Topic: Official Virtual Console Mondays Thread

[Artimus]

I wrote IGN a letter saying I hope that review isn't indicative of the sloppy principles of the non-Nintendo channels seeping into the Nintendo channels. Bet they don't publish it (even though I was REALLY polite).

I love LTTP, it captures the Zelda spirit unlike any other game (TP manages to do it too, though) and mixes it with perfected gameplay. It's like the only game (besides Mario Bros. 3 and 1 and such) that I have played many times. I occasionally even play my SNES version. I'll be getting the VC one, though, and giving it another fantastic play through. But, naturally, if you prefer 3D Zelda then it won't be your favorite.

[GoldenPhoenix]

I agree with Spak, the point structure is weird, but so is Xbox Live's, though that could end up changing if and when they start releasing content other than games on it. From what I understand Europe has other goodies on the Wii marketplace besides games, so I see no reason for that to be kept from other regions. IN regards to all the ranting on the games for VC console, I get quite frustrated when people constantly use THEIR opinion of what games they want or don't want, stretching that to some huge flaw in the system. Guess what, I have 8 games so far (recently purchased LTTP), so I have definately found games of interest. On the flip side though, I am not going to use that as an example of how great the VC is or is not for others because we all have different gaming tastes along with budgets.

[ShyGuy]

Quote
We always talk about how Nintendo is always profitable, but do we the fans see that money back as much as we should?

The world is doomed.

[KDR_11k]

I really dispute SB's claim that new downloadable games would automatically make all VC games undesirable. We're talking about games that fit into a download and cost 10-20€ (assuming Nintendo won't allow prices that take more than one points card to pay). Noone would allocate a serious team to that kind of game so very few of it will really use the Wii to its fullest while most will just be hasty ports of cheap PC puzzle games. I don't think we'll ever see something like the epic RPGs or sidescrollers from the old days on the downloadable new games list. Something that isn't simple and small can afford to be sold at retail at 60€ a piece. Even if we see the same genres among the new games as among the VC games they will rarely reach the quality of the VC's classic offerings.

[Spak-Spang]

GoldenPhoenix:  Awesome post...and thanks for agreeing.

Yeah, right now I have downloaded over 10 games for the vitual console.

Gunstar Heroes
Super Mario 64
Super Mario Brothers
Street Fighter 2
Castlevania 4
F-Zero
Wario's Woods (But I hope Nintendo will allow us to upgrade to the SNES version)
ToeJam and Earl
Hockey
The Legend of Zelda

and perhaps a couple of others.

So, the virtual console indeed is coming out with games people want to download...perhaps just not you.

[JonLeung]

I also worry about "new content".

"Old content" was once new and so we had NES and Super NES games that were as epic as they could be at the time.  Now we look back on them with nostalgia, and even if we haven't played some of the specific games at the time of their original release, they would still recall good times.

I really can't help but keep thinking that developers of "new content" for the VC will want them to be graphically boosted since they can.  And with the Wii's power, it would be easy to use a mere fraction of that and make some games that could visually put the best Super NES games to shame (again, I'm only talking visually).  The problem is that the download will be larger, so graphics might take up a lot of time to download, or the game will be made simple to compensate.  I can't help but think that new VC games will often be fancy-looking puzzle games, and even if some use the Wii Remote, I won't care.  I want a meatier experience, and a real NES game will beat any fancy PopCap game that I could play in an Internet browser.

Is the VC for "real" games or just diversions?  If you ask me, I would much rather buy something like the original Final Fantasy and Dragon Warrior on the NES than a Wii Remote-enabled, fancy-pants-effects BeJeweled clone.

[Ian Sane]

"As mentioned, it's never going to happen anyway. They will never get even a majority of third parties onboard, and people can probably forget about companies that have folded since or games that were based on licensces. So it's better to stop dreaming that they are going to somehow round up the entire library of even the three Nintendo consoles on there, as it's not going to happen."

