" The Switch in its current form, is more powerful than the Wii U, and that console was considerably more powerful than the Wii, so technically, it should still easily be possible to emulate Wii games on the Switch"
I thought the Wii U used similar architecture which made playing Wii games easier? More of a run the Wii software (Wii-mode) rather than emulation. The Wii U was designed with backwards compatibility in mind and I believe the Wii VC games were just Rom dumps. I don't think it had the HP to emulate Wii. Though that doesn't necessarily mean Switch can't emulate it. I have my hopes up for Gamecube emulation as that is much weaker hardware yet. But I'm really confused on Nintendo's policy towards retro gaming right now. So I'm thinking if it comes, it'll be a while.
There should be an option in the Wii settings menu to change to 480p and widescreen. For Gamecube games, make sure to hold b while starting the game. Otherwise it will just start in 480i.
I'm thrilled the Switch has more RAM. Super Mario Odyssey and Zelda definitely used it and it made ports like Doom and Skyrim possible. Capcom seems to be coming around with support, but either way a more capable system is a win for everybody.
I just beat tropical freeze for the first time despite also owning on the Wii U. I had a business trip and decided to bring that and Picross S to play. Didn't beat it on the trip, but it did get me into it.
I'm curious, I have a raphnet SNES to GC adapter and a GC adapter for Wii U. I wonder if I'll be able to play with a wired SNES on the Switch. I'll have to try it out. Otherwise I'm probably too excited for this. I ended up grabbing the Switch and PS4 versions. The Switch for portability and the PS4 mainly for the free SF4 Ultra.
I guess I like the clamshell design of the original lite which plays GBA games just fine on the top or bottom screen. It seems to me it would get scratched too easily. Not bad looking per se, just unneeded.
Nintendo seemed to do a much better job with the SNES Classic. So being this is the 3rd time and it's specifically available through the end of the year, I have a feeling everyone who wants one will be able to get one. Not at launch per se, but within a few months.
I don't know why you are taking facts so personal, I like Nintendo quite a lot.
Wikipedia says sold 9.13 million so you're wrong, it definitely sold more than 9 million. This says 10.6 million http://o.canada.com/technology/gaming/segas-failed-dreamcast-actually-outsold-the-wii-u as there seems to be a little ambiguity after Sega stopped reporting sales figures. The dreamcast sold 52 million units of software in 2.5 years on the market. So it's software sales were right in line with the Wii U compared with sales per year. The Dreamcast just got pulled because Sega was in dire straights financially and they simply weren't healthy enough to support a console launch.
And no, the Wii U game did not win anything. It was a port of a Switch game that won a bunch of awards though and was better than any individual game on the Dreamcast. Though the Dreamcast had much better variety of games and still had a very solid 10-20 top games. Atari Jaguar would be a good comparison to the Virtual Boy and it's simply smack talk to compare to the Dreamcast. I mean the Dreamcast sold 73 times what the Atari Jaguar Sold. The original Wii only sold about 10x what the Dreamcast sold. So I guess the Dreamcast is a good comparison to the Wii based on your logic.
To be fair I'd like both. I think they should put VC on Switch and expand the systems with it. But at the same time these other systems are cool because they are typically cheap for the number of games they give and offer a controller experience very close to the original.
That's not really true though. The Dreamcast had twice as many games as the wii U and sold nearly 10 million in only 2.5 years before Sega's financial woes resulted in them pulling the plug. Gamecube is probably a better comparison for the dreamcast. Still niche, but Sega's best selling system Genesis only sold 30 million.
It's clarified on the Nintendo faq. Different users on same switch = family plan. What's not clarified is if family plan means only 1 user online at a time which would totally nerf it. I guess I still have a hard time thinking Nintendo is going to let me find 7 friends and pay only $5 annually for all the benefits.
I'm glad somebody got the reference. I was thinking I should have gone with a more modern example. But I guess that probably just means we are both about the same age.
Not upset, just expressing an opinion on a forum. Much like you did when you talked about how DK Tropical Freeze was a ripoff for $60. That game is probably about $20 more than it should have been. Nothing to get upset about though.
I'm not upset with you. Sorry if I was a bit pointed. My point was a product should always be compared with it's price/value and that will always be different for everyone. FYI, I own every one of those NES games. Most on multiple systems so the NES rental adds no value to me.
Yes, I waste lots more than $.06 a day on various things. But that doesn't mean I should make the next bad purchase because I've made previous bad purchases. The daily cost is the car salesman technique though. So props to you for turning it into a what can you afford thing. Did you know that when Warren Buffett splurges he spends $3.17 on breakfast? Good financial habits start somewhere.
Wait, are you critically evaluating a product you expect other people not to? I mean I didn't think the actual services provided mattered since it was only $20/year.
So I should go watch paint dry if I don't want to spend $100 for online over the next 5 years for literally 1 game for me right now (MK8)? Yeah, that's not condescending at all. I mean if you think the value is there for $20/year great. But don't go around telling people what they should spend $20/year on something they don't think is worth $20/year please. That doesn't make you a likable person.
Send me $20 a year and I will agree with all your posts. You can't complain about that service because it's only $20 a year.
