Topic: How Can Nintendo Revitalize the Virtual Console?

[MegaByte]

It's the self-publishing indie devs who are talking about limits; VC is all big publishers, and I don't think any of them have talked about limits in either case.

[TJ Spyke]

There are a few small publishers on VC. Interplay is struggling to stay afloat, for example.

[MegaByte]

Interplay has been in the industry forever; they didn't used to be small and aren't like the devs in question. VC doesn't need the effort put in that original titles do, so from a development standpoint, there isn't a lot of cost involved, mostly just testing and ratings (which if there are quotas in place, would help explain why there aren't many new titles coming).

[Uncle_Optimus]

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.

That is such a great point about ESRB.
But why not take it further? Why not COMPLETELY DO AWAY WITH ESRB ratings and the fees they incur that are passed on to the lil' devs? ESRB seems like an outdated concept and, if memory serves, it was itself a hackneyed reaction to public outcry over violent games in the press.
Do you know who doesn't give a flying crap about ESRB? Apple and all its thousands of game developers filling the iTunes store with the same level of gratuitous content (guns, sex, drugs and alcohol its all there).
If, in this day and age, some kind of on-the-box rating system is still needed Nintendo might as well do it themselves more quickly and more cheaply. Don't hand mobile games development yet another competitive advantage!

About sales thresholds, the thing that irks me is the thought that Nintendo just pockets a wad of dough that really should go to the dev that sweated through its development. As Trent Oster said, that check that Nintendo sits on could be life and death to a small dev. Whatever the reason they implemented the threshold, why not change it to a revenue-based threshold? E.g. Over $5000 in revenue, whatever that equals in unit sales, you get paid. Paying developers for THEIR work: it is the right thing to do!
I'm kind of broken record here, but do you know who doesn't jerk developers around on the issue of claiming their fare share of revenue? Yeah....

[broodwars]

That is such a great point about ESRB.
But why not take it further? Why not COMPLETELY DO AWAY WITH ESRB ratings and the fees they incur that are passed on to the lil' devs? ESRB seems like an outdated concept and, if memory serves, it was itself a hackneyed reaction to public outcry over violent games in the press.

No, we definitely still need the ESRB because it keeps the federal government off our industry, which is what it was created to do (when congress issued an ultimatum on the video game industry to create a rating system in reaction to the Mortal Kombat controversy, or else it would create its own).  That was one of our industry's main line of defense when California tried to pass its ridiculous law banning the sale of "violent" games to children: we already had a rating system that did that.  Having the ESRB is our shield against government regulation, and I have a feeling we'll need it or a system like it more than ever in the years to come.

[Kairon]

You pretty much described Steam.

I think Nintendo needs to go beyond steam, especially since their customers are a lot less pro-active than steam gamers. What Nintendo REALLY needs is a way to make digital downloads VISIBLE and convenient to their customers who only go to retail and... wait a sec...

[ejamer]

That is such a great point about ESRB.
But why not take it further? Why not COMPLETELY DO AWAY WITH ESRB ratings and the fees they incur that are passed on to the lil' devs? ESRB seems like an outdated concept and, if memory serves, it was itself a hackneyed reaction to public outcry over violent games in the press.

No, we definitely still need the ESRB because it keeps the federal government off our industry, which is what it was created to do (when congress issued an ultimatum on the video game industry to create a rating system in reaction to the Mortal Kombat controversy, or else it would create its own).  That was one of our industry's main line of defense when California tried to pass its ridiculous law banning the sale of "violent" games to children: we already had a rating system that did that.  Having the ESRB is our shield against government regulation, and I have a feeling we'll need it or a system like it more than ever in the years to come.

At the risk of sounding like an ass, if Apple can live without ESRB for digital content then so can Nintendo. If there are legal concerns raised then Nintendo could probably call it a business "win" to reinstate ESRB requirements for their platform - leaving them in a position that is no worse then they already have - while being sure that iOS games are subject to the same requirement.

[Kytim89]

Here is what Nintendo can learn from Steam, Apple's iTunes store and Amazon to make the Virtual Console service much better:
 
Steam:
   

• Promotional pricing.
• Video previewing of games.
• Bulk sales by developers.

