Topic: How Can Nintendo Revitalize the Virtual Console?

[Kytim89]

With the gradual slowdown of both the Wii and 3DS Virtual Consoles, how can Nintendo revitalize the service for both the Wii U and 3DS in the future? Here are some ways that I thought about:
 
 

• Allow third parties to set their own rules and prices for their games.
• Online multiplayer and achievements.
• Sell Virtual Console games through retailers (Gamestop) in either a download coder or physical cartridge(SD card).
• Better pricing.
• Create HD versions of each game.
• Bulk deals.

[Chozo Ghost]

Make it account based rather than system based.

[stevey]

Every purchase comes with a free physical (working) cartridge reproduction w/ case.

[Kytim89]

I actually like the idea of Nintendo selling physical copies of each Virtual Console games for anywhere from $6.99 to $14.99 in retail store like Gamestop. The games could be on individual SD cards labelled with the game and sold on a small shelf. Then again the retail would have to get a cut of profits, but with Nintendo being in bed with Gamestop lately then nothin surprises me.

[MegaByte]

That would be a huge pain with a system like the 3DS where the SD card really isn't intended for removal. You'd have a big copy process to deal with for each game.

[Spak-Spang]

Nope...I don't like that idea.

Here is an idea.  Nintendo should revitalize the virtual console market by RELEASING games on the system.  I get how Nintendo wants to be careful about how many games and which games it releases.  But I think Nintendo should get back to releasing games on the VC ASAP.

I would say Nintendo should:

1) Release a game a week for each supported system.  Each week we should have a game from GBA, GB, Game Gear, Neo Geo Pocket (if supported)   For Wii VC, Genesis, NES, SNES, Arcade, N64, TG16, SMS. 

I think it is important to show the strength of the service provided and having a game from EACH system every week points that out.

2)  Nintendo should create a central account that is tied to 1 Wii or Wii U and 2 3DS accounts.  When you buy a VC game if it is supported on the other systems then you can play it on that system as well.  This is basically like Apple and the iPod Touch, iPhone, and iPad.  I understand why Nintendo wants to limit the devices you can play your games on.  I think a fair compromise is 2 3DS systems (people might have 2 kids with 3DS systems) and 1 console.  Linking the systems to your account should be easy, and switching systems if you get a new one should also be easy...and only require an online network and deregistering one system and adding another.

3)  Enhance graphics or play controls.  Look at the classic games that are flawed, like Kid Icarus...and if you can make the controls better do it.  Enhance these games but keep them as close to the originals as possible.  Even allow people to choose which controls to use. 

4)  SUPPORT THE SYSTEM!!!!

[broodwars]

Releasing games fans of the Virtual Console service might actually care about would be a good start.  The vast majority of the N64 has been neglected, and Square-Enix in particular could definitely put some more noteworthy games up on the service.  The Wii U incarnation would definitely feature the GameCube if it turns out Nintendo still cares about the service, but somehow I really don't see the GameCube's software library being any better supported than the N64's was.

[nickmitch]

Releasing a game for every system, every week is absurd. There's no way Nintendo could keep that up. Nintendo holding back isn't the only limit to VC releases. Enhancing the games in anyway adds to the cost of putting those games out, which may not work out for Nintendo. Letting 3rd parties set their own prices is a good idea, because some more obscure titles are gonna have a hard time selling next to popular ones at the same price. However, that's not to say a 3rd party wouldn't think too highly of their classic game, so price ceilings would need to be set.

[Kytim89]

@ Nickmitch
 
If third parties priced their games too high then no one would buy them and the owners would have to drop the price or take the game off of the service. There is always a sweet spot in pricing, so I could the elite titles being priced in a certain range and bottom feeder games being in lower price range.
 
The best way to revitalize the VC service would be to eliminate those pre-paid points cards and give the option to allow a service like Paypal for micro-transaction via the click of a button in a similar manner to the iTunes store.

[Chozo Ghost]

Kytim, weren't you the only who created a thread a while back about having all the virtual console games on their own individual SD cards and giving them all their own labels? How is that project coming along?

[Kytim89]

Kytim, weren't you the only who created a thread a while back about having all the virtual console games on their own individual SD cards and giving them all their own labels? How is that project coming along?

I have decided to have an SD card or flash drive for each Virtual Console that contains all the VC games of a each console on said flash device. I am still on the fence about whether to go with USB flash drives or SD cards. I am holding out to see if the Wii U will play games directly from a USB device before maing my decision. I am also having custom covers made for each Virtual Console. When it is all said and done I will post pictures in a thread.

[nickmitch]

@ Nickmitch
 
If third parties priced their games too high then no one would buy them and the owners would have to drop the price or take the game off of the service. There is always a sweet spot in pricing, so I could the elite titles being priced in a certain range and bottom feeder games being in lower price range.