Edit: I decided my terms were too generous. So I changed them to I'll agree with one of your posts annually for $20/year. But still it's only $20/year so you can't complain. I'll be waiting for my check.
People should own their own save data. Does that mean that Nintendo has to offer a cloud storage solution? No, it doesn't. But it is pretty bad that Nintendo doesn't let you back up your data leaving this as your only backup option. It is literally the only home console that doesn't let you backup your games unless you pay them extra.
You always paid for online as part of the game fee before. And yes, I do expect online on PC to be free forever for the majority of games since peer to peer networking doesn't cost the company any money other than the initial matchmaking code. That's also what Nintendo is utilizing and why I wouldn't expect the online gaming to actually become better.
The problem is why is Nintendo acting like all these other online gaming options don't exist and starting from scratch? I mean would we be cool with a company releasing one of those early bag cell phones in 2018 because it's their first phone? Or would we compare them to what's available in 2018 and laugh?
If you are appreciative of the launch lineup, that's great. It's just hard for me to get excited because many of them were the original VC releases for the Wii, then the original VC releases for the Wii U, then on the NES classic. So while 1/2 of them are great, it would be more exciting to launch a new service with games that haven't been available previously in digital form.
As for improvement, I'm guessing it will. But Nintendo has a tendency to devolve as well like with what they did with ClubNintendo. So in my opinion it's always best to look at what they are offering and make your decision whether or not to buy it. Like I said before you are obviously excited and I wouldn't try to dissuade you from that. But to me, if the program improves and I think it's worth it at that point, I'll purchase it. I make my purchasing decisions on what the product is, not what the product could be.
As for Sony/Nintendo being the only competitors, you need to whoa up a little there. Sony is like coming out with the PS5 in 19/20 and Microsoft the Xbox Two in 19/20. Their products may be an evolution of their existing boxes or they could have something like the Switch as they've seen the success it's had. I guess what I am saying is since Switch launched mid-late gen, it's competitors haven't really been determined yet.
"I am telling you that wasn't the reason because those same third parties DID bring their games to the Vita and some did not meaning that the ones who did chose to and they chose to KNOWING they would get no upgrade fee at all. "
Wasn't their choice. They had a contract to bring those games to the PS3 and PSP and it was later changed to Vita. Sony dictated those terms. They could choose not to make any PS1 classics, but they didn't choose to later bring those games to Vita for nothing. I don't have access to those contracts, but I strongly believe the contract either stated that Sony would bring those games to a future handheld they were working on, or they were given an ultimatum to either bring the cross play to Vita, or we are dropping your game from the PSN store. Unbalanced business relationships kind of suck. A relationship where choice exists would be the Wii U/3DS cross platform games which there are some. But not many as Nintendo didn't mandate that games on Wii U/3DS be cross platform. If they did, you'd see a lot more of them.
"Whatever the reason that third parties didn't want to bring their VC games to the Wii U, I am certain it had nothing to do with the upgrade fee."
That's a pretty dumb thing to say. Every business only cares about making money. That money they make is Revenue-Expense X Volume. So I thought it went without saying that the poor Wii U sales also factored into that decision. But the Wii VC was supported pretty early on with other systems and was supported through the Wii end of life when Wii sales were poor. So I think it was pretty telling that Sega (a big supporter of the Wii VC) didn't bring any of their games to the Wii U. That was 100% based on revenue which obviously factors in with the discounted upgrade fee. So you could say that the poor sales of the Wii U factored more into the decision, but that still doesn't explain why it was so poorly supported up front. And more support that the discount bothered companies was when Nintendo finally got TG16 games on they only had a 50% discount for upgrade fee instead of the 80% for NES games, 81% discount for SNES games, and 80% discount for N64 games. So it seems the discount clearly mattered to them.
"As for FF7 PC/Mobile port on PS4, they are doing that BECAUSE PS1 Classics don't work on the PS4 at all and is outside the scope of this conversation."
PS1 classics didn't work on the Vita either until they made them work and it would certainly be very easy to get a PS1 emulator rolling on the PS4 and attach the rom from the PS3 store. And Nintendo had no problem giving free NES games away with Animal Crossing on the Gamecube. That has about as much to do with this conversation as third parties creating cross platform games years ago on the PS3 which you somehow equate to them giving games away for free and validating why you think they would be okay with selling them for nearly free today. I mean does that sum up your argument well?
You aren't listening to me. Sony makes the requirement to be a PS1 classic on their system. The initial sale was tied to the game being cross play with PSP. At some point they were trying to work with developers to bring PS1 classics to Vita and were working with developers to bring it over and then Vita bombed and they gave up on that initiative. They didn't give a free portable copy away so much as they wanted to release a game for $6-10 for 100 million users PS3 users and were okay with those users having a portable copy because that was the price of access to Sony systems. Sony is 100% responsible for cross play and they are 100% responsible for giving up on it. Nobody gives free copies away and nobody wants to sell games for $1-2.
