4 ms·

I have to disagree hard on this. Nintendo was on the forefront of making old games playable on the new hardware. On the switch you can play many old SNES and N6

by ascar 5y ago

I have to disagree hard on this. Nintendo was on the forefront of making old games playable on the new hardware. On the switch you can play many old SNES and N64 classics included in the Nintendo online subscription at ~2-4€ a month. They re-released childhood favorites like Zelda Ocarina of Times and Super Mario 64 on the 3DS and I actually bought the 3DS (in a special Zelda variant no less) just for that and Majora's Mask. I had a blast. In comparison Steam and PC in general was late to the party of remastering old games or even just keeping them playable. Getting old Win 98 or even some XP titles running is often a challenge and sometimes borderline impossible.

monksy 5y ago
If you have to pay a subscription and that's the only way to play the classics there.. that's not free
- ascar 5y ago
  Well that's why I said "or". I'm honestly not sure, I never tried to play them while not having a subscription. The subscription at 20€/year is much cheaper than what Microsoft or Playstation are offering though. Edit: I looked it up, it requires the subscription and updated my comment accordingly.
  - monksy 5y ago
    :thumbsup: No worries.. I just get tired of the arguement that "well you get these things for free if you put yourself through a subscription" (That same arguement exists on the PSN and their "free games")
kipchak 5y ago
GoG (2008, the wii was 2006) is probably at the forefront of old games that just work on modern hardware, though there is some occasional hiccups. I think the oldest title is from 1980. For nintendo NES/SNES is if you have the basic subscription, n64 and genesis is an upcharge. https://www.nintendo.com/whatsnew/detail/2021/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-new-nintendo-switch-online-expansion-pack-membership-plan/ https://www.nintendo.com/whatsnew/detail/2021/what-you-need-...
wowokay 5y ago
They sell the old games, they are not free. All of there games are overpriced and never go on sale, probably because it seems like they only have a handful of games. I don’t think it’s fair to say valve is late to the party, if anything they are first. There is a distinct difference between consoles games and pc games, the steam deck focuses on bringing pc games to a portable format, that opens the door to an almost endless supply of cheap indie games, as well as the potential for large AAA titles like Assassins Creed. The best part? Unlike Nintendo or PlayStation you don’t have to buy the game again if it’s already in your steam library, outside of Xbox play anywhere it’s the first time players don’t have to repurchase a game in order to play it on a portable device.
- ascar 5y ago
  > outside of Xbox play anywhere it’s the first time players don’t have to repurchase a game in order to play it on a portable device. I agree that's a nice perk and I also regularly pay more to have my games in Steam rather than somewhere else, because it usually just works and keeps on working with Steam era games. My issues were mostly with pre-online era games where I still owned the actual CD. It would've been nice if I could just play my old N64 games for free, but I also didn't feel cheated that I had to pay for the ported versions again.
- dudeman13 5y ago
  >All of there games are overpriced and never go on sale If whole generations of gamers will buy them regardless, why should they change it? Even after shitting hard on their customers, gamers are still voting Nintendo with their wallets.
chungy 5y ago
"Was" in an operative word. Nintendo was selling N64 games virtually on the Wii in 2007. They have yet to improve on that offering. The closest they got was Super Mario 3D All-Stars that included emulation of a GameCube (Mario Sunshine) and a Wii (Mario Galaxy) game, but Nintendo being Nintendo, it was on the e-shop for a limited time and a limited manufacturing run for physical release. Two console generations after the Wii, the most Nintendo can muster is bringing back Nintendo 64 games to their current console, 5 years after the console's release. It's pathetic.
gundamdoubleO 5y ago
You have to pay extra for the N64 titles. And just a reminder that they've yet to have their retro game collection on the Switch reach half of the games that were available on their Wii Virtual Console service, which ended with approx. 400 games, including some from Sega and SNK consoles. Most of the titles also ran better and had lower input latency than what's available on the Switch. The service was completely discontinued in 2019 with no way of transferring the titles over to the Switch or having the proof of purchase even linked to your account. In terms of preserving their old titles Nintendo is awful, they'd rather continually rerelease the popular ones and have you pay yet again for the (temporary) access.
sjmulder 5y ago
I love the Switch and I'm a big fan of many Nintendo franchises but Nintendo has a habit of screwing over honest customers, especially early adopters, and their retro efforts are a good example of that: People who purchased games on the original Wii Virtual Console had to pay per-game fees to upgrade to native Wii U versions. As if that wasn't cheeky enough the Wii U NES emulation was terrible. Bad colors and serious input lag. Instead of fixing it for those customers who already paid (sometimes twice) for those games, Nintendo released the NES Classic which had a much better emulator… but only if you paid again. (There also wasn't cross-buy/play between Virtual Console 3DS and Wii U, as opposed to e.g. Sony's PS3 and Vita's PS1 support.) Then came the Switch with Nintendo Switch Online. Putting aside subscription vs. purchasing, the experience is great. But all those Virtual Console games you have? Can't play them. Pay again. Remaster are cool but the way Nintendo approaches them is another example of how early adopters get the short end, with Wii U games getting re-releases on Switch (great) with additional content like Bowser's Fury (also great) but without making that content available as DLC to people who already paid full price for the original versions. (By the way, those NSO N64 games aren't part of the basic subscription)
- Wowfunhappy 5y ago
  > People who purchased games on the original Wii Virtual Console had to pay per-game fees to upgrade to native Wii U versions. As if that wasn't cheeky enough the Wii U NES emulation was terrible. Bad colors and serious input lag. Instead of fixing it for those customers who already paid (sometimes twice) for those games, Nintendo released the NES Classic which had a much better emulator… but only if you paid again. I'm definitely not going to defend how bad the Wii U emulators were, but asking users to pay for a new emulator doesn't seem so unreasonable to me. Developing an emulator takes work. If you don't want to use the new emulator, play the game in Wii mode. Yes, paying for the emulator on a per-game basis is weird, but any other model would be prohibitively difficult for consumers to understand. > Remaster are cool but the way Nintendo approaches them is another example of how early adopters get the short end, with Wii U games getting re-releases on Switch (great) with additional content like Bowser's Fury (also great) but without making that content available as DLC to people who already paid full price for the original versions. But again, Nintendo had to port the game to the Switch, so I think it's reasonable to charge for that. And while they certainly could have instituted some sort of upgrade pricing model, it would have quickly become prohibitively complicated, particularly when you start considering retail versions of the game. My feeling is, I paid $60 for Mario 3D World in 2013 because it was worth (more than) $60. I already played it and got my money's worth. The Switch version doesn't have enough new content for me to justify paying another $60, but for anyone who never owned a Wii U, it's a great deal and I'm happy for them. Games (particularly non-Nintendo games) often become much cheaper if you don't mind waiting a few years, if not less.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
stuu99 5y ago
tarsinge 5y ago
Forefront? It's nice but I'm glad I didn't wait 15-20 years for Nintendo to play SNES games officially.

