Topic: Wiiware is lowering our expectations

There is so much misunderstanding about Nintendo's online service, I wonder if anyone actually tries to learn about it.

Nintendo cannot revoke games you actually have. They can simply block you from accessing their network. And brick your system, but that's achieved through a software update to the firmware, not from physcially or virtually going in and shutting things down.

You're all way too Orwellian

Of course, similar situations have arisen with Amazon and the Kindle ... where Amazon deleted books right out of people's Kindle's and said people do not technically own the book that was deleted.

That's the first I've heard of that... and I'm a technical journalist.

The only case I know of Amazon deleting books is one case, where they removed 1984 (now THAT'S irony) from people's Kindles. But the reason for that was that Amazon did not have the license to sell the book themselves. And once the mistake was realised Amazon not only put the book back on, but paid people over the value of the book in credit in apology.

For all intents and purposes you own every digital file you download to your Kindle.

If you have $50 of points Thomas and nintendo denies your access for any reason on their part your money is gone legally that is not ownership. If your system fries nintendo could legally choose not to restore any of your games. Poof, they are gone. If Nintendo drops the service tomorrow or 6 months or 6 years you are screwed, you have no right of expectation to expect to be able to access your account at any time, nor for any length of time after you agree to their contract.

I am not saying nintendo will do that but you have signed an agreement that says they can. Elf I linked the contract so everyone can go read it it I have said nothing false about it.

Its an orwellian agreement actually because where are your guarantees and property rights you have none. I am done with this no sense arguing crircles.

It is a huge difference from retail I am not making it sound bad I am making it sound exactly as they wrote the contract.

I know what you're saying, Mac, but I think "virtually," or "practically" is the word you're looking for. Because, technically, if you owned it, you'd have certain rights to decompile and alter the software - which you don't with WiiWare.

So, as long as what you're aiming for is to play it? Then yeah, you own that sheezie for reezie.

Technically you don't have the right to take apart a Wii with a screwdriver and alter it either - you void the warranty and Nintendo can and will brick it next time you download a firmware update. That doesn't mean the Wii console is "just on loan" from Nintendo. Anything and everything you purchase comes with terms and conditions. Homes, Cars, Guns - there's rules attached to owning anything.

If you buy a Wii disc game, and it gets scratched to buggery, Nintendo is under no obligation to replace it either. If your Wii system fries 10 years down the track when you can no longer buy Wiis, poof, your entire catalogue of retail games are useless forever.

Nothing lasts forever. I don't understand why people are upset that that reality counts for downloads too.

Its an orwellian agreement actually because where are your guarantees and property rights you have none. I am done with this no sense arguing crircles.

You can make that stupid argument about anything you buy. It's a no sense arguing circle because you're trying to claim that digital distribution should be something more than retail distribution

Nintendo will (can?) only deny you access if you break the terms of the agreements.

This is one I am with you on, and is why I have not purchased more VC and WiiWare games. I'd really like to see some assurance that Nintendo plans on carrying/supporting the VC and WiiWare systems past this generation and that games are tied to accounts, rather than hardware. When Sony claimed that PS3 backward compatability for PS2 games was not going to be supported, I said it was probably because they were planning to release PS2 games on their PSN. People said I was crazy for thinking that ... but that is exactly what is being proposed. Maybe I'm spoiled for thinking systems nowadays should have backwards compatability with the last generation (at the very least) but these systems are pretty serious investments. At least in my opinion.

Ummmm, what? I have a right to put that thing in my microwave on blast if I want. Just like they have the right to not service it under warranty.

With the move to digital downloads, releases of games from multiple consoles, cloud storage and online accounts ... I think expectations are different now.

You don't have that right under their terms and conditions. You're just choosing to ignore them.

You can also chose to ignore the Wii (and Nintendo's) terms and conditions, you know. There's no law saying you HAVE to take the Wii online.

With the move to digital downloads, releases of games from multiple consoles, cloud storage and online accounts ... I think expectations are different now.

So actually people are expecting more from digital downloads. The exact opposite of lowering our expectations.

Thomas I share your concerns, Nintendo could power down the service tomorrow, and never have to refund anything. Who knows how long they will support it?

Nothing lasts forever. I don't understand why people are upset that that reality counts for downloads too. - waltzelf

Because you do not own it. You cannot ever get a refund or trade it. You cannot do anything with it. You get a bad game, it is done, points gone. I buy a bad retail game I list it on EBAY the same day and get paid money for it when it sells.

That is a huge difference what am I missing?

Wiiware has a lot of potential if devs use it correctly. I think the biggest problems that exist are the size and cost limitations.