I mean what's your argument here that Square wants to make free games for people? If so why is FF7 so much more money on PS4? The companies have found out their classics are a goldmine and they undersold them last gen and they want more money now. I mean the biggest argument against VC has been they sold too well and constantly were topping the chart so other 3rd parties couldn't sell. When did Nintendo ever base their release schedule on 3rd parties and when did they become so charitable to forego releasing games on their own system? The only other explanation would be that they really do think retro games are that important to the success of their online platform and getting that setup was more important than VC to them to get that revenue stream from online.
I'm guessing because PS1 classics were originally setup as crossplatform(since Sony was trying to push that benefit) and the were getting $10 for the initial sale. I mean if you look at the PS4 they are doing something similar. FF7 is "remastered" aka upscaled and is $16 with no cross play.
Yes, I agree. I think this should show people that Nintendo is first most a business designed to make money though. I think retro games are part of the online now because 3rd parties were reluctant to join the Wii U VC because of the paltry ugrade fee and Nintendo themselves didn't make much on Wii U VC because of the discount. So my guess is that retro games at some point (probably Switch 2) get cut from the online service because they aren't popular enough and replaced by something like free Nindies. At that point I could see them launching something like Nintendo Classics for the people that do enjoy retro games and there being no upgrade discount ever again. I think they view this as an interim step to break from one of the key features of VC and giving them the opportunity to launch under a new banner. So I wouldn't count on "free" (rented) for life.
I think the problem with the cloud saves is that Nintendo took away the ability to back up ones own saves. They are the first home console to do that. So while cloud saves are something that everyone would be interested in, certainly fewer would pay if they could back up their own save. So this is Nintendo pushing an online service by offering a stick instead of an incentive.
I'm curious to see what the family plan restrictions are. Since it's Nintendo I'm guessing they'll be stricter than we are thinking. But either way Playstation did at one time allow 5 systems on an account for no additional charge. Now they only allow 2 since that was abused. I mean I would love for this to mean that I could just access my games on two different systems. But likely if people are able to save money on the online Nintendo will find a way to nix it.
"Would be nice not to have to pay for them all over again, wouldn't it?"
Ironically that was the original purpose of VC. A way to keep your games on a console from system to system much like Steam works today. Sure, there may have been an upgrade fee. But assuming you don't have a really large library, $1-$2 a game would likely have been less than the $100-140 you'll pay in online fees over a consoles lifetime.
I'd be really surprised if Nintendo is able to counteract hackers with cloud only saving. The Switch is already hacked and there are unofficial ways already to access/backup save data. These hacks will become more prevalent over time. The only thing DRM does is hurt the legitimate consumers along the way.
I thought that was vaporware. Still skeptical about the disc based thing since it's illegal to copy bios for the system. So seems they'll either try to copy it illegally or build from scratch which is very difficult and likely to have compatibility issues.
Supaboy plays Snes games only and is a pain to use portable due to its size and lagging large carts around. As a big fan of the Snes it's still pretty awesome. But it does have quality issues. Unless you are really gung ho, I'd recommend getting the original systems and playing at home.
From a business perspective a mix of remakes and a cheaper service to get the backcatalog available make sense. It does take resources to do remakes which leads to their higher price but you can't do that with all of them. Nor would you want to.
And while there are other options, there aren't any legal ways to play many of those VC games on the go. A few released on 3DS but not many. Missed opportunity in my book.
The advantages of VC are the ability to take them on the go and save states which original media wouldn't have. But otherwise, yes I'm fine playing my old games on the system they were intended for.
I do think the hypocrisy is funny though. On one hand, it's this is great and is good enough version of VC because most people aren't interested in old games. But on the other hand it's 2018 and the 2ndary feature (or primary depending on who you ask) of the Switch online service is access to old games. So what is it? Was it dumb for Nintendo to offer something so trivial since no one cares about the games, or was it dumb for Nintendo to shortchange people interested in retro games so badly?
"you're right it's probably years away, there's no real reason teh Switch can't play the games but if Nintendo fills the Switch with their back catalogue 3rd party companies will start to lose sales to nostalgia."
I just don't know that there is any proof to this. The biggest argument to buy this is it's just $20 which is pretty insignificant. If there was a $5 version of Super Mario Bros available people are going to buy that and stop buying other games? It doesn't make any sense. I originally was excited for VC when the Wii released with it many moons ago. But then grew tired of the slow release schedule and the reluctance to release systems. Since that time about 10 years ago I've spend at least $3,000 on retro video games. That's real money Nintendo could have had because I wanted those games. Where are the people saying oh, I have to buy Super Mario Odyssey because Mario 3 isn't available on the Switch? Or I had to buy Zelda BotW because A link to the Past isn't available? Or I have to buy Arms because Punch-Out isn't available? These people don't exist. People spend their money on the things that they want. And if they didn't want those above games they wouldn't buy a Switch.
We are probably years away, or maybe Switch 2, but I could see them bringing Gamecube and Wii games and maybe N64 games under a different banner. They were charging $20 for a Wii game on the Wii U. Can't see them including a system like that on a $20/annual membership. Although if they started included games like that it would go a long way to justifying their online service to me.
Yeah, I'd much rather a service where we get 2-3 Switch games a month (even if 1-2 are eshop games) and 1-2 3DS games a month at twice the price. As it is I'm struggling to find the value. I have the NES games multiple times so they aren't a draw. The only Switch game I use online with is Mario Kart so $20/year for 1 games seems a bit much.
