5 ms·

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

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.
- HideousKojima 5y ago
  >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. They are hard work, but fans working for free have consistently done a better job than Nintendo themselves at writing emulators in all respects: added features, performance, input latency, accuracy, and compatibility.
  - Wowfunhappy 5y ago
    Many would argue that Linux is a better experience than Windows, but I don't have a problem with Microsoft charging for Windows. I will also say that within a constrained console environment, I do think Nintendo's VC emulators are more reliable than Homebrew ones.
- sjmulder 5y ago
  > Yes, paying for the emulator on a per-game basis is weird, but any other model would be prohibitively difficult for consumers to understand. Nonsense, it's just an excuse to nickle-and-dime customers. Compare this to the effort Microsoft has gone through to make old Xbox games work on modern consoles, or how all digital PSP games just worked on your PS Vita. The Wii U upgrade wasn't even that big of a deal compared to the Switch now. They've brought NES, SNES and N64 emulators to the Switch but none of those games you already paid for (twice) carry over. It's not just about having to pay a bit, it's about what it means to digitally purchase anything from Nintendo. > 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. This was my point though - if you already paid that $60 and got that great game, there's no way to play the new content without playing it again.

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.

HideousKojima 5y ago
>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. They are hard work, but fans working for free have consistently done a better job than Nintendo themselves at writing emulators in all respects: added features, performance, input latency, accuracy, and compatibility.
- Wowfunhappy 5y ago
  Many would argue that Linux is a better experience than Windows, but I don't have a problem with Microsoft charging for Windows. I will also say that within a constrained console environment, I do think Nintendo's VC emulators are more reliable than Homebrew ones.
sjmulder 5y ago
> Yes, paying for the emulator on a per-game basis is weird, but any other model would be prohibitively difficult for consumers to understand. Nonsense, it's just an excuse to nickle-and-dime customers. Compare this to the effort Microsoft has gone through to make old Xbox games work on modern consoles, or how all digital PSP games just worked on your PS Vita. The Wii U upgrade wasn't even that big of a deal compared to the Switch now. They've brought NES, SNES and N64 emulators to the Switch but none of those games you already paid for (twice) carry over. It's not just about having to pay a bit, it's about what it means to digitally purchase anything from Nintendo. > 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. This was my point though - if you already paid that $60 and got that great game, there's no way to play the new content without playing it again.