Topic: The Nintendo Switch Thread

I bought a Wii u specifically for VC and a handful of exclusives a little over a year ago. It was used obviously but it's been a god send in terms of whats available vc wise, plus wii backwards compatibility (not that it really mattered since i own a Wii anyway). Mind you, i had the switch since launch but the Wii u has so many classics available it's a must own with the switchs lack thereof. This year and next I'm going to be buying 1-2 Wii u vc games per month to build up my classic library. As much as i love the switch, I mean it's my favorite system of all time, it's really lacking in the classics dept. Especially considering how many great vc titles were available on the Wii 2 gens ago. So i have my switch for new and ported software, and my Wii u for a few exclusives and a boat load of awesome vc games. Happy to have both hooked up and ready to go at any moment depending on how i feel.

Quote for truth. People complained about the vc pricing and that they wanted new games VC is not a selling point. It is an added feature. Nintendo finally got that with NSO. Besides VC will always hit a brick wall due to licensing. Nobody is going to pay for hardware BC and it just isn't worth the ROI for Nintendo.

Probably Pokemon Sleep integration.

@Ryu_Niiyama
The VC pricing overall was not terrible. My only experience with it was on 3ds and my biggest complaint was lack of games. Now that there's a account system in place (that you can also tie to last gen 3ds and wiiu) there's really no excuse not to have a unified VC. (Ex star tropics was only on wiiu VC so why not on 3ds?)

I'll keep saying it till I turn blue in the face, tying the classic games to an online sub is a bad idea. I don't play online so why should I pay for a service I'm not gonna by to use to play games I can't own and have no control over what games I have to only play them every other week due to the check in requirement.

If a Nintendo Direct happens this month or the next I have some dreams ports i would love to see like Metroid Prime Trilogy (Seriously what's taking Nintendo so long?) and a GTA Port. Hell, at this point i would even take a GTA 3 port that's how desperate for a GTA game on the Switch I am.

@GameOtaku I would be okay with the games being tied to the subscription if said subscription service had the same selection as Wii-U and 3DS's old VC.

Virtual Console was actually one of the biggest things that had me pumped for Switch at launch. I thought for sure it was coming and being able to have all my classic games on a system like Switch, legally, no hacking or piracy involved, was like a dream come true.

Switch has still more than proven itself my favorite game system ever. But the very weak showing of retro support on the console is one of the few things about it that let me down...

At this point we're gonna get Avatar 2 before we get a new general Direct.

You smell that? I smell... Pikmin.

Well, I'm now betting the next general direct won't be until April. We shall see though.

@Ryu_Niiyama The Wii U did not fail because it had a virtual console. The VC is often cited as one of the BEST things about the Wii U. It failed because of poor marketing and a serious lack of new software.

Virtual Console is very much a selling point. It's just not THE selling point.

@Heavyarms55 I never said WiiU failed because of that. (It failed because of poor marketing and popularity mindset. Combined with dev abandonment or outright rejection.)

I quoted a line that references that the best vc system Nintendo made was the Wiiu. Which is true. And nobody bought it (as in that didn’t make it popular and people complained during the wiiu era about the VC anyway). Which is also true.

The point is VC is not a system seller. It didn’t save the WiiU and it won’t make the switch fare too much better by its inclusion. Many of the people that the VC systems cater to have bought those games a few times already. Or there are game collections that do the same thing for cheaper and less red tape for Nintendo. VC is a system feature but it doesn’t have nearly the weight that Nintendo diehards think it does. In part because legal logistics make perfect VC impossible. For every person that wants super mario world someone else may want some random hidden gem that can’t be offered instead or was locked to region. Either way too much weight is placed on VC by people too close to the hobby to look at the bigger picture.

The current methods are more viable as a revenue stream. The mini systems were good nostalgia hits for the masses and the NSO route is an added feature that is updated at Nintendo’s pace and is tacked on to an annual revenue stream.

@link3710
Pokémon Directs are always presented week or two before or after a Nintendo Direct. Why would it be any different this time?

@Ryu_Niiyama Okay it's fair to argue that, you didn't say it failed because of it. I would not however agree that it is not a system seller. I would argue that it, alone, is not a system seller. The Wii U was marketed poorly to begin with. The average consumer didn't even know it was its own system, let alone that VC was a major part of it. You cannot count on a feature to save a system when the majority of people don't even know that feature is there!

Building viable emulators for the system and then releasing games that run on those emulators is a valid strategy, people can and will buy those games. They just can't be the only ones. You can't rely on retro content to keep a new device afloat.