There are a lot of great old games that I haven't played or would like to revisit. I mean if you are fine paying collector prices or hacking the snes classic or using emulation you already have access to these games. But it's always nice to play games and support Nintendo. The big benefit was the idea of expanding the collection as many old games never came to VC. Plus many of us were looking for the evolution of Gamecube, Dreamcast, Wii/Wii U games on the go. Tis sad but that's life. At least they've killed the dream so retro gamers can look other places.
Yeah, those 10 confirmed NES launch games and 10 other NES games over the next year that have been available via the Wii and Wii VC and bought multiple times are so worth the online fee. Totally can't wait to play balloon fight again.
Legacy collection doesn't make sense to me. Legacy X collection makes a little more sense because X5, X6 were PS1 disc games and X7, X8 were PS2 disc games. So an 8 GB cartridge isn't likely to be enough. Plus X-X4 are the best by far anyways.
I'm just not a big fan of repros. Even official ones like these.
On MM2, it's probably the one I play the most. I'm not sure it's the best, but it's the most accessible game of the original series. The preferred weapons mostly make sense and if you play on normal the bosses are pretty easy. The levels aren't that long either. It's a game I can breeze through in about 45 minutes. Also Metal Blade is such an overpowered weapon that the game is even easier if you grab that first.
I think it makes sense. Switch is the premium handheld and out of the range of some families/kids. So selling the 3DS until it stops selling is fine as a budget option.
I get your value comment. For lots of people (probably most gamers) the value is there. I guess I just disagree that because $60 is in general not alot of money, that we shouldn't have a negative opinion on the service. Almost anything purchased in gaming is less than $60 and there are lots of negative opinions (some valid, some not) around here. Either way, it's the weekend so go out, have some fun, and spend more than $60 on your wife .
Comments 1,281
Re: Unravel Two Creative Director Explains Why The Game Isn't On Switch
@FrenchieNoah012
Apparently Nintendo is too busy swimming in cash to help this small developer bring this game over.
Re: SNK’s Official Neo Geo Mini Pad Will Be Available In Black And White
I was skeptical that this would be quality hardware. I'm even more skeptical after this button oversight.
Re: FIFA 19 Officially Confirmed For Nintendo Switch, Launches This September
I thought Madden would come this year. Oh well, saves money for me.
Re: Just How Good Is The Nvidia Shield Wii Emulator, And What Does It Mean For Switch Owners?
@ThanosReXXX
" The Switch in its current form, is more powerful than the Wii U, and that console was considerably more powerful than the Wii, so technically, it should still easily be possible to emulate Wii games on the Switch"
I thought the Wii U used similar architecture which made playing Wii games easier? More of a run the Wii software (Wii-mode) rather than emulation. The Wii U was designed with backwards compatibility in mind and I believe the Wii VC games were just Rom dumps. I don't think it had the HP to emulate Wii. Though that doesn't necessarily mean Switch can't emulate it. I have my hopes up for Gamecube emulation as that is much weaker hardware yet. But I'm really confused on Nintendo's policy towards retro gaming right now. So I'm thinking if it comes, it'll be a while.
Re: Melee Player 'Hungrybox' Backs EON GameCube HDMI Adapter
@NintendoFan4Lyf
It was cracked. It's just complicated to do on your own and this is the 2nd option I know of other than official cable because it's a niche market.
Re: Melee Player 'Hungrybox' Backs EON GameCube HDMI Adapter
@Anti-Matter
There should be an option in the Wii settings menu to change to 480p and widescreen. For Gamecube games, make sure to hold b while starting the game. Otherwise it will just start in 480i.
Re: The Mega Man Legacy Collections On Switch Debut At Number Nine In Japan
@JHDK
I'm thrilled the Switch has more RAM. Super Mario Odyssey and Zelda definitely used it and it made ports like Doom and Skyrim possible. Capcom seems to be coming around with support, but either way a more capable system is a win for everybody.
Re: DKC: Tropical Freeze And Hyrule Warriors On Switch Crash Out Of The UK Charts Top Ten
I just beat tropical freeze for the first time despite also owning on the Wii U. I had a business trip and decided to bring that and Picross S to play. Didn't beat it on the trip, but it did get me into it.
Re: Review: Street Fighter 30th Anniversary Collection (Switch)
I'm curious, I have a raphnet SNES to GC adapter and a GC adapter for Wii U. I wonder if I'll be able to play with a wired SNES on the Switch. I'll have to try it out. Otherwise I'm probably too excited for this. I ended up grabbing the Switch and PS4 versions. The Switch for portability and the PS4 mainly for the free SF4 Ultra.
Re: Review: Street Fighter 30th Anniversary Collection (Switch)
@OorWullie
Welcome to modern gaming non-Nintendo style. I'd expect it to get better, but yeah most games have online issues at launch.
Re: Review: Ikaruga (Switch eShop)
I mean, this game is pretty hard. I could see it being close to impossible in portable mode on a 6.2" screen.