Apple's iTunes Store:
   

• Avoid ESRB on digital media.
• Pricing.
• Micro-transactions.
• Unified account system between hardware devices.

Amazon:
   

• Wishlist and shopping cart features.
• Best sellers list.
• Recommendation system.
• Recently viewd system.
• Five star based review system.

Miscellaneous:
 

• Subscription based cloud gaming service.
• Paypal support.
• Spotpass VC advertising and recommendations.

[NWR_insanolord]

The 3DS already does several of those things.

[Oblivion]

Wait, why is NOT having the ESRB a good thing?

[NWR_insanolord]

There's a significant fee involved in getting a game rated, which could be argued to be a barrier to entry to the platform. iOS doesn't use them, and neither do Xbox Live Indie Games, for that reason. I would at least agree that it's kind of stupid to require VC games that predate the system to be rated, and I think they should be grandfathered in, but it's probably too late to do that now.

[Kytim89]

Do games already rated by the ESRB get a free pass or does the ESRB get to have a second look for a fee?

[ejamer]

Wait, why is NOT having the ESRB a good thing?

Because removing ESRB from the equation - for digital-only content that has already been published previously anyway - makes it easier (less steps required) and cheaper (thousands of dollars saved by not applying for ESRB) for third parties to put virtual console games on the service.

I'm not against ESRB and think that ratings and self-regulation have a lot of value in the video game industry.  But if people want Nintendo's online platforms to compete with other services (iOS/Steam) then there needs to be a way to level the playing field somewhat. Removing ESRB along with making other changes would be a small start in that direction.


Kytim: Pretty sure that you only need to get rating once, and that the rating holds for a re-release.  But I could be wrong.  The issue is that ESRB didn't exist when the majority of games released on Virtual Console were first released.

[nickmitch]

Removing the ESRB from the equation is a terrible idea. Nintendo will have to scrutinize the games themselves (much like Apple does). The cost only transfers, it doesn't disappear.

[NWR_insanolord]

But the VC games already made it past that scrutiny. And given the story about The Binding of Isaac, even with the ESRB Nintendo's scrutinizing potential eShop titles.

[Kytim89]

Why is Castlevania: Bloodlines and Contra: Hard Corps not on the service?

[Chozo Ghost]

Interplay has been in the industry forever;

Exactly. Let's not forget Interplay were the ones who owned the Fallout franchise before Bethesda bought it, as well as a bunch of other stuff. That's how big they were at one time. Their situation is kinda like Acclaim or Midway, except unlike Acclaim or Midway Interplay is actually still clinging on to dear life.

[Uncle_Optimus]

Removing the ESRB from the equation is a terrible idea. Nintendo will have to scrutinize the games themselves (much like Apple does). The cost only transfers, it doesn't disappear.

Doesn't Nintendo already scrutinize every release? As the gatekeepers to their platform, they vet every piece of software that gets released on their systems. If so, why not throw in an extra checkbox for the evaluation process? Either way...

@Broodwars makes a very good point about the political/protective role of the ESRB. California's recent legislative attempts are an excellent example to bring up. My two main arguments for banishing the rating service were:
1) it's anachronistic, a byproduct of a time that was seeking to cast video games as the bogeyman. However, it so happens that the press every now and again likes to pursue this "bogeyman" in the absence of other topics to hammer and if the service does indeed continue to function as a shield against regulation and not just as a vanity plate then it could be worth keeping around...for a while longer as attitudes mature. However,
2) ESRB requirements are not required for other notable download platforms so, yeah, Nintendo why not do away with this extra step? Why make things harder to get done, vis-a-vis your highly capable competition. You are a relative upstart in the realm of soliciting development support for your download platform, itself which is of increasing strategic importance. Lubricate the process, don't layer it with sandpaper!

[MegaByte]

The ESRB did try to set up something for mobile platforms but Apple and Google both refused to participate. Due to the sheer volume, it would have been a self-rating system rather than the reviewed system they have for the traditional platforms.

[nickmitch]

But the VC games already made it past that scrutiny. And given the story about The Binding of Isaac, even with the ESRB Nintendo's scrutinizing potential eShop titles.

