I started binge watching Scott the Woz and his whole channel isn't really commentary. It's almost all surface level history of "topic" outside of a few videos.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Lack of legacy content on switch hurts nintendo more than us (Arlo)
- Thread starter ClickyCal'
- Start date
I started binge watching Scott the Woz and his whole channel isn't really commentary. It's almost all surface level history of "topic" outside of a few videos.
There's also a counterpoint to that regarding Nintendo's storied timeline of fuck-ups and leaving money on the table.
Just look at their ineptitude regarding the initial release of the NES Classic. They released that thing as an afterthought and were generally taken aback by its success when ANYBODY who knows anything about this industry could have predicted the feverish demand for a product like that.
I love what Nintendo is doing with the Switch; I think it's their best console since the SNES and it might eventually eclipse even that. But their handling of legacy and curation is lousy by any metric and I flatly reject the notion that – if properly implemented – a new VC handled correctly wouldn't be enormously profitable.
When you have games as brilliant as Mario Galaxy moldering on the virtual shelves, you're doing something very wrong.
Annnnnnnd how does that at all make Arlo smarter than Switch-era Nintendo?
Really?
Because having done that I was still having problems accessing the games on the go.
Perhaps I'm doing something wrong.
Thanks for the info.
It's not about being smarter it's about the reality that Nintendo makes stupid fucking decisions all the time; their history is punctuated by them. On this issue I'd say he's more on point than they are given how badly they have botched legacy and curation to date.
Both games are currently in the Top 10 LTD for all Switch games. In just a few months, Mario Maker 2 matched the LTD sales of Mario Maker 1. Releasing them both in the same year doesn't seem to have hurt sales of either in any serious way.
I find Woz entertaining and Arlo the opposite of that, his videos are constant negativity and I'm not really looking for that when I go to YouTube. Even if Scott's stuff is surface level, his character is fun. Arlo as a character is not that interesting or entertaining.
If they felt a new Virtual Console, which was always just a marketing name for individually packaged and sold ROMs, had the sales potential you seem to think, they'd have stuck with it instead of the scaling back during the Wii U/3DS era.
What they're offering now is an ala carte service that gives subscribers access to all games on the service at once. We don't know what that's going to look like in the long term, but if we get updates every few months with classics like Crystalis and obscure titles like Journey to Silius, that's not bad for the effective price of $20 a year. I'd rather take a few high quality emulations at a time over massive gluts I'll never have the time to sort or sift through between all of the other games I play.
In the end, if what Nintendo is doing is making them a profit (and in this case, they want NSO to have a growing subscriber base), then what they're doing by making the NES and SNES apps subscriber-only isn't a mistake so long as they continue to maintain it and allow it to entice people into paying.
I'm not an analyst or a muppet YouTuber, but that seems pretty straight-forward to me.
Given how they handled the VC, I really don't think their analysis of its potential profitability much matters. They released games at a trickle and overcharged for much of the content they did release. There's a better and more obvious business model there if they were inclined to look at better pricing and offer a larger smattering of software.
I don't have a problem with their current model in that what is offered – especially with the SNES upgrade – is a great value but that's still a far cry from giving us a plethora of legacy titles spanning everything from the GBA to the Wii and Wii U. This is a company that has, arguably, the most impressive back catalog of software in the history of the medium so I reject the notion that they have come anywhere close to maximizing potential profits from exploiting such staggering assets.
And let's be real here, Nintendo has always been profitable, even in their worst-performing years. That fact doesn't negate the reality that they have a vault of assets that could be generating all manner of revenue and they certainly have the resources to allocate a division dedicated to emulation and curation.
Nintendo is very much analogous to Disney with the most notable difference being that they sit atop a mountain of software that people clearly want yet they don't make it readily available whereby contrast Disney exploits their wares and releases and re-releases everything and makes a shit ton of money in the process.
Nintendo has a history of leaving money on the table and I think that is precisely what they are doing in regards to their back catalog. And sincerely, it's probably my only genuine complaint with the company as I'm loving the Switch as a console.
Nintendo needs time to figure out how to deliver their classics to us with maximum revenue. The approach they had of selling you an old game again and again on every new platform doesn't fly anymore now that they have personal accounts. If they sell you Super Mario World today for $10 you'd expect to own that for hardware generations to come. If they offer a substantial library with their online subscription they'd need to raise the price for that which would be counter productive to getting people used to paying for online gaming. Their library is worth a whole lot less considering that, so no wonder they're taking their time to figure things out.