Re: Feature: How One Man Is Turning Dead DS Lites Into Gorgeous Game Boy Advance Systems
I guess I like the clamshell design of the original lite which plays GBA games just fine on the top or bottom screen. It seems to me it would get scratched too easily. Not bad looking per se, just unneeded.
Re: Deals: Nintendo UK Store Offer Another Chance To Pick Up a NES Mini
Nintendo seemed to do a much better job with the SNES Classic. So being this is the 3rd time and it's specifically available through the end of the year, I have a feeling everyone who wants one will be able to get one. Not at launch per se, but within a few months.
Re: Rumour: SEGA And Retro-Bit Might Actually Be Working On A Secret Retro Console
@GC-161
I don't know why you are taking facts so personal, I like Nintendo quite a lot.
Wikipedia says sold 9.13 million so you're wrong, it definitely sold more than 9 million. This says 10.6 million http://o.canada.com/technology/gaming/segas-failed-dreamcast-actually-outsold-the-wii-u as there seems to be a little ambiguity after Sega stopped reporting sales figures. The dreamcast sold 52 million units of software in 2.5 years on the market. So it's software sales were right in line with the Wii U compared with sales per year. The Dreamcast just got pulled because Sega was in dire straights financially and they simply weren't healthy enough to support a console launch.
And no, the Wii U game did not win anything. It was a port of a Switch game that won a bunch of awards though and was better than any individual game on the Dreamcast. Though the Dreamcast had much better variety of games and still had a very solid 10-20 top games. Atari Jaguar would be a good comparison to the Virtual Boy and it's simply smack talk to compare to the Dreamcast. I mean the Dreamcast sold 73 times what the Atari Jaguar Sold. The original Wii only sold about 10x what the Dreamcast sold. So I guess the Dreamcast is a good comparison to the Wii based on your logic.
Re: Rumour: SEGA And Retro-Bit Might Actually Be Working On A Secret Retro Console
@Heavyarms55
To be fair I'd like both. I think they should put VC on Switch and expand the systems with it. But at the same time these other systems are cool because they are typically cheap for the number of games they give and offer a controller experience very close to the original.
Re: Rumour: SEGA And Retro-Bit Might Actually Be Working On A Secret Retro Console
@GC-161
That's not really true though. The Dreamcast had twice as many games as the wii U and sold nearly 10 million in only 2.5 years before Sega's financial woes resulted in them pulling the plug. Gamecube is probably a better comparison for the dreamcast. Still niche, but Sega's best selling system Genesis only sold 30 million.
Re: You Can Start Building Your Nintendo Account Family Group Ahead Of The Switch Online Launch
@maruse
It's clarified on the Nintendo faq. Different users on same switch = family plan. What's not clarified is if family plan means only 1 user online at a time which would totally nerf it. I guess I still have a hard time thinking Nintendo is going to let me find 7 friends and pay only $5 annually for all the benefits.
Re: Soapbox: Let's Give Nintendo Switch Online A Chance Before We Throw It To The Wolves
@Donutman
I'm glad somebody got the reference. I was thinking I should have gone with a more modern example. But I guess that probably just means we are both about the same age.
Re: Soapbox: Let's Give Nintendo Switch Online A Chance Before We Throw It To The Wolves
@Dr_Corndog
Not upset, just expressing an opinion on a forum. Much like you did when you talked about how DK Tropical Freeze was a ripoff for $60. That game is probably about $20 more than it should have been. Nothing to get upset about though.
Re: Soapbox: Let's Give Nintendo Switch Online A Chance Before We Throw It To The Wolves
@Santaman64
I'm not upset with you. Sorry if I was a bit pointed. My point was a product should always be compared with it's price/value and that will always be different for everyone. FYI, I own every one of those NES games. Most on multiple systems so the NES rental adds no value to me.
Yes, I waste lots more than $.06 a day on various things. But that doesn't mean I should make the next bad purchase because I've made previous bad purchases. The daily cost is the car salesman technique though. So props to you for turning it into a what can you afford thing. Did you know that when Warren Buffett splurges he spends $3.17 on breakfast? Good financial habits start somewhere.
Re: Soapbox: Let's Give Nintendo Switch Online A Chance Before We Throw It To The Wolves
@Santaman64
Wait, are you critically evaluating a product you expect other people not to? I mean I didn't think the actual services provided mattered since it was only $20/year.
So I should go watch paint dry if I don't want to spend $100 for online over the next 5 years for literally 1 game for me right now (MK8)? Yeah, that's not condescending at all. I mean if you think the value is there for $20/year great. But don't go around telling people what they should spend $20/year on something they don't think is worth $20/year please. That doesn't make you a likable person.
Re: Soapbox: Let's Give Nintendo Switch Online A Chance Before We Throw It To The Wolves
@Santaman64
Send me $20 a year and I will agree with all your posts. You can't complain about that service because it's only $20 a year.
Edit: I decided my terms were too generous. So I changed them to I'll agree with one of your posts annually for $20/year. But still it's only $20/year so you can't complain. I'll be waiting for my check.
