Topic: Lets put this "there's no new games" thing to rest

You even imitated the bad grammar, spelling and ALL CAPS!! Good job!

And this is precisely the problem. WW and VC have always been stepchildren of sorts for NoA and NoE (and probably NoJ). If they had concentrated on all three with the same gusto then the Wii would be a fantastic, well-rounded device. (Disregarding friend codes and online play, of course.)

This is also the reason why a lot of people are visibly worried about the 3DS's online service. Why spend money on something that is only going to be second fiddle?

people are willing to hunt down an old SNES game like Earthbound and pay upwards of $100 for it, but Nintendo doesn't get the money. some random seller gets that $100. why not capitalize on that demand and sell A LOT of people that game for $8. Where one person can make $100, Nintendo can make $100,000. It just seems like such a no brainer to me. I don't really see the financial strategy in holding back a product until people borderline don't care anymore.

I'm not a fan of encouraging unreasonable and incessant whining by being complicit with it.

If there is a reasonable grounds for complaining, then great, go ahead. But people that complain about the "lack of games" (there's hundreds), the 'death of vc' (it's not going anywhere) or 'no more games getting released' (they're running out of games to release, that's hardly the fault of Nintendo or the other publishers)
are whining without any good reason for it.

Here's a theory for you: Nintendo has a host of characters, and a host of IP. These are very important ti Nintendo's business. Then it starts releasing games from more obscure IPs - a group of gamers buy that game, rather than a Mario or Zelda game.

A new Mario or Zelda game comes out, but rather than buy that, these people hold out for a new entry in their new favorite obscure series, or are too busy playing the old game to take notice. The Mario or Zelda game sells less, Nintendo loses value on its important IPs (and $1 spent on a valuable IP is worth more than a mere $1 to a business, so losing $x in IP value to make $1 on a 'new' IP is not a stable strategy).

I don't know if this is the reason, I don't sit in on Nintendo's strategy meetings around IP, but I know this - Nintendo is very good at managing its IP - it's one of the few areas Nintendo really makes smart business decisions. So if Nintendo doesn't release a game, it has a reason, either technical or business-related.

When people complain about the lack of games, death of vc etc. they are comparing it to when the VC was first released.

Every week saw Nintendo release heaps of games, every month saw 12+ games, which was able to hold strong for two years.
Nintendo has not been able to keep up the demand and that is what is causing all your complaints.

On you Mario/Zelda sell better, yes, but what happens when they release all those games? What are they gonna sell then?

I don't see what your opinion was on your Earthbound v Mario/Zelda games. Ness is quite well known, seeing as he has been in every Smash Bros game to date, and Earthbound is quite popular. I can't see anything but profits if Nintendo was to release it, but that won't happen anytime soon with legal and boring stuff.

Unless a big company like EA joins the service and has a ton of their better games rated, then I don't really see how Nintendo could possibly offer a more consistant release schedule of any quality, its been 3 years or so that VC has been going seems natural that 1 release a week couldn't continue, they've built up a fantastic library of classics many not available on any other service even bringing us what would otherwise be expsenive imports for much cheaper, flooding VC with token games just to meet some weekly quota looks unrealistic, if that 45 million units in the US before next console remark is true, then wii has a long life yet and makes sense they are spacing things out.

in this thread: the beating of a dead horse by both sides.