That's not what I'm talking about.  I'm talking about all the POSSIBLE VC games being available.  In other words all of Nintendo's games that were released in North America.  Normally I would say they only have to release the good ones but they released Urban Champion so they might as well release all of them.  We know Konami is on board so I'd like to see all of their games too, or at least the really good ones.  I don't want to see Nintendo first party games that were released in North America still being released at a snail's pace in 2011.  I think ideally there should be a point where all of Nintendo's stuff is there and new VC releases are from third parties joining late or previously unavailable games getting localized.  While a "complete" VC is impossible I would like to see Nintendo attempt to do the best they can to achieve close to that goal around the middle of the Wii lifespan.  Releasing games as fast as possible would take a few years.  With Nintendo intentionally dragging their feet there are first party titles that will NEVER be released on the VC and that's bullsh!t.

Regarding the points structure all would be fixed if Nintendo let you buy points in intervals of one hundred.  If I need that extra 100 points to get the game I want I can just spend a buck to get it.  But they don't on purpose to make you buy points you don't need.  And Nintendo's not the only company that does that sort of thing.  While my suggestion would work fine the ideal thing would be for the games to just cost money outright and you can buy gift certificates in store or online.  So then if I want to buy a game and I'm a couple bucks short I just get charged the difference on my credit card.

[UltimatePartyBear]

Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
Regarding the points structure all would be fixed if Nintendo let you buy points in intervals of one hundred.  If I need that extra 100 points to get the game I want I can just spend a buck to get it.  But they don't on purpose to make you buy points you don't need.  And Nintendo's not the only company that does that sort of thing.  While my suggestion would work fine the ideal thing would be for the games to just cost money outright and you can buy gift certificates in store or online.  So then if I want to buy a game and I'm a couple bucks short I just get charged the difference on my credit card.

Well, nobody wants to let you pay for small amounts with a credit card.  Credit card companies provide a service to retailers as well as to cardholders.  They build and manage the infrastructure and credit checks and all that jazz.  In return, every time a retailer charges something to your credit card, they pay a fee.  That's why credit card companies still make money even if you never owe them any interest.  The fee is large enough that a one or two dollar charge isn't a winning idea.  That's why Nintendo went with the points system in the first place: to minimize the number of fees they pay by maximizing the amount you pay in each transaction.

I'm not just trying to defend Nintendo's actions by appealing to profitability here.  If you want to complain about how much they charge for the games, that's fine.  I'm just saying no company anywhere is going to let you pay one dollar with a credit card if they can avoid it.

[Crimm]

Mario Kart 64 next week.  
Two things:
1. It seems to indicate that whatever the hold up on 64 games was (assuming one existed), it has been resolved.
2. It and LttP seems to indicate that Nintendo is going to start moving stuff other than Hockey.

[Spak-Spang]

GoNintendo had a rumor about Super Mario World coming soon to the US Virtual Console as well.

If this is true, it would mean Mario Kart 64 and Super Mario World released the same time...which I thought was odd.

Until I released it would be really fun for Nintendo to start releasing Themes for their Monday updates.

Super Mario Monday could be:

NES:
Doctor Mario

SNES:
Super Mario World

Nintendo 64:
Mario Kart 64

Three very different games, but would appeal to a theme.

Another Week could be Kirby and include:

NES:
Kirby

SNES:
Kirby Dream Course

Nintendo 64:
Super Smash Brothers (Kirby is in the game.)

Extreme Sports Theme:

NES:
1080 Skateboarding (or something else)

SNES:
Unicycle

Nintendo 64:
Wave Race 64

These themes could even include Sega Genesis and TG-16 games as well.  It would be a very smart and fun means of hyping the virtual console.  Nintendo could even promote these themes a week before they are released.

[segagamer12]

so far the only thing I HATE about the virtual console is I dont have enough moneyt o buy all the games I want that are already out. I am up to 12 games so far and theres 12 more I want already posted. Why cant Nintendo give me a couple free games for registering every game I own?  