Re: Soapbox: Let's Give Nintendo Switch Online A Chance Before We Throw It To The Wolves
@Dr_Corndog
People should own their own save data. Does that mean that Nintendo has to offer a cloud storage solution? No, it doesn't. But it is pretty bad that Nintendo doesn't let you back up your data leaving this as your only backup option. It is literally the only home console that doesn't let you backup your games unless you pay them extra.
Re: Soapbox: Let's Give Nintendo Switch Online A Chance Before We Throw It To The Wolves
@ottospooky
You always paid for online as part of the game fee before. And yes, I do expect online on PC to be free forever for the majority of games since peer to peer networking doesn't cost the company any money other than the initial matchmaking code. That's also what Nintendo is utilizing and why I wouldn't expect the online gaming to actually become better.
Re: Soapbox: Let's Give Nintendo Switch Online A Chance Before We Throw It To The Wolves
The problem is why is Nintendo acting like all these other online gaming options don't exist and starting from scratch? I mean would we be cool with a company releasing one of those early bag cell phones in 2018 because it's their first phone? Or would we compare them to what's available in 2018 and laugh?
Re: Guide: Nintendo Switch Online FAQ - Everything We Know So Far
@chrislisting
If you are appreciative of the launch lineup, that's great. It's just hard for me to get excited because many of them were the original VC releases for the Wii, then the original VC releases for the Wii U, then on the NES classic. So while 1/2 of them are great, it would be more exciting to launch a new service with games that haven't been available previously in digital form.
As for improvement, I'm guessing it will. But Nintendo has a tendency to devolve as well like with what they did with ClubNintendo. So in my opinion it's always best to look at what they are offering and make your decision whether or not to buy it. Like I said before you are obviously excited and I wouldn't try to dissuade you from that. But to me, if the program improves and I think it's worth it at that point, I'll purchase it. I make my purchasing decisions on what the product is, not what the product could be.
As for Sony/Nintendo being the only competitors, you need to whoa up a little there. Sony is like coming out with the PS5 in 19/20 and Microsoft the Xbox Two in 19/20. Their products may be an evolution of their existing boxes or they could have something like the Switch as they've seen the success it's had. I guess what I am saying is since Switch launched mid-late gen, it's competitors haven't really been determined yet.
Re: Guide: Nintendo Switch Online FAQ - Everything We Know So Far
@Crono1973
"I am telling you that wasn't the reason because those same third parties DID bring their games to the Vita and some did not meaning that the ones who did chose to and they chose to KNOWING they would get no upgrade fee at all. "
Wasn't their choice. They had a contract to bring those games to the PS3 and PSP and it was later changed to Vita. Sony dictated those terms. They could choose not to make any PS1 classics, but they didn't choose to later bring those games to Vita for nothing. I don't have access to those contracts, but I strongly believe the contract either stated that Sony would bring those games to a future handheld they were working on, or they were given an ultimatum to either bring the cross play to Vita, or we are dropping your game from the PSN store. Unbalanced business relationships kind of suck. A relationship where choice exists would be the Wii U/3DS cross platform games which there are some. But not many as Nintendo didn't mandate that games on Wii U/3DS be cross platform. If they did, you'd see a lot more of them.
"Whatever the reason that third parties didn't want to bring their VC games to the Wii U, I am certain it had nothing to do with the upgrade fee."
That's a pretty dumb thing to say. Every business only cares about making money. That money they make is Revenue-Expense X Volume. So I thought it went without saying that the poor Wii U sales also factored into that decision. But the Wii VC was supported pretty early on with other systems and was supported through the Wii end of life when Wii sales were poor. So I think it was pretty telling that Sega (a big supporter of the Wii VC) didn't bring any of their games to the Wii U. That was 100% based on revenue which obviously factors in with the discounted upgrade fee. So you could say that the poor sales of the Wii U factored more into the decision, but that still doesn't explain why it was so poorly supported up front. And more support that the discount bothered companies was when Nintendo finally got TG16 games on they only had a 50% discount for upgrade fee instead of the 80% for NES games, 81% discount for SNES games, and 80% discount for N64 games. So it seems the discount clearly mattered to them.
"As for FF7 PC/Mobile port on PS4, they are doing that BECAUSE PS1 Classics don't work on the PS4 at all and is outside the scope of this conversation."
PS1 classics didn't work on the Vita either until they made them work and it would certainly be very easy to get a PS1 emulator rolling on the PS4 and attach the rom from the PS3 store. And Nintendo had no problem giving free NES games away with Animal Crossing on the Gamecube. That has about as much to do with this conversation as third parties creating cross platform games years ago on the PS3 which you somehow equate to them giving games away for free and validating why you think they would be okay with selling them for nearly free today. I mean does that sum up your argument well?
Re: Guide: Nintendo Switch Online FAQ - Everything We Know So Far
@Crono1973
You aren't listening to me. Sony makes the requirement to be a PS1 classic on their system. The initial sale was tied to the game being cross play with PSP. At some point they were trying to work with developers to bring PS1 classics to Vita and were working with developers to bring it over and then Vita bombed and they gave up on that initiative. They didn't give a free portable copy away so much as they wanted to release a game for $6-10 for 100 million users PS3 users and were okay with those users having a portable copy because that was the price of access to Sony systems. Sony is 100% responsible for cross play and they are 100% responsible for giving up on it. Nobody gives free copies away and nobody wants to sell games for $1-2.