That's why I said that price ceilings would have to be set. Basically, whatever Nintendo is charging for Mario should be the max. 3rd parties really only need to be able to sell cheaper.

[Spak-Spang]

It isn't absurd.  It is releasing games...which is what the problem is right now.  If Nintendo runs out of 1st party games, then they should then target 3rd party games as well...and they should try to clear up the rights to games that might be difficult to release. 

The libraries of all these classic systems are very deep.  And I would rather Nintendo run out of releases, because all games are available to play that can be accessible than to not have any games.  Wouldn't you? 

[nickmitch]

Yeah, but I would also rather all education be free than to be buried in debt from student loans,  but it doesn't work that way. The NES had about 800 games in NA. Let's say half of the games are made by companies that don't exist or are out of the industry. That's 400. Say half of those are licensed games where the publishers don't hold the rights anymore. 200. Now assume half of those are actually fun. That's 100 games. About what we got on the Wii. If you look at the other systems with smaller libraries and remove multi-platform redundancy, at best you could do that for three years. Then it's "damn, where'd all the support go?" Not to mention how fast Nintendo would have to build up all those servers. Besides, no one would buy 7 games a week. At an average around $7 a pop, that's $49 a week. On top of already rising game prices. Adding online and other upgrades pushes the prices up even further.

If releasing games was a problem that was so easy to fix, Nintendo probably would've done it by now.

I actually don't have any debt from student loans, I just wanted to use the example. I'm a fraud.

[Spak-Spang]

Well, the thing is it is possible.  And after 3 years people that complain would have nothing to complain about because you know what...every game that could be made would be available...but those missing game licenses could be pursued.  If nobody owns the rights anymore...then perhaps they are public domain, or up to be bought cheaply and resold.  Then are all the other game consoles that could have games published.  Dreamcast, Saturn, Neo Geo...

Also the point isn't that people are supposed to buy all 7 games a week.  That won't happen...but that people have the choice to buy different games.  People can't buy all the stuff available for a system it just isn't possible...so does that mean 3rd parties should just not make games anymore?  Because the chance people won't buy their game? 

Yeah, I will admit that my initial plan was too ambitious and wishful thinking.  But you know what isn't.  Nintendo doing something like this:  1 Week Legacy system launch:  NES SMS and TG16,  Next week launch a game from Genesis and Super Nintendo, Next week N64 and Gamecube.  People would know when to expect new versions of some games and they could release perhaps 2-3 games a week. 

[nickmitch]

Sometimes the pursuit of the license holder (which may involve shifting through court cases) wouldn't be worth it. Assuming something is public domain is also risky, but money can be set aside for litigation, I suppose. Still, you'd have to release maybe one per system a month to sustain such a schedule.

And of course no one buys 7 games a week. However, if that were the release schedule, gems would be lost under piles of crap. Even with good sorting and review in the eShop, I'd still forget they were there eventually.

[ejamer]

One thing that has to be considered is how Nintendo can revitalize the Virtual Console not just for gamers, but for publishers so that third-parties care enough to put their games up for sale.  The key there is to make it easier and more profitable.


My first suggestion is to drop the requirement for ESRB ratings for older games.  If the title came out before ESRB existed, let it get published "as is" without having to pay thousands of dollars to get rated first.  (I also think that required ESRB ratings are harmful to WiiWare and other digital platforms where small games are developed on the cheap and only expected to receive limited profits if released.)


My second suggestion is to reduce or remove the minimum sales threshold so that publishers get paid sooner for content they are releasing.  Having some form of minimum sales makes sense; forcing publishers to take on the risk that they won't see any revenue at all doesn't.


Finally, give publishers some control over pricing.  I understand that Nintendo wants to maintain standard prices for games on different platforms - but allowing publishers to offer games at sale prices for a limited time would boost sales and consumer interest.


I don't know enough about the submission process to make suggestions about the "easier" part... but would suggest that a quicker turn-around on Nintendo's end a clear schedule of when games are going to be released might help. Right now it seems like Nintendo does a poor job on both counts if you believe the rumors.

[Ceric]

Personally I think Nintendo should just go ahead and put everything up as it comes.  Then do marketing showing the different games.

[Louieturkey]

Finally, give publishers some control over pricing.  I understand that Nintendo wants to maintain standard prices for games on different platforms - but allowing publishers to offer games at sale prices for a limited time would boost sales and consumer interest.

This right here is the number one thing keeping publishers from releasing the games (well that and the fact that a certain number of the game have to be sold to even get paid at all).  They want to be able to charge what they want to charge for a game, not be forced into a pricing scheme.  Amazon forced publishers into a $9.99 ceiling on all books and many publishers refused to release their books on Kindle because of that ceiling.  The moment Apple got into the game and told publishers they could set their own prices, most of those publishers jumped into the ebook business and Apple allowing it forced Amazon to do it.  While some books weren't worth the increase in price, those same books eventually went on sale and more people bought them.