Anyone saying people wouldn't be buying NES/SNES/N64/GC/GB/GBC/GBA/DS games on Switch priced between 5 and 20 dollars is just wrong.

I'm leaning towards mid February for the general Direct now with DLC 5 also being then given the Pokemon Direct and that Smash got an update which adds support for the Dark Samus and Richter amiibo. Was thinking if Direct was next week then Smash DLC would be shadow dropped and the amiibo compatibility happening at the same time as 7.0.0.

Animal Crossing dedicated Direct could be January though.

@Ryu_Niiyama
Flat out buying a game on VC is in the long run far better for the consumer than renting yearly. As the current model is you may be able to play the games you want but you'd also have to sacrifice precious memory space for games you'd never touch since to get all of the games with NSO. It's all about choices for the consumer. If you only want to play retro games on switch go ahead! A mix? That's good too! Options for people who wouldn't play online? Yep!

If the setup was like other games on the shop you could just go through the app and purchase individual games (or rent through nso) or transfer previously purchased content.

@rallydefault The hardware is probably obsolete, so they'd have to create a separate factory line for old hardware alone. Probably. Otherwise someone would've done it, right?

Though, now that I think about it. Die-hard collectors will still hunt after the original models and not the repros. And fans of retro games probably already own one of those 5-in-1 emulator boxes for convenience. I think the market is just too small to afford doing it.

@Heavyarms55 which means it isn't a system seller. Perhaps you are using "system seller" differently than I am and that seems to be the sticking point, here. I am a very literal and practical woman, I also rarely make speculative statements based on what I wish for Nintendo to do from a fan perspective (I may spit out one liners in the comments sections of articles but its usually not speculation). I look at things as a consumer of products (not brand loyalty, as that has no bearing on discussion as it is highly subjective. It's also not imo productive to beat a dead horse or cathartic.) and what I think Nintendo might do from a business perspective. I don't care about what the "fans" want and don't take that into account when I make a statement, because fandom is horribly fractured and cannibalistic and as an outsider without insider knowledge to Nintendo's profit margins or projects it is useless to account for that.

"System Seller" to me means a feature that will compel a significant number of users to buy a system. Full stop. If it doesn't do that (which again VC didn't and at best was only a system seller during the wii era when the premise seemed limitless rather than hobbled by licensing/ownership issues) then it is not a system seller. It is a feature. Just because some people want it to be a system seller or mistakenly think its a system seller because it is for them... that doesn't match up at all with sales figures.That doesn't mean there is not money to be made on that feature but perhaps they need to look at how to better leverage that for profit margins (which I feel Nintendo has already made that adjustment with NSO). Even during the Wii heyday it wasn't pivotal enough to warrant most of the investment/licensing. If you look at most of the download charts it is the same games all the time, so rather than pushing a service and courting outside companies, Nintendo is better off doing what they are doing now from a profit perspective; release what they have a license to or can get access to cheaply as a add on to NSO (which users need to buy anyway for its primary feature...to play on line...just like live or PSN) and let the other companies decide if collections are worth their time to release. So far it has worked out. Capcom, Konami. Sega and Namco are dumping their back catalog with what I would assume to be a smaller overhead since they aren't paying eshop and whatever is involved with VC licensing. Many of those games are games that we didn't even get with VC, so collections can also open up the interest to port titles that may not sell as a stand alone (and be a poor ROI) but might be easier to tack on to a collection and still return some profit as consumers often look at quantity first (listening to mainstream consumers whine about fighting game roster size is a good example of that) anyway.

I'm also not arguing a point here. I made an observation using a quote that is in line with that observation, clarified when you seemed to misinterpret what I said. This is my final response on this, which is merely me expounding upon the statement I already made. I have no intention of derailing the thread more than needed over this. Have a good day.

Edit: Not going to make this any longer than it needs to be, but my tone to the above is neutral. I've clearly stated my position twice and have been misunderstood each time. However, I won't allow my words to be shaded with a tone that is not present.

@Toy_Link Eh? That doesn't sound right. I know they're usually a couple weeks before E3, but I swore the Sword and Shield reveal in February last year took place long before the next general direct.

@link3710
It took place two weeks after a general Nintendo Direct. There's never been a Pokemon Direct, months away from a normal Nintendo Direct, always about one or two weeks before or after a general Direct.

Ooh, so a normal direct should be in a week or 2, @Toy_Link ... ? That's hopeful!