I mean what's your argument here that Square wants to make free games for people? If so why is FF7 so much more money on PS4? The companies have found out their classics are a goldmine and they undersold them last gen and they want more money now. I mean the biggest argument against VC has been they sold too well and constantly were topping the chart so other 3rd parties couldn't sell. When did Nintendo ever base their release schedule on 3rd parties and when did they become so charitable to forego releasing games on their own system? The only other explanation would be that they really do think retro games are that important to the success of their online platform and getting that setup was more important than VC to them to get that revenue stream from online.
Re: Guide: Nintendo Switch Online FAQ - Everything We Know So Far
@Crono1973
I'm guessing because PS1 classics were originally setup as crossplatform(since Sony was trying to push that benefit) and the were getting $10 for the initial sale. I mean if you look at the PS4 they are doing something similar. FF7 is "remastered" aka upscaled and is $16 with no cross play.
Re: Guide: Nintendo Switch Online FAQ - Everything We Know So Far
@Thisismycomment
Yes, I agree. I think this should show people that Nintendo is first most a business designed to make money though. I think retro games are part of the online now because 3rd parties were reluctant to join the Wii U VC because of the paltry ugrade fee and Nintendo themselves didn't make much on Wii U VC because of the discount. So my guess is that retro games at some point (probably Switch 2) get cut from the online service because they aren't popular enough and replaced by something like free Nindies. At that point I could see them launching something like Nintendo Classics for the people that do enjoy retro games and there being no upgrade discount ever again. I think they view this as an interim step to break from one of the key features of VC and giving them the opportunity to launch under a new banner. So I wouldn't count on "free" (rented) for life.
Re: Guide: Nintendo Switch Online FAQ - Everything We Know So Far
@ThatMusicFan
I think the problem with the cloud saves is that Nintendo took away the ability to back up ones own saves. They are the first home console to do that. So while cloud saves are something that everyone would be interested in, certainly fewer would pay if they could back up their own save. So this is Nintendo pushing an online service by offering a stick instead of an incentive.
I'm curious to see what the family plan restrictions are. Since it's Nintendo I'm guessing they'll be stricter than we are thinking. But either way Playstation did at one time allow 5 systems on an account for no additional charge. Now they only allow 2 since that was abused. I mean I would love for this to mean that I could just access my games on two different systems. But likely if people are able to save money on the online Nintendo will find a way to nix it.
Re: Guide: Nintendo Switch Online FAQ - Everything We Know So Far
@Thisismycomment
"Would be nice not to have to pay for them all over again, wouldn't it?"
Ironically that was the original purpose of VC. A way to keep your games on a console from system to system much like Steam works today. Sure, there may have been an upgrade fee. But assuming you don't have a really large library, $1-$2 a game would likely have been less than the $100-140 you'll pay in online fees over a consoles lifetime.
Re: Guide: Nintendo Switch Online FAQ - Everything We Know So Far
@Andrew5678
"Not great, but I feel like it can only improve from here."
The problem is the competition's services are improving too and Nintendo isn't closing the gap.
Re: Guide: Nintendo Switch Online FAQ - Everything We Know So Far
@BensonUii
I'd be really surprised if Nintendo is able to counteract hackers with cloud only saving. The Switch is already hacked and there are unofficial ways already to access/backup save data. These hacks will become more prevalent over time. The only thing DRM does is hurt the legitimate consumers along the way.
https://www.extremetech.com/gaming/267341-hacker-needed-just-2-weeks-to-add-save-backups-to-nintendo-switch
Re: The Virtual Console Isn't Coming To Switch, Nintendo Confirms
@Anti-Matter
I thought that was vaporware. Still skeptical about the disc based thing since it's illegal to copy bios for the system. So seems they'll either try to copy it illegally or build from scratch which is very difficult and likely to have compatibility issues.
Re: The Virtual Console Isn't Coming To Switch, Nintendo Confirms
@Anti-Matter
Supaboy plays Snes games only and is a pain to use portable due to its size and lagging large carts around. As a big fan of the Snes it's still pretty awesome. But it does have quality issues. Unless you are really gung ho, I'd recommend getting the original systems and playing at home.
Re: The Virtual Console Isn't Coming To Switch, Nintendo Confirms
@Anti-Matter
Lacks SNES, NES, and N64. Otherwise nice setup.
Re: The Virtual Console Isn't Coming To Switch, Nintendo Confirms
@Saego
From a business perspective a mix of remakes and a cheaper service to get the backcatalog available make sense. It does take resources to do remakes which leads to their higher price but you can't do that with all of them. Nor would you want to.
And while there are other options, there aren't any legal ways to play many of those VC games on the go. A few released on 3DS but not many. Missed opportunity in my book.
Re: The Virtual Console Isn't Coming To Switch, Nintendo Confirms
@Anti-Matter
The advantages of VC are the ability to take them on the go and save states which original media wouldn't have. But otherwise, yes I'm fine playing my old games on the system they were intended for.