by ascar 5y ago

monksy 5y ago

If you have to pay a subscription and that's the only way to play the classics there.. that's not free

ascar 5y ago
Well that's why I said "or". I'm honestly not sure, I never tried to play them while not having a subscription. The subscription at 20€/year is much cheaper than what Microsoft or Playstation are offering though. Edit: I looked it up, it requires the subscription and updated my comment accordingly.
- monksy 5y ago
  :thumbsup: No worries.. I just get tired of the arguement that "well you get these things for free if you put yourself through a subscription" (That same arguement exists on the PSN and their "free games")

kipchak 5y ago

GoG (2008, the wii was 2006) is probably at the forefront of old games that just work on modern hardware, though there is some occasional hiccups. I think the oldest title is from 1980. For nintendo NES/SNES is if you have the basic subscription, n64 and genesis is an upcharge. https://www.nintendo.com/whatsnew/detail/2021/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-new-nintendo-switch-online-expansion-pack-membership-plan/ https://www.nintendo.com/whatsnew/detail/2021/what-you-need-...

wowokay 5y ago

They sell the old games, they are not free. All of there games are overpriced and never go on sale, probably because it seems like they only have a handful of games. I don’t think it’s fair to say valve is late to the party, if anything they are first. There is a distinct difference between consoles games and pc games, the steam deck focuses on bringing pc games to a portable format, that opens the door to an almost endless supply of cheap indie games, as well as the potential for large AAA titles like Assassins Creed. The best part? Unlike Nintendo or PlayStation you don’t have to buy the game again if it’s already in your steam library, outside of Xbox play anywhere it’s the first time players don’t have to repurchase a game in order to play it on a portable device.