I thought we were talking about the VC games that weren't rated already.

Also, isn't The Binding of Isaac unrated? If a lawsuit broke out, Nintendo would be targeted. If it was a M-rated game, they could just put it out there. Nintendo doesn't want that potential liability.

[ejamer]

Removing the ESRB from the equation is a terrible idea. Nintendo will have to scrutinize the games themselves (much like Apple does). The cost only transfers, it doesn't disappear.

Are you kidding me?  Apple "scrutinizes" the games being released?  No sir!  Apple runs a couple of quick - mostly automated, from my understanding - checks on each game and then publish immediately.  If there are problems (discovered later and reported by the appropriate parties) with offensive or illegal content then they pull the game after-the-fact and keep all profits earned in the meantime as payment for their trouble.

Nintendo already does QA checks that are more intensive before publishing anything on their digital service.

Why is Castlevania: Bloodlines and Contra: Hard Corps not on the service?

Because Konami doesn't feel the service will be easy and profitable enough to make it worth their while.  That's why Nintendo needs to split their focus - it's not just revitalizing the service for gamers, but also for the companies that own games people want to play.

But the VC games already made it past that scrutiny. And given the story about The Binding of Isaac, even with the ESRB Nintendo's scrutinizing potential eShop titles.

I thought we were talking about the VC games that weren't rated already.

Also, isn't The Binding of Isaac unrated? If a lawsuit broke out, Nintendo would be targeted. If it was a M-rated game, they could just put it out there. Nintendo doesn't want that potential liability.

Targeted for what, exactly?  Doing the same thing as every other major digital download service?  Following in the footsteps of iOS - the critical and commercial darling that is supposedly killing their business?


We are talking about Virtual Console, which means games that already were published and met the content guidelines on their original systems. Mortal Kombat-levels of violence are probably the biggest issue, and limiting access to downloads of questionable content is exactly why the system has parental controls in place.

[Uncle_Optimus]

This makes me rather curious if, functionally, there would be a difference between having an ESRB rating and Nintendo providing their own "Nintendo Rating". What I mean is if Nintendo just slapped on their own version of a content rating, but one that is decided during the vetting process presumably so that no extra labour cost is really incurred. Then they can cut out the ESRB submission fee (if they want to be dicks, they can then impose their own slightly cheaper fee).


Maybe this doesn't fly with congress and parent's groups?
However I figure the language and functionality and "rating accuracy" would be largely unaffected.


Just curious!

[Uncle_Optimus]

Why is Castlevania: Bloodlines and Contra: Hard Corps not on the service?

Because Konami doesn't feel the service will be easy and profitable enough to make it worth their while.

Maybe Konami felt sales revenue would not cover the ESRB fee :3

[ejamer]

This makes me rather curious if, functionally, there would be a difference between having an ESRB rating and Nintendo providing their own "Nintendo Rating". What I mean is if Nintendo just slapped on their own version of a content rating, but one that is decided during the vetting process presumably so that no extra labour cost is really incurred. Then they can cut out the ESRB submission fee (if they want to be dicks, they can then impose their own slightly cheaper fee).


Maybe this doesn't fly with congress and parent's groups?
However I figure the language and functionality and "rating accuracy" would be largely unaffected.


Just curious!

I think they lose some "legitimacy" by doing a small-scale rating system in-house instead of relying on the "industry standard".  More importantly, if there were objections (ie: lawsuits) then Nintendo would be responsible for defending the ratings and system in place.


Certainly not a bad idea, but it's probably cheaper and more efficient to rely on parental control systems to entirely replace ratings for digital-only content.  There are meaningful business precedents for viewing ESRB as a retail-only solution, and making the publication process as cheap and easy as possible is crucial if Nintendo wants to attract more content.

[marty]

If I buy a VC game, I should be able to play it on every Nintendo system that allows for DL content. PERIOD.  I'd buy a lot more VC and DL titles if I could play them on whatever hardware I have.  It makes zero sense to tie DL titles to intentionally disposable consoles.  SMB should be playable on one's DSi, DSiXL, 3DS, Wii, and WiiU without any hassles or extra cost.  The fact that Nintendo hasn't done this in the last 3 years is bull####.