I do think the hypocrisy is funny though. On one hand, it's this is great and is good enough version of VC because most people aren't interested in old games. But on the other hand it's 2018 and the 2ndary feature (or primary depending on who you ask) of the Switch online service is access to old games. So what is it? Was it dumb for Nintendo to offer something so trivial since no one cares about the games, or was it dumb for Nintendo to shortchange people interested in retro games so badly?
Re: The Virtual Console Isn't Coming To Switch, Nintendo Confirms
@NewAdvent
"you're right it's probably years away, there's no real reason teh Switch can't play the games but if Nintendo fills the Switch with their back catalogue 3rd party companies will start to lose sales to nostalgia."
I just don't know that there is any proof to this. The biggest argument to buy this is it's just $20 which is pretty insignificant. If there was a $5 version of Super Mario Bros available people are going to buy that and stop buying other games? It doesn't make any sense. I originally was excited for VC when the Wii released with it many moons ago. But then grew tired of the slow release schedule and the reluctance to release systems. Since that time about 10 years ago I've spend at least $3,000 on retro video games. That's real money Nintendo could have had because I wanted those games. Where are the people saying oh, I have to buy Super Mario Odyssey because Mario 3 isn't available on the Switch? Or I had to buy Zelda BotW because A link to the Past isn't available? Or I have to buy Arms because Punch-Out isn't available? These people don't exist. People spend their money on the things that they want. And if they didn't want those above games they wouldn't buy a Switch.
Re: The Virtual Console Isn't Coming To Switch, Nintendo Confirms
@NewAdvent
We are probably years away, or maybe Switch 2, but I could see them bringing Gamecube and Wii games and maybe N64 games under a different banner. They were charging $20 for a Wii game on the Wii U. Can't see them including a system like that on a $20/annual membership. Although if they started included games like that it would go a long way to justifying their online service to me.
Re: Nintendo Switch Online Finally Revealed: Cloud Saves, NES Games And Pricing Confirmed
@luke88
Yeah, I'd much rather a service where we get 2-3 Switch games a month (even if 1-2 are eshop games) and 1-2 3DS games a month at twice the price. As it is I'm struggling to find the value. I have the NES games multiple times so they aren't a draw. The only Switch game I use online with is Mario Kart so $20/year for 1 games seems a bit much.
Re: The Virtual Console Isn't Coming To Switch, Nintendo Confirms
@Saego
There are a lot of great old games that I haven't played or would like to revisit. I mean if you are fine paying collector prices or hacking the snes classic or using emulation you already have access to these games. But it's always nice to play games and support Nintendo. The big benefit was the idea of expanding the collection as many old games never came to VC. Plus many of us were looking for the evolution of Gamecube, Dreamcast, Wii/Wii U games on the go. Tis sad but that's life. At least they've killed the dream so retro gamers can look other places.
Re: The Virtual Console Isn't Coming To Switch, Nintendo Confirms
@Richard_Atkinson
Yeah, those 10 confirmed NES launch games and 10 other NES games over the next year that have been available via the Wii and Wii VC and bought multiple times are so worth the online fee. Totally can't wait to play balloon fight again.
Re: Mega Man 2 And X Are Getting Limited Edition Cartridges And We Want Them All
@Thisismycomment
Legacy collection doesn't make sense to me. Legacy X collection makes a little more sense because X5, X6 were PS1 disc games and X7, X8 were PS2 disc games. So an 8 GB cartridge isn't likely to be enough. Plus X-X4 are the best by far anyways.
Re: Mega Man 2 And X Are Getting Limited Edition Cartridges And We Want Them All
@bluesdance
Do you mean item 1? Item 1 is the floating platforms which I remember a kind of tricky area with that. Item 2 is the jet.
Do you have it on VC? If you do, don't be afraid to spam the save states until you get the timing down.
Re: Mega Man 2 And X Are Getting Limited Edition Cartridges And We Want Them All
I'm just not a big fan of repros. Even official ones like these.
On MM2, it's probably the one I play the most. I'm not sure it's the best, but it's the most accessible game of the original series. The preferred weapons mostly make sense and if you play on normal the bosses are pretty easy. The levels aren't that long either. It's a game I can breeze through in about 45 minutes. Also Metal Blade is such an overpowered weapon that the game is even easier if you grab that first.
Re: Kimishima Says Nintendo Has Plans For The 3DS In 2019 And Beyond
I think it makes sense. Switch is the premium handheld and out of the range of some families/kids. So selling the 3DS until it stops selling is fine as a budget option.
Re: Feature: Hands-On With Raging Justice, The Streets Of Rage Successor Your Switch Deserves
@1UP_MARIO
It looks like the controls are a little loose to me. But hopefully the hands on say its tighter.
Re: Details Regarding Nintendo Switch Online Services Will Be Shared In May
@redd214
I get your value comment. For lots of people (probably most gamers) the value is there. I guess I just disagree that because $60 is in general not alot of money, that we shouldn't have a negative opinion on the service. Almost anything purchased in gaming is less than $60 and there are lots of negative opinions (some valid, some not) around here. Either way, it's the weekend so go out, have some fun, and spend more than $60 on your wife .