Man I fucking wish I could play Nintendo Legacy content on their new systems. Even if its just some cheap remaster priced at 60 bucks id buy a lot of gamecube and wii games.
yeah just look at namco and sega, they made minis years before the nes classic and they sold gangbusters
oh wait
Neither of those companies has the cache or nostalgia of Nintendo but whatever.
The only one shocked by the success of the NES Mini was Nintendo, which is why they had to re-issue the product a year later.
Great post. It should also be noted that any look at a Japanese miiverse community for a VC game would show that hardly anyone ever talked about most of the games on the service, let alone people who bought the games to do so. Nearly all of them were dead except for the huge ones like MOTHER, Mario World, Mario 64, etc. If anyone commented on a Japanese Miiverse community for a game besides those, it was usually a foreigner begging for the games to come out west.
Heck, even the US VC Miiverses didn't do so hot for anything non-nintendo. Mostly those communities were just bitching about why they didn't get a Mario/Zelda/other first party title that week and those who actually bought the games in question got buried by those posts. I remember buying a lot of fun obscure third party stuff like the Natsume GBA games, Cybernator, and the TG16 games, and those communities were barely active while Mario World, Earthbound, the GBA Advance titles, etc were always popular.
That's also kinda why Nintendo sticks to notoriously safe picks for their rerelease schedule despite how a lot of folks like me are sick of seeing them for the millionth time. Because they're one of the few games that will sell extraordinarily well. They could have launched VC and should have when the eShop was being flooded by bad games like World Heroes in the early days, but now that Hamster moved onto the BETTER NeoGeo games weekly, and now shifted to real arcade games weekly, that market is basically claimed by them, so a VC service, I hate to say, would be not so hot at this point. They're better off remastering for GCN stuff, and using NSO for the others.
Nintendo is well aware of how much value thier legacy content is worth. They follow the Disney strategy of scarcity and the Vault. They do not want to devalue that by having easy access to them.
It looks bad on paper for consumers but choice fatigue is actually a thing. Right now every legacy release is a mini event and a huge event for he big ones.
It looks bad on paper for consumers but choice fatigue is actually a thing. Right now every legacy release is a mini event and a huge event for he big ones.
As much as I hate it - it's true. If Nintendo put all of their SNES titles on Switch from the get-go, they couldn't make each release an "event" like they are.
Currently waiting on that DKC "event".
Which I suspect is also by design. And probably part of the reason why older Nintendo consoles are still as valuable as they are.
You see the same thing whenever a first party title actually goes on sale. You actually pay attention because it's actually a very uncommon thing. You also prevent the whole Fomo thing with consumers because they will be more willing to buy the game now than wait for it to go on sale because they know full well that it won't, for a very long time, if ever.
Pretty much this. I'm about to set up my basement (recently bought a house) and so far, Nintendo alone - in my new TV stand from IKEA there is:
-Analog Super NT
-UltraHDMI modded N64
-Wii with a Wii->HDMI converter (new TV doesn't have component inputs :()
-Wii U
-Switch
Oh how I would love to only have to hook up a Switch lol.
The reason Nintendo has such nostalgia is because Nintendo is incredibly good at the long-term management of their IP. Their treatment of their back-catalog is part of this.
How so?
What's the benefit of making certain games unattainable outside of of tracking down ancient hardware and physical media or pirating the software?
How does the fact that Mario Sunshine has never seen a release outside of the GameCube benefit their long-term IP management?
Because I see plenty of other companies releasing their wares again and again and making copious revenue in the process.
If that was true we'd see these games on a rotation of periodic release. That is not at all what they are doing.
Disney practices this strategy but everything (outside of troublesome content) eventually gets released and re-released.
When legacy content was plentiful, everybody critiqued Nintendo of relying too much on the well of games and people were mad that they sold them the same games 4-5 times. Now they actually put out a system that focuses on not only new first-party entries but on re-establishing third-party relationships, now the outcry of "really Nintendo? No virtual console??"
Clearly there is a reason they haven't done it in the traditional way, and the subscription thing is actually a pretty great idea for legacy content.
Clearly there is a reason they haven't done it in the traditional way, and the subscription thing is actually a pretty great idea for legacy content.
