Topic: Switch Will Not have VC

So earlier today as I was hunting for a SNES Classic I stopped at Best Buy to check for one. While I was there, they had a Nintendo Representative by the Super Mario Odyssey Demo. I asked him about VC coming to the Switch and according to him the Switch will not have a VC. Instead when you pay for the year online fee you will have access to a Netflix like service with a whole catalog of NES, SNES N64 etc. rather then paying $5 per game. Games will be streamed to the Switch rather then a straight download like the Wii or Wii U.

So there you have it straight from the horses mouth so to speak.

I honestly think this is a better deal then paying per game but what do you guys think?

Sounds great to me. After having separate VCs across the Wii, 3DS and Wii U, this sounds way more cost effective. I'm kinda iffy on it being streaming only though. Hopefully downloading is an option later/is something that's still on the table.

I'll just wait till Nintendo says it themselves, you know they're always secretive about this stuff.

Who doesn't have a link and only heard it from a rep who may/may not have complete details.....yeah I'm doubting it's credibility and siting it as a rumor.

But ok, Devil's advocate.

Even though it sounds like the VC except its Netflix styled I think that YES and NO. Yes the Netflix option I've been wanting out for the old-school games. Some of these games you can clear in about 5 mins and NO I don't want to be Netflix only, let me also have the option to keep my downloads!

It would definitely be a good motivator for Switch owners to pay the online subscription service. Instead of bothering to download a $5 to $10 game a piece just the whole enchilada instead, that seems pretty enticing honestly.

Uhm well, first off, even Netflix allows for downloading content, if I remember correctly. Considering the Switch doesn't even have 3G support (or better), streaming seems like an odd choice. Also, I'm not aware Nintendo ever did any streaming service like that before. That kind of stuff takes considerable infrastructure. At least, I remember that even Sony only got into this game a while after buying Gaika, a company specialized on exactly this kind of service.

I'm also skeptical as to why they would bother with that at all? I mean, we know they wanted to integrated some kind of VC (apparently multiplayer enabled NES games) into the their subscription service, but these plans have been delayed and possibly (partly) scrapped. Why not just give you access to X games to download, which you can play for Y time, with Y equaling the time your sub is active. Investing into infrastructure to stream dozens? hundreds? thousands? of different games to millions of devices ... I believe it when I see, not a second before.

Honestly though, I don't believe it at all. It would be ... rather insane, to give people access to their catalogue at a flat fee, when they can spend the next 5 years parceling out individual releases and charge MORE for one single release than for a months worth of subscription service, full well knowing that quite a few of us will shell out that money, a few even for games they've already bought, once, twice or thrice offer. I cannot imagine that this makes any economic sense for them whatsoever, absolutely not at anything like $5 a month.

No ... if anything this a PS+/GWG type of situation, where a handful of games are accessible as part of the sub service. No way they are forgoing all the revenue for their legacy content in exchange for a flat fee. Not happening imho, no way.

I like the idea, but I have talked to Nintendo reps at things like this before and they told me things that ended up being wrong, so I will wait until it is official to believe anything.

This. No proper VC on the Switch seems like a step backwards, IMO.

Yeah, I hope this isn't true. Having to stream games on the Switch would be a nightmare.

trash...just gonna stick to my WiiU/Wii for VC. It also runs other systems through hacking... Eventually Switch will get fully hacked and I'll have a 2nd Switch for that purpose alone.

Streaming games to a portable console seems like a bad idea. You wouldn't be able to use them all of the time, and what's the point in paying money for that when I would rather just pay to download it to my system. The Wii U VC was really good, I think it's the only time that we'll see DS games on the VC and the GBA games were a nice addition.

What I don't understand is why they don't upscale the games on N64 and DS. Sprite based games look fine but the 3D ones look terrible. Surely the Wii U or Switch could have handled increasing the native resolution to 1080p, it would have made the price more reasonable too.

A "Nintendo Representative" isn't really going to know everything, they don't get exclusive information or anything like that. But if they're right it will be disappointing, the only thing that would make me want to subscribe to that would be if Gamecube games were added, ideally upscaled.