[Ceric]

Themes are cool but I like it mixed up.  So I would hope they stay away from Genre themes.  

[The Omen]

Quote
’m frankly sick of people using economics and profit as an excuse to defend Nintendo. As if what they’re doing now is the ONLY way to make a profit.

And I'm sick of people complaining that the VC isn't aimed directly at them, as if what they want they should have.  Get over it!  You don't like it, then don't buy it!  I personally have 6 games so far, and will be getting ALTTP and Mario Kart 64.  I'm quite happy with the selection, including the oft maligned Ice Hockey.  Hell, I'll buy Wild Gunmen as well.  I guess it's because I remember those old games you guys like to call garbage, but some, myself included, like them.  Have you played Solomon's Key?  Great game, but since it's not on your AAA list, I doubt you plunked down the $5 on it.

[Kairon]

I...I... I'm up to about 100 bucks!

/cry

~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

[Pittbboi]

The Omen:

Oh boo-hoo. So what I don't like any of the games and you like them all (and of course I'm not buying the games I don't like. Nintendo's just going to have to wait until they finally put out something I want). If all of you fanboys can use all of the VC games you're laping up as justification for why the system is working, I can use all of the VC games I don't have to argue that it isn't.

But you know what? That was never even my point. I was never wanting Nintendo to specifically cater to me; I was just pointing out that there's one thing that they definitely aren't doing: catoring to the majority of gamers who would give a damn about the VC. The proof is in sheer numbers. With few exceptions the small handfull games from their VAST library they've released thus far are some of the oldest, and the most obscure of their games.  Even if most of my must-have list of games were on the VC right now I'd still lambast the VC because the rate at which they're releasing these games is absolutely abysmal. And there's no justification for it, and if you're totally satisfied with the current selection consider yourself one of the lucky ones. Just look at the list of games they've already had [re]rated by the ESRB that they're just sitting on, and then try to come up with a logical reason for why LTTP was the only Nintendo game released this week.

They're sitting on these games and releasing them at a snail's pace while at the same time expecting third parties to consider the bare-bones virtual console a worthy endeavour. Nintendo doesn't have to release all of their old games TOMORROW. if they just drastically increased the increments in which they released these games and cleaned up the layout a bit to make it more attractive and intuitive the virtual console would become a much more attractive and competitive online service, and naturally appeal to more people. Not just me.

[Arbok]

Quote
Originally posted by: Pittbboi
They're sitting on these games and releasing them at a snail's pace while at the same time expecting third parties to consider the bare-bones virtual console a worthy endeavour.

Well I got ignored before when I debated your points, but I suppose I will try once more with this "tid bit" here.

The reson for this is simple, and you can look at the Japanese charts for proof. Nintendo can't force other developers to release their content, and if they dump their own as fast as the ESRB can rate them then they are going to squeeze out third party sales. Somehow, in some bizarre twist of logic, you figure that that's turning third parties away? I don't follow. I somehow doubt a company is going to say "well, we hardly even made a return on our investment spent in emulation, testing and the $750 rating fee... BUT LOOK AT NINTENDO's SALE ON THEIR OWN GAMES! Quick, let's release some more!"

[IceCold]

That's probably the reason Sega pulled their games which were supposed to be released alongside LttP.

[Pittbboi]

Quote
Originally posted by: Arbok

Quote
Originally posted by: Pittbboi
They're sitting on these games and releasing them at a snail's pace while at the same time expecting third parties to consider the bare-bones virtual console a worthy endeavour.

Well I got ignored before when I debated your points, but I suppose I will try once more with this "tid bit" here.

The reson for this is simple, and you can look at the Japanese charts for proof. Nintendo can't force other developers to release their content, and if they dump their own as fast as the ESRB can rate them then they are going to squeeze out third party sales. Somehow, in some bizarre twist of logic, you figure that that's turning third parties away? I don't follow. I somehow doubt a company is going to say "well, we hardly even made a return on our investment spent in emulation, testing and the $750 rating fee... BUT LOOK AT NINTENDO's SALE ON THEIR OWN GAMES! Quick, let's release some more!"