I think if Nintendo allowed publishers to set their own prices, while some games would start overpriced, those games would actually be available to purchase.  At some point, those same publishers could put those games on sale as well.

Nintendo also needs to fix the price on their own games.  Ice Climbers is worth $1 at most and an equivalent on the iphone would be that price.  Many other NES VC games have that same problem of not being worth $5-6 and being at most a $3 game.

[ejamer]

...
Nintendo also needs to fix the price on their own games.  Ice Climbers is worth $1 at most and an equivalent on the iphone would be that price.  Many other NES VC games have that same problem of not being worth $5-6 and being at most a $3 game.

This is problem though: the perception that games aren't worth buying is a trained behavior, not a real representation of value.

If you doubt this, try and go out and buy the NES versions of various games. Some you'll get for a dollar or two, but I'm rarely able to get an actual game for much less than $5 regardless of quality and "good" games sell for much more. So digital copies make everything faster and more convenient for me, and cost less in the process. Sure it costs less to create and distribute digital copies, but the market is more limited and there are at least some meaningful costs (applying for ESRB ratings, for example) involved.

iOS is great for consumers because savvy users rarely pay for anything and end up swimming in more content than they can play, but that model is largely poisonous to companies who are publishing games unless they are willing to participate in the race to the bottom pricing and have alternative revenue methods (advertising or "fremium" BS) in place to milk profits after an initial sale.  That concept of alternative revenue generation doesn't apply to Virtual Console though.

Surely a middle-ground is possible though?  Sales and bundles and deals being offered occasionally, with a standardized range of pricing per console to set general expecations, would go a long way to revitalizing the Virtual Console platform.  Of course, Nintendo would need to view it as more than filler while waiting for eShop or retail releases to enact this type of change...

(Then again, maybe Nintendo shouldn't care what third party pricing looks like. People will pay $5 for the NES version of Zelda even if other NES games are selling for a $1 because the brand and the quality justify the difference in price.)

[TJ Spyke]

The moment Apple got into the game and told publishers they could set their own prices, most of those publishers jumped into the ebook business and Apple allowing it forced Amazon to do it. 

And now Apple and those publishers are being sued for price fixing. Apple is bullying the publishers into not selling eBooks cheaper on other stores than they do on iTunes.

I haven't heard anyone say that the Virtual Console has minimum sale thresholds before they get any money. I think that is just for WiiWare (since it was put in to stop shovelware).

[ResettisCousin]

As mentioned already, a revamped (or really, institution thereof) online infrastructure would net wonders for Nintendo. Develop a unique ID that can log in on Wiis, Wii Us, 3Ds, and the web. Yes, MS and Sony beat you to it, Nintendo. Swallow your pride. From there, link all my old and new game purchases. Develop a great friends list and pimp the 'now playing' / 'recently playing' functionality to spread intrest in the VC through that social network.
I'm wary of digital sales. Part of me just doesn't want to see someone getting NES Pinball for free with I paid $5. But, more realistically, I wonder why on the earth I paid $5 in the first place. But I do agree with Iwata's GDC comments about digital shifting value perception too far downwards. On the flip side, they're gifting games based on Nintendo points (ala PSN ), so there is a middle ground.
Making any changes to the rom - especially on the scale of 3DS classics (e.g. Kid Icarus example above) - is unrealistic and unwanted by me.
Lastly, while I understand wanting that stream of new games to scratch your itch, have we all beat FF 3, Chrono Trigger, Breath of Fire 2, Super Mario World, Majora's Mask, Faxanadu, DoReMi Fantasy, either Ogre Battle, Super Metroid, Rondo of Blood, Megaman X, Sin and Punishment, MUSHA, Phantasy Star IV and Shinobi arcade already? Because....

[Ceric]

You pretty much described Steam.

[Louieturkey]

The moment Apple got into the game and told publishers they could set their own prices, most of those publishers jumped into the ebook business and Apple allowing it forced Amazon to do it. 

And now Apple and those publishers are being sued for price fixing. Apple is bullying the publishers into not selling eBooks cheaper on other stores than they do on iTunes.

Doesn't mean they didn't bring more publishers into the ebook game.  Doesn't really matter anyways.

I haven't heard anyone say that the Virtual Console has minimum sale thresholds before they get any money. I think that is just for WiiWare (since it was put in to stop shovelware).

Why would there be a different model for Wiiware and VC games?

[TJ Spyke]

Because they want to get as many classic games on the VC service. They don't want crap they is terrible to get onto WiiWare for developers to sell a few hundred copies to gullible consumers and get away with it. I also have not seen any publisher mention sales minimums for VC, while I have seen many mention one for WiiWare. If VC does have one, then publishers are being mum on it.