even with the Wii Shop and DSi shop mostly closed. Save data transfer would also be nice, but I'm not holding my breath on that.

EDIT: One other thing I forgot to mention is I do appreciate the effort Nintendo has been putting in to replicating the original controllers. Though I do have to wonder if they're going to do anything for handhelds.
 
0
I miss Virtual Console. They should bring it back even with NSO. No problem with giving your users options. Plus, more money for them.
 
0
Personally I hate rebuying games I already have and the amount of games I want to play on older systems that I haven't already played is very small. So I have slim to no interest in playing old games in their original form. I would much rather they remade/remastered. ( whatever the hell the right term is)

I understand that takes far too much work, time, money, and for some titles it's not ideally at all. However that's pretty much the only way I will rebuy these old games. So whatever method they use for their old catlogue of games will never exicite me.

For people that care however, I think they should continue adding stuff to the NSO, but also make it able to have the titles to be purchase on their own. I understand why they won't do that, but still.
 
0
Lord Azrael said:
Wii U was backwards compatible with Wii and yet they still released the same games over and over.
Click to expand...
What do you mean? All VC games transferred over to the Wii U for free.

Obviously Nintendo only has so many games in their catalog, but you didn't have to restart your library.
 
KC Hazel said:
What do you mean? All VC games transferred over to the Wii U for free.

Obviously Nintendo only has so many games in their catalog, but you didn't have to restart your library.
Click to expand...
They were still playable on Wii U due to the special Wii mode, but not natively. You had to pay an upgrade cost to play your games natively on the Wii U (i.e. with gamepad support and whatever else). And even then you could only upgrade the ones which had also been released on the Wii U eShop. And you better believe the games they drip-fed us on the Wii U's own eShop were just the same games they had already released on the Wii.
 
I actually play a ton of older games pretty regularly, Nintendo or otherwise and I have been somewhat disappointed with NSO. I am okay with the structure of it and even with the expansion but the offerings are definitely lacking and I am not one to expect anything from third party developers either. I wish Nintendo would have continued to hold themselves to the monthly updates, that would have made some of the more obscure updates easier to take. I am sure what they can offer would run out quicker but at least that makes them more transparent about it and pushes them to add additional systems more frequently. It sucks that new systems are held on to for years at this point, I would gladly play some GB/GBC games!
 
0
Lord Azrael said:
They were still playable on Wii U due to the special Wii mode, but not natively. You had to pay an upgrade cost to play your games natively on the Wii U (i.e. with gamepad support and whatever else). And even then you could only upgrade the ones which had also been released on the Wii U eShop. And you better believe the games they drip-fed us on the Wii U's own eShop were just the same games they had already released on the Wii.
Click to expand...
That does seem pretty standard right? I mean, they have to port all of those games to the Wii U. Running the Wii mode was a perfectly fine way of doing it. Otherwise it would take time for any company to rerelease their games. If everything on Switch runs natively on Switch 2 then I don't think we have to worry about Nintendo deleting their library. Again, the subscription model now means Nintendo would have to toss 40+ million subs and start over. That's a lot of money to throw away. They'll make it work unless the next console is drastically different.
 
Kano said:
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.
Click to expand...
This is where I'm at.

Never really saw the old VC as good value, especially for a lot of shorter games, since it had a fixed price per system. The current subscription model is more up my alley, but it's certainly not perfect.


The mini consoles were cute and novel, but I can understand why they didn't continue with them. A pity though, cos a mini GameCube would have been totally kawaii.
 
0
Relative to gaming companies as a whole, they're alright. Most major Wii U games have been remastered for the Switch and there are a few games from previous systems that have been remastered or on NSO. The bad part is stuff like limited availability for SM3DAS and FE, which is just BS, as well as the drip feed for NES, SNES, and, likely, N64 and Genesis games. I understand that a lot of folk probably don't care too much for these as most will only go for the handful of stuff they remembered fondly from their childhood days and that's it but the effort can still be better. So as long as they fix the areas where they're weak in and provide proper BC going forward, they'd be just fine. It's not gonna be possible to have BC from older Nintendo consoles and handhelds for obvious reasons
 
0
What everyone else says - It is managed poorly.

Nintendo typically has three different strategies when it comes to legacy content, if they release it at all:

1. Release the old game as is with no changes, either via individual release (Mario 3D All Stars) or NSO. This would be fine, but the offerings are typically overpriced and drip fed at a disappointingly low rate.

2. Modernize the game with an enhanced port. This is a very nice option and generally what I like best, in the style of the 3DS and Wii U Zelda releases. They cost more, but the games have been touched up enough that it (sometimes) feels worthwhile. However, even this approach has been trending into overpriced lately, more than it used to. And the level of development work involved means there can't be too many games given this treatment.

3. Full scale remakes. You have things like Link's Awakening, Advance Wars, and Samus Returns here. Also fine, but this isn't so much "legacy content" as it is a new game based on an old one.
 
0
I would like to have the option to buy certain games rather than have it locked behind a subscription.
 
0
In terms of a monthly cost it doesn't seem so bad to me, but they could definitely use more breadth if not more titles outright. Seeing stuff like Winback is encouraging. I hope they are able to come to some agreements with publishers to get more good games you wouldn't immediately think of on there. I want to explore the history as much as relive the nostalgia!
 