Actually, I find this to be the twisted logic. It makes no sense for three reasons:

1)To say that Nintendo games would squeeze out 3rd party sales is to imply that no other developer made good games in the 90s. And that's not true. I can think of a dozen games off the top of my head not developed by Nintendo that I would purchase over the average Nintendo game, and I'm sure most people could, too. There are plenty of third parties with classic games that could more than hold their own against Nintendo titles. It's not like every Nintendo game ever released was a AAA masterpiece. " HO NOES! NINTENDO JUST RELEASED ICE HOCKEY! NOBODY'S GOING TO WANT TO BUY CHRONO TRIGGER OR SUPER STREET FIGHTER II TURBO NOW!!!111one"

2)What 3rd parties are they trying to cater to here? So far the only 3rd parties taking the VC seriously are Sega and Hudson.

3)What you're saying (and what most people are using now as a defend Nintendo excuse) would sort of make sense if we were talking about system that was already proven. The Virtual Console is anything but. It's a new service that's largely unproven as a generator of significant profit. In a case like this, if Nintendo wants to court 3rd parties and show them that the Virtual Console is worth the investment THEY have to lead the charge. They have to be able to say to developers "We've put our library of classic games on the virtual console and look at how well they're selling. People can't download them fast enough! The virtual console is a complete service and a sure way to make a significant profit on your classic games." And they have to do more than say it, the 3rd parties need to be able to see it. They need to be able to look at the VC and see how appealing it looks; they need to be able to look at message boards and see people praising the timely releases of classic games on the virtual console, not fuming about how slow the games are being released and how expensive they are and how they don't want anything that's been released yet.  

As it stands now the VC is not an appealing service (the proof is in how little 3rd parties have currently decided to seriously support it). It takes more than the nebulous prospect of profit to make something an appealing service. If Nintendo wants the Virtual Console to be competitive and appealing, THEY'RE going to have to do it first. And farting out crappy titles at a pace slower than molasses on a service that has all the functionality of a drop-down menu is NOT going to do it.    

[Kairon]

Quote
Originally posted by: Pittbboi
stuff

Strange Pittboi, all that I've seen that isn't conjecture seems to be against you.

1.
I remember reading on Neogaf somewhere a report of a top 10 list of Japanese VC titles. In Japan they got Super Mario World and LttP at launch. Something like the top 5-6 titles were Nintendo, and only 2 of the titles on that top 10 were from third parties. Unfortunately, I'm having trouble finding the post (I'm not a member of Neogaf and that was awhile ago) or its reference.

But what's amazing is that even Donkey Kong on the VC was beating out 3rd party VC releases. If America proceeded with the same aplomb that Japan has, then third party sales here would be suffering under a similar Nintendo jackboot. By proceeding at a slower pace, NOA is playing nice with third parties, courting them and encouraging them to find profits on Nintendo systems, unthreatened by a deluge of Nintendo titles that will tear up the charts.

2.
Do you know how many XBLA titles MS was supposedly able to sell from launch until early March 2006? In two months LONGER than the Wii has had, XBLA sold at least 600,000 titles. Sure, there were 3 million demo downloads, but they the average conversion rate was 20% (hence the 600,000 sold estimate) and the highest ever was 36% (probably Geometry Wars).

Nintendo just announced that there were 1.5 million VC games sold up 'till 1/24/07. Read here. Incidentally, they also announced that 1.4 million Wiis had connected online. Sounds like a win to me, and that's WITH Nintendo's current schedule and plan.

3.
ALSO, let's see what Hudson has to say about it:

Quote
In a Game Informer interview with Hudson Entertainment’s Director of Marketing John Lee ...

"So far though, we have been pleasantly surprised at how well our games are doing, and how well Nintendo’s strategy with the VC is working out."