ascar 5y ago
> outside of Xbox play anywhere it’s the first time players don’t have to repurchase a game in order to play it on a portable device. I agree that's a nice perk and I also regularly pay more to have my games in Steam rather than somewhere else, because it usually just works and keeps on working with Steam era games. My issues were mostly with pre-online era games where I still owned the actual CD. It would've been nice if I could just play my old N64 games for free, but I also didn't feel cheated that I had to pay for the ported versions again.
dudeman13 5y ago
>All of there games are overpriced and never go on sale If whole generations of gamers will buy them regardless, why should they change it? Even after shitting hard on their customers, gamers are still voting Nintendo with their wallets.

chungy 5y ago

"Was" in an operative word. Nintendo was selling N64 games virtually on the Wii in 2007. They have yet to improve on that offering. The closest they got was Super Mario 3D All-Stars that included emulation of a GameCube (Mario Sunshine) and a Wii (Mario Galaxy) game, but Nintendo being Nintendo, it was on the e-shop for a limited time and a limited manufacturing run for physical release. Two console generations after the Wii, the most Nintendo can muster is bringing back Nintendo 64 games to their current console, 5 years after the console's release. It's pathetic.

gundamdoubleO 5y ago

You have to pay extra for the N64 titles. And just a reminder that they've yet to have their retro game collection on the Switch reach half of the games that were available on their Wii Virtual Console service, which ended with approx. 400 games, including some from Sega and SNK consoles. Most of the titles also ran better and had lower input latency than what's available on the Switch. The service was completely discontinued in 2019 with no way of transferring the titles over to the Switch or having the proof of purchase even linked to your account. In terms of preserving their old titles Nintendo is awful, they'd rather continually rerelease the popular ones and have you pay yet again for the (temporary) access.

sjmulder 5y ago

I love the Switch and I'm a big fan of many Nintendo franchises but Nintendo has a habit of screwing over honest customers, especially early adopters, and their retro efforts are a good example of that: People who purchased games on the original Wii Virtual Console had to pay per-game fees to upgrade to native Wii U versions. As if that wasn't cheeky enough the Wii U NES emulation was terrible. Bad colors and serious input lag. Instead of fixing it for those customers who already paid (sometimes twice) for those games, Nintendo released the NES Classic which had a much better emulator… but only if you paid again. (There also wasn't cross-buy/play between Virtual Console 3DS and Wii U, as opposed to e.g. Sony's PS3 and Vita's PS1 support.) Then came the Switch with Nintendo Switch Online. Putting aside subscription vs. purchasing, the experience is great. But all those Virtual Console games you have? Can't play them. Pay again. Remaster are cool but the way Nintendo approaches them is another example of how early adopters get the short end, with Wii U games getting re-releases on Switch (great) with additional content like Bowser's Fury (also great) but without making that content available as DLC to people who already paid full price for the original versions. (By the way, those NSO N64 games aren't part of the basic subscription)

Wowfunhappy 5y ago
> People who purchased games on the original Wii Virtual Console had to pay per-game fees to upgrade to native Wii U versions. As if that wasn't cheeky enough the Wii U NES emulation was terrible. Bad colors and serious input lag. Instead of fixing it for those customers who already paid (sometimes twice) for those games, Nintendo released the NES Classic which had a much better emulator… but only if you paid again. I'm definitely not going to defend how bad the Wii U emulators were, but asking users to pay for a new emulator doesn't seem so unreasonable to me. Developing an emulator takes work. If you don't want to use the new emulator, play the game in Wii mode. Yes, paying for the emulator on a per-game basis is weird, but any other model would be prohibitively difficult for consumers to understand. > Remaster are cool but the way Nintendo approaches them is another example of how early adopters get the short end, with Wii U games getting re-releases on Switch (great) with additional content like Bowser's Fury (also great) but without making that content available as DLC to people who already paid full price for the original versions. But again, Nintendo had to port the game to the Switch, so I think it's reasonable to charge for that. And while they certainly could have instituted some sort of upgrade pricing model, it would have quickly become prohibitively complicated, particularly when you start considering retail versions of the game. My feeling is, I paid $60 for Mario 3D World in 2013 because it was worth (more than) $60. I already played it and got my money's worth. The Switch version doesn't have enough new content for me to justify paying another $60, but for anyone who never owned a Wii U, it's a great deal and I'm happy for them. Games (particularly non-Nintendo games) often become much cheaper if you don't mind waiting a few years, if not less.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

stuu99 5y ago

tarsinge 5y ago

Forefront? It's nice but I'm glad I didn't wait 15-20 years for Nintendo to play SNES games officially.