0
Nintendo gets compared to Apple a fair bit, but I equate them more to Disney when it comes to the practice of locking away their products in a vault, and only occasionally bringing them out at a high price.

Disney+ is the only notable exception to this, since it has a ton of old stuff on there that isn't rotated out, but I really don't see Nintendo getting anywhere near that with NSO for at least another 5, maybe 10 years.
 
0
Nintendo seems to be afraid that there legacy content could lead to bad sales of new games.

They are handling there old games really terrible. They should charge 50-60€$. But therefore you have access to games from all there older platforms. It really would bea win for everyone.
 
0
I like the basic plan for Nintendo Switch Online a lot more than Virtual Console. Virtual Console games were priced in a way that realistically people were never going to explore much software outside of the stuff they already knew they liked or the classics that were "safe bets". Even then, I didn't buy much classics because I had no way of knowing if I liked them beforehand.

The fact is, I can just try any game on NES or SNES online, and get access to online play, for $20 a year. Yes, it's definitely a grift, especially because you are forced into it for online play. But it is a better value imo.

The premium NSO on the other hand ... oh boy ...
 
0
KC Hazel said:
That does seem pretty standard right? I mean, they have to port all of those games to the Wii U. Running the Wii mode was a perfectly fine way of doing it. Otherwise it would take time for any company to rerelease their games. If everything on Switch runs natively on Switch 2 then I don't think we have to worry about Nintendo deleting their library. Again, the subscription model now means Nintendo would have to toss 40+ million subs and start over. That's a lot of money to throw away. They'll make it work unless the next console is drastically different.
Click to expand...
Wii software ran natively on Wii U too. So to my understanding, they wouldn't have had to port anything over at all. The games theoretically could've run just fine from the get go. Maybe they boxed Wii off into its own mode for security purposes, not sure. But then it doesn't give me a whole lot of hope for NSO games being there from day one on the succ.
 
0
KC Hazel said:
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.
Click to expand...
I'm not that poster, but I think the intent was using streaming tech for the more difficult to emulate consoles, like GameCube and Wii.

Daniel Switzer said:
Nintendo is known for preserving their stuff, quite meticulously. I know Nintendo has NERD who worked on the NES and SNES Mini, as well as the GameCube emulation tech in 3D All Stars, but it sort of boggles me how Nintendo (as far as I'm aware) doesn't have a team dedicated to backwards compatibility in each of their new systems. Microsoft has seemingly been the gold standard for this in the last few years, and it instills me with confidence that, should I purchase an Xbox piece of hardware in 2030, I'll probably be able to play my digital copy of Fallout: New Vegas on it with no issue and improved performance. I don't have that confidence in Nintendo.
Click to expand...
NERD is that team. They're behind the NES and SNES NSO services in addition to the mini consoles, and they're likely behind the N64 one as well. They've been Nintendo's defacto emulation team since they made the DS emulator on the Wii U. The reality is that even with a dedicated team, it's unrealistic to expect Nintendo to easily match what Microsoft is doing just due to the sheer numbers; there are currently three legacy Xbox platforms. Nintendo has ten.

They also don't have licenses to sell any third party retail games digitally all the way through DS and Wii. Each individual title would need to be negotiated; I believe MS only has this problem with the OG Xbox.

Emily said:
In my opinion, the biggest obstacle with GameCube is Nintendo believes they can squeeze more money out of people with HD remasters and remakes. Instead of simply dumping $10-$15 roms on the service, they can charge more for a high quality remaster.
Click to expand...
There's still a soft technical barrier; Sunshine appears to have taken more work to get running acceptably than you'd expect for a VC or NSO like effort. There's a reason it's the only emulated game in your list, and I expect it'll stay that way for now despite the work for the emulator itself being reusable. If Nintendo has to put in significant work just to emulate the game, may as well make remasters instead for the time being.

Only when they have more powerful hardware will I accept that they have no interest in releasing digital GameCube games en masse. Though I will say: I'm of the mind that HD remasters would still sell if their originals were available for cheaper.
 
0
Absolutely terribly. Sony used to be the gold standard during the PS3 generation, but ever since they've gotten worse and worse, and now Microsoft of all companies is the best in the biz for preserving their history.
 
The vaule of NSO kinda depends on how much you like the overall libraries of these systems. If you're big on these systems on the whole, than it's a fantastic deal. For me however, I don't particularly care about having access to all of Nintendo's first party output on the SNES when I'm only going to play Super Metroid and Mario All-Stars. Kinda feel like I'm paying for a whole bunch of games I don't care about just to get the ones I want.
 
0
NSO is filled with top tier games from Jaleco and Titus. With games like Tuff-E-Nuff and Prehistohik Man in them, you can't lose!
 
0
Theswweet said:
Absolutely terribly. Sony used to be the gold standard during the PS3 generation, but ever since they've gotten worse and worse, and now Microsoft of all companies is the best in the biz for preserving their history.
Click to expand...
Depends on if you lived in PAL land or not, if you ask me. Only getting those poorly optimized versions was a real bummer — accurate as it may have been to the “authentic” PAL experience.
 
0
You must log in or register to reply here.


Back
Top Bottom