Why is much of WW iphone ports and previous flash freeware? Why is WW often the most expensive way to download multiplatform games? Why does Wii get Dead Space Extraction as a retail title for $50 and PSN and Xbox Live get it as a downloadable for $15 (watch all the gaming journalist talk about how much better sales are on those consoles while neglecting the obvious price differences)?

Wii's size limitations and the financial cost of putting something on the service for a limited return (given how many people don't know about online, much less use it), make putting something on Wiiware a very risky proposition. All you lose making a freeware game for PC is the cost of the software you use to make it and your time. The app store isn't that much more difficult, since the Dev kit is really cheap. You also don't have to pay for ESRB ratings, since they're considered applications. Apple uses it's own system. Why do people port? The Nintendo dev kit is more expensive, and it's much riskier that you'll make anything back, especially with their minimum sales policy. Why waste your time unless you know your game is already successful? On the other hand, if you have another platform, why waste your time with most of WiiWare?

Size limitations are a problem too. They really need to find a way to stream off SD cards or come out with a console successor with a real hard drive to remedy that problem. You can get DS:E for $15 on PSN or Xbox Live...it doesn't really make sense that ANY of the games on WW cost $15! Nintendo needs to get on the ball with their online and figure out a way to bring prices down for both DSiWare (What percentage of games can be found for cheaper on the app store here?) and WW.

When you buy a game on WW, what do you get? Nintendo controls, which this gen on both handhelds and consoles are the best out of all the systems, if implemented properly. They need to look at other companies online models and learn how to make the games better (size restrictions are a huge part of this) and cheaper. The DLC workaround isn't great either, as there are some games (I'm looking at you Square-Enix) that may as well have been retail given what all the DLC in total costs. To be fair, all the consoles have this problem with DLC, and I'm actually just glad that the trend of pay for play content that could have been included on the disk (I'm looking at you GOTY editions of Sony games) aren't.

With news of the DS2 on the horizon, I really think Ninty saw this gen as a testing ground for online, as opposed to a real full fledged model like other companies. The Wii and DSi's (especially the DSi) online systems are there to build up a library for their successor's online systems and test to see if digital gaming really is feasible. When they come out, sweet, they will have really awesome launch libraries. The iphone has proven that it can be. I'm not sure about the sales numbers on home consoles, but I think it is fairly obvious that online is the way of the future. Hopefully that will be taken into consideration for Nintendo's next gen machines.

Nothing lasts forever. I don't understand why people are upset that that reality counts for downloads too. - waltzelf

Because you do not own it. You cannot ever get a refund or trade it. You cannot do anything with it. You get a bad game, it is done, points gone. I buy a bad retail game I list it on EBAY the same day and get paid money for it when it sells.

That is a huge difference what am I missing?

There are plenty of things that devalue almost completely after purchasing, or are impossible to sell separately to an overall package.

i don't think you're missing anything, man. in terms of WiiWare and other digital downloadables, you pays your money and you takes your chances, really. i'm not really okay with it, but there's quite a few great games i wouldn't have ever been able to play had i not just gone with the flow on this one. i'm dreading the day when my Wii and DSi finally go kaput and i'm out hundreds of dollars in games i won't be able to transfer over to a new (or newly-bought used) system because Nintendo refuses to support the Wii anymore. :/

There are plenty of things that devalue almost completely after purchasing, or are impossible to sell separately to an overall package.

Like what? Not retail videogames. I betcha NSMBW is selling used on ebay for very close to its retail value...10 million copies or whatever later. See also Wii Sports Resort see also Wii Fit Pus see also Balance Board.

Yeah, for instance, I'm trying to sell a lot of the games I don't like, but at this rate, I'd be better off throwing them in the trash. The costs will be worth more than the games themselves.

@dragon: Couldn't you just keep your Wii?

But what's he gonna do with it when it's a useless brick(which is what s/he meant), use it to keep his table level?

I didn't realise that all there is to life is retail videogames.

how did this silly stuff about ownership start? if you buy a WW game and Nintendo decides to shut down the online stuff, it's still going to stay on your Wii until you delete it, so don't delete it already. Big deal. Oh, no! whats next? Digital furniture! Next thing you know they'll sell us a couch and then take it away when we least expect it!
I could care less who owns the license as long as I can keep playing the copy that's running on my TV. The odds of something happening to it are about the same as dropping and scratch prone disc onto a cheap carpet and having my cat slip on it and scratch the hell out of it.

A bad game is a bad game, sure. But there IS such a thing as a shorter or less involved game that is still good for what it is; thats what I expect for a game that is 10$ or less. I expect a ton of replay value and/or really high production values from a game thats 50$ and has all the space of a disc. How can you not have a different standard for each? It's apples and oranges.