So there you have it:
1. Evidence suggesting that Nintendo games depress third party sales on the VC (as if Sega backing out of launching titles against LTTP weren't enough for ya).
2. Proof that the VC is already a successful and profitable enterprise.
3. Evidence that third parties are finding it profitable too.

~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

[KDR_11k]

People buy what they know and most of the non-Nintendo games on the VC are parts of franchises long forgotten.

[Pittbboi]

Quote
1.
I remember reading on Neogaf somewhere a report of a top 10 list of Japanese VC titles. In Japan they got Super Mario World and LttP at launch. Something like the top 5-6 titles were Nintendo, and only 2 of the titles on that top 10 were from third parties. Unfortunately, I'm having trouble finding the post (I'm not a member of Neogaf and that was awhile ago) or its reference.

But what's amazing is that even Donkey Kong on the VC was beating out 3rd party VC releases. If America proceeded with the same aplomb that Japan has, then third party sales here would be suffering under a similar Nintendo jackboot. By proceeding at a slower pace, NOA is playing nice with third parties, courting them and encouraging them to find profits on Nintendo systems, unthreatened by a deluge of Nintendo titles that will tear up the charts.

I don't buy it. I mean...you have sales data by game? Share! Because so far not even Nintendo's released that, so I'm a skeptic of source. But let's just say you're right, this excuse doesn't cover any of my bullet points. First, Japan is a completely different market, and it should be proven already that what works over there won't work over here.  Also, surprisingly, Japan isn't getting any better 3rd party support than the US is currently, so in that climate of course are Nintendo games are going to outsell who? Sega? And, with the exception of Sonic, not even Sega's released. Of course in this initial period Nintendo games will be a forefront, and they will most likely sell more than third parties, but that doesn't mean the third parties won be selling. And I'd bet you that Nintendo would have some major competition if Square, Enix, or EA started releasing their classic library. Nintendo isn't really competing against much right now, so of course whatever they put out is going to sell.

Quote
2.
Do you know how many XBLA titles MS was supposedly able to sell from launch until early March 2006? In two months LONGER than the Wii has had, XBLA sold at least 600,000 titles. Sure, there were 3 million demo downloads, but they the average conversion rate was 20% (hence the 600,000 sold estimate) and the highest ever was 36% (probably Geometry Wars).

Nintendo just announced that there were 1.5 million VC games sold up 'till 1/24/07. Read here. Incidentally, they also announced that 1.4 million Wiis had connected online. Sounds like a win to me, and that's WITH Nintendo's current schedule and plan.

Honestly, I would say some of those demo downloads would count, as a consistent theme on XBLA has been game demos being just as fun as the actual game itself. In that case, XBLA is shooting itself in the foot on some level, but it still boasts way more user activity and downloads than the VC, period. And that's nothing to scoff at. In fact, I'm sure that now the numbers are a lot different, and that's what third parties looking for a place to drop their games are going to look at.

Quote
3.
ALSO, let's see what Hudson has to say about it:

Of course Hudson's going to say that; they got in on the ground floor with an honest effort. Not only that, but this further proves my point that if a third party invests in the VC and makes an effort, their games will sell despite what Nintendo puts out.  Nintendo's a great developer, but Nintendo isn't the god of gaming. There are plenty of third parties that could be noticed right along with Nintendo. Hudson proved that. Now it's time for Nintendo to help other developers see it.

[Ceric]

lol.  This discussion has led me to two things:
1)  Nintendo needs to start "threating" 3rd Parties.  "I want to release 6 games this Monday.  What games do you got for me 3rd Parties?  Whatever gaps you don't fill I'll release a Nintendo game to fill."
2)  I wonder what the overall activity comparison is with the XBox.  I know it probably has more but it still be interesting.

Oh,  I have to agree Nintendo could put more work into the VC Site.  Valentines day is coming so you think there be a Valentine theme or something.  Themes People... Come on...