Legacy content has never been plentiful in regards to Nintendo. The VC never came anywhere near its full potential, though it had some good stuff regardless.
Nintendo's entire handling of legacy content is smart (even if not wise from a consumer standpoint). By keeping is limited and scarce, they create a sense of urgency and demand for it. If every single notable game is readily available, the need for it lessens. There's a reason VC sales on Wii U were horrible and it wasn't strictly from the small market. Pricing, recent availablity of the games and other factors all played a role. VC on Wii was exciting because it was new, it was a fresh way to replay and buy old games on a modern platform. NSO is the best path for Nintendo and the gradual feed, though too slow, is the best avenue for them to take. It's more profitable in the long-term for them, they can curate releases, and do so to keep people invested in the ecosystem they are building. Selling NES games for $5 a pop for a third time wouldn't lead to much interest.
Nintendo's lack of legacy content isn't hurting them. It may hurt consumers, but Nintendo is doing better than ever and NSO is a better service than a standard VC option.
I'm curious as to why anyone would ever want to give Nintendo money again for old games after the shit they pulled with the VC on the Wii U and 3DS?
I know that the current situation also sucks, but in this case i just feel like nobody should really be buying anything digital on a Nintendo platform.
I know that the current situation also sucks, but in this case i just feel like nobody should really be buying anything digital on a Nintendo platform.
Or here's a radical idea, try selling something other than the same games from the previous two Virtual Consoles.
I have no problem with the NSO because it's a good value given the paltry sum it requires but that still doesn't address the reality that we have games like Mario Sunshine that have literally never seen a release since their initial offering seventeen years ago.
That isn't Nintendo being clever or strategic, that's Nintendo being oblivious and obstinate.
And again, the fact that Nintendo is making money is incidental; they've always made money, even when they were fucking up with N64 cartridges or getting snubbed by third parties because they ignored industry standards. They are a remarkably resilient company with healthy revenue streams that can survive blunders as large as the Wii U or even the Virtual Boy but that doesn't change the fact that a nice, well-managed backlog of titles – especially games that have rarely if ever enjoyed a re-release – could very easily generate yet another solid revenue stream and operate in tandem with NSO.
As I understand it, the promise was made that from this point onward accounts would - hypothetically - carry over to the next generation of hardware. I could be wrong but I remember that being a talking point they specifically addressed.
Given what MS did with XB1 BC, I don't think Nintendo felt they could pull that shit three times.
Unless I'm wrong. :(
Re-releasing a GCN game is easier said than done. They'd be better suited to HD Remaster it or fully remake it considering aspects of the game have not aged well. That requires years of development, resources, and such. Who is to say they haven't explored that path?
Because as always with these situations, the average consumer don't know/remember/care about the corporation practices long term. Its just how the world works.
Games get re-released all the time and somehow, other companies manage. Personally, I don't much care how they get re-released (I'm fine with remasters or direct emulations) but it's a shame so many of their games are locked behind hardware.
But let's forget about Mario Sunshine.
Why not re-release the Mario Galaxy games? They were already ported to the Wii U and unless I'm entirely off base, going from the Wii U to the Switch is no great feat given the copious ports we've enjoyed thus far.
Let's be honest, Nintendo is still very much behind the curve in regards to online infrastructure and subsequently how to properly deliver and curate digital wares. Despite the Wii U I being fully backward compatible with the Wii, it tethered all purchases to a singular machine AGAIN, just like the Wii. Either Nintendo was being incompetent here or they were being rapacious but given their history of being slow to adopt industry norms, I think it's probably the former.
And while I have no idea what revenue streams they've explored internally, I can look at the robust sales of the NES and SNES Mini and note there is a healthy appetite for legacy games and at least some of that market is probably open to purchasing said games individually on a popular platform.
Also, the VC is not the best litmus test for legacy content given how poorly it was implemented. To be fair it improved with the Wii U but nobody bought the system so it hardly mattered. If and when Nintendo releases a more comprehensive and well-implemented service and consumers still largely ignore it, then you can tell me "I told you so."
I remember buying the 3DS thinking that like the PSP and the Vita, it would serve me as some kind of hub to play every retro SNES/GB/GBA/DS games on it.
How wrong I was, which is a shame since I would be buying and rebuying so many games on the Switch if they made them available. I'm not even asking for remasters since I'm fine with the originals but it doesn't seems like it'll ever happen in the future sadly.