It's a little extreme to rate a game REALLY low because you suck at it but Sean is a great reviewer because he actually admitted that he couldn't get past 2 in SMB 3. That takes some guts! (especially considering the opportunities for free guys in there). If I see something like that in a review I know where he's coming from and that I'll probably like the game anyway. I'm not a sheep so I won't abandon hope for any game rated lower than a 6 or something - I'll read it, take in the info it gives me and, um, make my own opinion, "kid".

All this talk about indie developers is a little overly romantic, I agree. It's a great, inspiring tale, and I'm sure it's all true, but this is not the norm for game development.

The same thing has happened for film. Occasional rags to riches stories hit the media like great movies made in a week with cheap video or on a few credit cards and then consumers hold every other small filmmaker to the same standard: i.e. They shouldn't be paid, they should do it out of "passion" or with friends and on home computers, but there are so many other factors that the consumer doesn't understand and it just makes the business harder for everyone. (I work in film for a living/ for enjoyment so I have to answer to this same romantic stereo type far too often)

For every one of these inspiring stories of rare genius (games OR movies) there are hundreds, even thousands of others that are struggling and even failing to stay above water using credit cards, tons of work, passion, every possible connection they can find. Even some who do get their work out there, put out so-so games and here we are in slippers, eating cheese, typing things about how World of Goo has "proven" it unnecessary for indie developers to have an office space at all.

How many of us have designed and coded a fantastic hit WiiWare game and is it our place to say how much passion and dedication they put into titles that haven't won medals and kept us up for weeks on end? They come at a cheaper price for good reason; It's not always as amazing as Zelda: LTTP or even WOG but some of it is damn fun and I'm happy to gamble on it for 6-10$.

I can easily say my standards have not been lowered by WiiWare, if anything they've been raised because of what I've seen done with a small file size at a lower price point. I just lament what could be Nintendo trying to milk smaller devos with that same attitude of "look what that guy did with his laptop! You don't need to see any of deez profits, you got so much passion!". It's really a slippery slope to go there. Talent doesn't mean "I enjoy working for nothing".

I have to agree, whether it's Seans opinion or Corbie's opinion or someone else's, they still represent Nintendo Life. The opinion they give becomes the site's opinion. I don't feel there's enough coherency from review to review. Let's say Sean did in fact review Super Mario Bros. 3 and gave it his controversial score of 6 and Darren still reviewed Super Mario Bros. 2 and gave it the 8/10 score it got. Regardless of the individual reviewers, thats basically Nintendo Life stating that Super Mario Bros. 2 is a much better game than Super Mario Bros. 3.

When I read a review, I want to know if the game is any good or not, not to find out about the reviewer's personal preferences and playing ability. Doing a proper professional review would involve acknowledging there is an audience who will read the review who have a varied interest in genres and skill level. The audience is who he is writing for, not himself. Good games deserve good scores. There are good games that I can't really get far on either but I do still acknowledge that they're good games and I would blame my own lack of ability to progress further however I would not let it influence the score.

I do have to wonder just how Sean is not able to get past world 2 though. My only guess is that he didn't stick with it long enough. Which seems to be a reflection on today's casual gaming audience who give up at the mere hint of not being able to progress easily as opposed to other's who welcome the challenge and will put in the time to learn the game. We will all die many times while playing the games but the Mario games have that "one more go" factor. They may be difficult at times but never does the game feel like it is unfair. I propose that Sean goes back and tries longer to get past world 2 just like everybody else had to.

Guys (kids?), Sean didn't ACTUALLY review SMB 3. He just said what he would have scored it if he had. He also said he doesn't review platform games, because he doesn't like them. I think it's great that the reviewers will come on to the forurms and talk about the games they enjoy/don't enjoy. It really is helpful in understanding where their reviews are coming from. If I know I enjoy a lot of the same things about a certain type of game as the reviewer; I know that I'll probably agree with their reviews for those games. When my tastes are different, that also makes it easier to accurately judge if a game is for me if the reviewer really likes/dislikes certain things.

Most people who are seriously interested in a review for a platforming game, probably like the genre at least somewhat, otherwise they wouldn't waste their time. I don't like dual analog FPS games; why would I waste my time reading a review for one? I know I will suck at it, because I hate that style of control and won't buy it. However, I DO like platformers, so I'd prefer to read a review from someone who enjoys and has a fair amount of experience with them, so the game can be compared with similar games and critiqued knowledgeably.

I respect Sean and NLife's decisions over who reviews games. Many reviewers on the big sites have to review anything and everything, and you can get a really negative (or positive) review that's useless from someone who hates the game's genre (or is a huge fanboy). I'm glad NLife takes these things into consideration as much as they can. I think it's totally cool he can't get past world 2; why should he go back and play the game more when he doesn't like it? There are plenty enough games out there for everyone.