If this is true, I think it is worse than Virtual console. For me owning a game is as important as it is playing it. If I was fine just playing games for a fee I'd go to arcades to play games. There's a reason why I don't and I like to buy consoles and buy games for them instead. I'm not going to pay this subscription and it's not like this streaming VC wannabe is going to change my mind. I don't want to play a game that's not mine.

@Tasuki Those folks know no more than we do. In most cases, they know even less. Streaming won't happen because 1) the Switch is portable, and that will cause enough problems as it is. And 2) they make a lot more money selling each game to us separately than they would make off a streaming service. Maybe it's an additional service, but I can't see it replacing regular downloads.

In the case Nintendo is insane and it does happen, I'll probably just emulate everything...

I'm all for it. If I can have access to a large selection of retro games, that I can play whenever I want, then I'll gladly pay a yearly fee.

Not happening purely because it doesn't make any sense. And if it does happen it would be a massive step backwards for us as consumers. Doing some simple back of the envelope maths lets use Ocarina of Time as an example.

Download:
The file size itself would be under 100MB even if they included a full scan of the manual. On the Wii VC this release was ~45MB including the save file. For this they charged $10US on the Wii U. Additionally because it is rendered locally they could potentially make it look a bit better than it did on the original.

Streaming:
If you actually play through the entire game? According to "how long to beat" Ocarina of Time will take about 30 hours. If this was done at about DVD quality that works out to be about 30GB. No upscaling and to make things worse you'd get lag and compression. How much would Nintendo get out of this? $5US which you were probably going to spend anyway for online. This model doesn't make sense for anyone involved.

PS4 style model
This could work. What they'd essentially do is maintain the VC more or less as it is. However as part of your subscription they give you "free" access to some classic games. IMO this is less of a new model and more of a rewards program in addition to maintaining the VC. I'm fairly confident that this is what Nintendo meant. If they do it this way they are maximising the quality of the release, having a carrot for subscriptions and all they lose is a potential sale of a particular classic game that they themselves select.

@Octane We know that the online service won't be portable. The Switch doesn't have 4G its Wi-Fi so tieing in streamable VC service would not be that far fetched of an idea. You can play MK8 online unless you have a nearby Wi-Fi connection, so how would streaming be any different?

Also they have to do something to encourage Nintendo fans to pay for online. After all one of the biggest feathers in Nintendo players hats was that they didn't have to pay for online like Playstation or Xbox owners. Having them pay all of a sudden for online and not sweetening the deal is a bad move, how many Nintendo fans were upset when they were first told Nintendo Switch owners would have to pay for online?

@Tasuki Not many were upset, because given the state of their unpaid service, paying and incentivising it, and having the infrastructure pay for itself, is a good move.

As Sony said, we cant offer such a good service without paying.

@Tasuki VC games have always worked offline though, surely making it part of an online service would be a step back?

Nintendo wants money for online services but they would lose money if the whole VC was included. Lots of people would buy a downloadable version, even at the over the top prices on Wii U. If they release Gamecube VC games they'll probably be at least £15, if they time it right they could sell a lot of copies, making a lot more money in the long term than just an online subscription.
We'll probably get a PS+ amount of VC games each month. I'd assume that they would allow you to keep them but it could just be a free trial or rental period for that game.

While I am doubtful of this man's credibility (honestly, why would have full knowledge of everything Nintendo has in store for Switch in the near future? Yes, he may be a rep but one that's prob only there to tell you how to play Odyssey), this sounds much better and would, most importantly, solve the generational re-launch and forced re-buy of any VC game.

I'm doubtful about this source, but I can't say I like the idea of it. Streaming would require a constant and reliable connection, which while improved a little, still isn't the greatest on Switch. Also if my memory serves right, wasn't it also mentioned that the subscription service would allow you to rent certain games for a month? There are some games that are too big (read: SNES RPGs) to clear in under a month unless you're very dedicated and have a lot of free time to invest. Unfortunately I don't.

I wouldn't mind a streaming service if the option to download is still there, even if that means paying extra to keep it.