How wrong I was, which is a shame since I would be buying and rebuying so many games on the Switch if they made them available. I'm not even asking for remasters since I'm fine with the originals but it doesn't seems like it'll ever happen in the future sadly.
It was a pointless comparison given the disparate difference between Nintendo and the two companies you cited.
SEGA has nostalgic value to be sure but nowhere near what Nintendo possesses and they certainly don't have a comparable back catalog outside of some amazing arcade games, most of which they have made and continue to make readily available.
I partially agree with you in that I believe that Nintendo values its old IP and making everything available all of the time would devalue it. I also agree that NSO is a better value than VC. I think everyone is kind of done paying 10-15 bucks for Mario 64 again.
However, I will say that while I don't think Nintendo is necessarily wrong in its approach, I agree with Arlo in that it could be better. I don't think anyone is really hurting, consumers or Nintendo. However, I think the crux of what Arlo is saying is that there is an approach that makes Nintendo more money while allowing consumers more access to legacy content. I would like to legally access Earthbound and play through it again on my Nintendo Switch. I can't and that is a bummer.
The NES Classic pretty much destroyed any other console like it before and after, which led to them being caught off guard. Nobody expected that.
I would like to see the N64 and Gamecube get classic consoles, but it probably isn't happening since the platforms didn't do too well, especially in Japan.
I would like to see the N64 and Gamecube get classic consoles, but it probably isn't happening since the platforms didn't do too well, especially in Japan.
Galaxy was not ported to Wii U. Wii U ran the game natively via backwards compatibility. It was a ROM dump, pure and simple. There's a big difference between a port and a straight ROM dump.
Should they have ported/HDed Galaxy 1/2 for Switch? I would love for them to do so, but they have their reasons. In the long-run, it isn't hurting Nintendo. It dissappoints the fans that continue to hold hope Nintendo will one day bring the games to their new system.
They were not ported, they were the original Wii games running via the Wii U's backward compatibility. The Mario Galaxy games would have to be completely reworked with new controls (have to replace that pointer with something), HD UI, and porting the engine and whatnot to run on any other console. You would struggle to find more difficult Nintendo games to port besides something like Wii Fit or Donkey Konga
See, that's where I differ. I don't necessarily believe they move in mysterious ways. I think Nintendo is largely oblivious to the fervor for some of their back catalog titles but it is what it is.
Nintendo has always gone their own way and it clearly works, even if they are losing out on potential revenue.
Understood and I appreciate the edification. I'm admittedly shaky on the more technical side of these things.
I refer you to any of the posts by NateDrake in this thread. Other companies make modest revenue off discounted rereleases from IP with short histories and likely shorter futures. Meanwhile, Nintendo is selling millions of copies of a nearly one-to-one remake of a 25 year old Gameboy game, at $60 each, from an IP with a much longer history and an effectively indefinite future.
The reasons could be numerous and as simple as: no studio to port them, no studio to rework controls, the RoI isn't high enough to justify the budget needed, work on new Mario games are underway and they don't want to flood the market with too many 3D Mario games, etc.
It looks like madness from the outside, but there is a method and reason to Nintendo's madness. They value the IP and think of future use for legacy titles beyond the current gen. They look at anniversaries and ways to capitalize on such sentimental things. It isn't assigned to every IP and is mostly reserved for the ones they know they can make the most profit/marketing sense on, though.
Exactly, people think that there are infinite staff to do those things (or worse, that is just a port button).
And if they plan to remake a game like Mario Sunshine down the line then perhaps I can understand the rationale but I don't buy the notion that this is all clever planning by a company that has repeatedly fumbled easy lay-ups. (The VC should have been a fucking slam dunk)
I don't assume anything but I have seen Nintendo's approach to legacy and curation and it's bad, though admittedly getting slightly better.
Arlo's takes aren't new or interesting and they have been overwhelmingly negative. He doesn't really bring anything to the table other than a puppet.
I liked his channel at first but now I can't stand it.
I liked his channel at first but now I can't stand it.
If that was entirely true they would have anticipated the success of the NES Mini. To be fair they learned from that mistake and remedied it but some of their behavior over the decades suggests they don't fully grasp how much people want some of their older software.
Ironically that's exactly what the Wii U is. It's the ultimate Nintendo legacy machine.