[ShyGuy]

Valentines day:
Kid Icarus (He's Cupid)
Romance of the Three Kingdoms
.....uh, that's all I got.

[Arbok]

Quote
Originally posted by: PittbboiTo say that Nintendo games would squeeze out 3rd party sales is to imply that no other developer made good games in the 90s. And that's not true. I can think of a dozen games off the top of my head not developed by Nintendo that I would purchase over the average Nintendo game, and I'm sure most people could, too. There are plenty of third parties with classic games that could more than hold their own against Nintendo titles. It's not like every Nintendo game ever released was a AAA masterpiece. " HO NOES! NINTENDO JUST RELEASED ICE HOCKEY! NOBODY'S GOING TO WANT TO BUY CHRONO TRIGGER OR SUPER STREET FIGHTER II TURBO NOW!!!111one"

So where are those now? Or are you implying that unless a third party is going to be releasing an AAA title, they need not bother with the Virtual Console?

Quote
Originally posted by: Pittbboi2)What 3rd parties are they trying to cater to here? So far the only 3rd parties taking the VC seriously are Sega and Hudson.

Konami and Capcom say hi. They also want to introduce you to something called the "Wait and See Approach". That their few title offering has been a test over these past three months to see how sales would be. A period which would be perfect for Nintendo not to rush in guns blazing and let some of the other third parties reap some profits... would you agree? Also, to expect all firms to have dumped thousands of dollars into this already, and I'm sure Hudson has spent that already just on rating their titles, is foolish beyond belief. They will expect some return before they decide its in their best interest, their being the key concept, not Nintendo's.

Quote
Originally posted by: PittbboiAs it stands now the VC is not an appealing service (the proof is in how little 3rd parties have currently decided to seriously support it).

IT HAS BEEN THREE MONTHS!

Jesus... Stop acting like these firms have these titles just sitting on the shelf, and they can sign up with Nintendo and then have them ready for the VC in two weeks time... it doesn't work that way.

We are talking about emulating them, testing them, and rating them at the very least, not even going into the paper work that would be required to get onboard the service in the first place. Firms will be spending thousands of dollars to get their content online too, so there is reason to take the wait and see approach.

Quote
Originally posted by: Pittbboi
I don't buy it. I mean...you have sales data by game? Share! Because so far not even Nintendo's released that, so I'm a skeptic of source.

Japan VC ranking:

1. Super Mario Brothers
2. Super Mario World
3. Super Mario 64
4. Mario Brothers
5. Donkey Kong Country
6. Puyo Puyo
7. The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past
8. Bomberman '94
9. R-Type
10. The Legend of Zelda

7/10 are Nintendo

Quote
Originally posted by: Pittbboi
First, Japan is a completely different market, and it should be proven already that what works over there won't work over here.

Right, because those seven Nintendo games would have been totally overlooked in the States... right?

Quote
Originally posted by: Pittbboi
Also, surprisingly, Japan isn't getting any better 3rd party support than the US is currently, so in that climate of course are Nintendo games are going to outsell who?

Yeah, I wonder why... You are partially shooting your own point in the foot here, but don't seem to notice it. I mean, you are really surprised that third party support wouldn't be better in Japan where Nintendo's own offerings are dominating? Wouldn't it be surprising the other way around?

Quote
Originally posted by: Pittbboi
Of course Hudson's going to say that; they got in on the ground floor with an honest effort. Not only that, but this further proves my point that if a third party invests in the VC and makes an effort, their games will sell despite what Nintendo puts out.

Your logic is full of holes. Hudson gets great game sales when Nintendo lays low on their own offerings... AND THIS IS PROOF THAT THIRD PARTY GAMES WILL SELL BETTER REGARDLESS OF NINTENDO'S OUTPUT? I think it's time you stepped back and retooled your current concepts on why the VC is how it is.

[NWR_pap64]

Going back on topic, I got a Wii points card and I downloaded Bonk, Super Mario Bros. and Link to the past.

The service is very neat. They just need to pump out more and better games.