Sheikah

Sense and reason. In a way I like to own games, but we're talking about the future and maybe 30 years or more down the line here. True preservation of games; not just for us guys who have the consoles but for anyone who might want to experience those games, and not have to pay £200-300 up front just to do so. And who knows, maybe you got rid of your consoles or they're kaput by then, and could also benefit from this. I think it's pretty mad to assume that everything from gamecube era onwards will be compatible with the console of the time in 30 years. The cost to keep that up and the effect that would have on curtailing their hardware/OS decisions would be pretty huge. And by then I imagine broadband and the streaming services will be considerably improved over now.

And you're arguing with a guy who you often resort to insults against because you can't actually refute what he's saying. I think that says quite a lot about your character, but then I think you know the faults with your character already. Except, that's not what I'm really saying, is it? I appreciate a good VC (who wouldn't?), but at the same time I don't believe their future hardware and OS should be limited to this decision. As nice a feature as VC is, it's not something that's going to pull in the customers in any real number, and as we all know it's new games that sell systems. I think for people who would like to pick up an old VC title every now and then, it's better to not have to front £200-300 on a console to do so. Streaming is also a better method of distribution - to everyone with a TV/smart device versus just a small and loyal number of Nintendo fans.

I would say wait, tbh. I can see it becoming cheaper before too long.

While you can port over your games and play them in Wii mode for Wii U, that's really just a temporary measure, don't you think? Unless they're being tied to an account it seems like that will be dropped quicker than a stone come next gen (as in, I'd imagine you can't redownload them as you currently can't redownload them for free on Wii U anyway as non Wii mode titles). Even if I am wrong on that, see the next paragraph I make. With regards to comparisons to Sony; If you bought digital PS1 or PSP games on PSP, you can download them again at no extra cost on Vita, or just the PS1 games on PS3. I agree that this is hardly inclusive of all their stuff though, and generally why I am against a complete hardware backwards compatibility solution in general (too much effort to achieve for something that I think is less important than many people here make of it). Where Nintendo do come across a bit stingy though is in getting cross-buy deals with developers; games on both Wii U and 3DS are not typically cross buy between consoles, a bonus more commonplace on Sony consoles. The latest example of that is Shovel Knight. Anyway, the whole point to this comment was to point out that ultimately games are not really preserved this way, because eventually those consoles will be cut off from the net, meaning you can't download games to it any more and your access to 'the catalogue' is cut off. And if your console busts (which goes back to the original argument here - the best way to 'preserve' games) then you're locked into buying a new console to continue to play your games. For many, who might want to splash out a few quid on Mario Bros 3, that £200-300 entry cost just seems so counter-productive. It seems wiser to support devices people have anyway like Smart TVs so there is no extra cost. I take on board that a streaming service can also go down, but really the reasons for that seem harder to imagine providing the service works well and the plans are reasonably priced. To me, that'd be like arguing (assuming PS Now matures) that Netflix could also go down so watch Breaking Bad soon. Not likely though, is it? lol, what? Why would you think such a thing? Nintendo are all about software and nothing about logistics/common sense in this day and age. We are talking about the company who won't give people voice chat or modern graphics here. Nintendo's home console future also looks less certain due to tenuous third party relations and that uncertainty extends to any preservation strategy too. Going on feedback from the PS Now beta, they pretty much got the tech to the point that even tech-savy people on this forum with decent connections are happy with it: I'm not completely naive as I know there will be latency issues for some, and performance can depend on your line, but this is something that's only going to improve over time (both the service and broadband in general). To see people that I know who are quite discerning about technical quality happy with the service tells me that the Average Joes who might take this up will probably not be phased in the slightest by it being a streaming service. I think we'd be pretty blinkered to completely rule out streaming in future based on what we perceived of streaming over the past few years. This might be a message worth saving for future "I told you so" purposes. If it does then that makes more sense.

"That's right. It's unpleasant to meet mean players online, but on the other hand, there are times it feels too troublesome to communicate with players with good intentions, too." Where have we heard this before.

If console connectivity support is dropped, which it almost certainly will be after a time (the Wii is partway there), then you are left with only the games you have installed on the system. That's not preservation. That's what you already have by keeping old consoles lying around; games tied to the life of the console/disk. The argument from the beginning was about keeping games 'for posterity'. The games are not preserved in any way by this method unless you keep buying new consoles every so often. Streaming with PS Now has, from what I have heard from the people here who have been demoing it, been brought up to standard. You talk about latency issues but I'd bet a considerable sum that you haven't tried PS Now in its current trial period. As I've said, keeping games available 'forever' is a long-term plan, so it makes sense to invest in something that will naturally improve in a very short space of time. We've seen what streaming TV episodes has done to renting physically, and even its effect on buying. To many the question is likely "why buy this boxset at £80-100 a pop when I can watch it all on Netflix at just £6 a month." I can think of reasons why I would prefer to own stuff, but generally, I can see such a service being very popular. Not one person here has articulated anything better than I have. But don't take that to heart; I'm just very good at articulating points, if it's any consolation. Yet again, comparing this to phones and the app store is a mad joke because of the nature of the content being discussed. If Apple released a new update that rendered every previous app obsolete there would be chaos. PS4 launches with zero VC and look at that. To summarise: not the same, not a good comparison. A string in Nintendo's bow? As in, without it, Nintendo couldn't fire their arrows? You act as if VC is an essential component that if they were without, they'd be stuffed. The reality couldn't be further from the truth. Again, dat PS4 with zero VC - the money is in the new games. Lastly, Onlive was shit, while PS Now apparently runs well. That to me suggests the technology is now at a point where it is worth taking forward, or at least developing for a little while and making something of it. People would definitely subscribe if it became cheaper to play this way than buy the games (+console!) separately. For many, I imagine they'd have a small spark of interest to play an old classic and then after that they might not play anything for a while. Why buy a whole console for that? I can see no good reason why such cheap, £2-5 games should be locked behind a several hundred pound paywall. Locking in future Nintendo hardware/OS development in order to be able to continue to play these games, pretty much 'for the foreseeable' (as Dcubed said), is what I object to. Not because I wouldn't make use of it, but where is the money? Let's say Nintendo continue to struggle because let's be honest, third parties aren't exactly going to land in their lap. Nintendo continue on with their staunchly loyal but dwindling fanbase who have bought Super Metroid back on the Wii U. Now what? In 20 years time the same fans might still be playing this with their kids but at no extra cost to Nintendo. Yet Nintendo have to provide this download to people every time they get a new system, and they have to keep making their system able to play these games, all for no extra money. Sure, every console they get a new generation of games to start adding to the database, but realistically there is not much of a financial incentive for them to do this! The closest comparison to this would be Steam but in this case the availability of old games to download is obviously subsidised by the considerable amount of money they constantly have coming in from the multitude of developers who put their content through Steam. I'm sorry, but this is just completely untrue. Nowhere did I say the VC was to blame for the failure of the Wii U! Where are you even getting this? It's like you see some words on a page and rearrange them into something to make you suitably incensed with which to work with. What I said was that VC was not critically important enough to Nintendo's success as new games are (in the case of the competition, with zero VC and all new/spruced up games). And I demonstrated that by arguing no amount of VC is doing a jot to help turn around Wii U's fortunes. To answer the other part. Most gamers, that is the mainstream, have little enthusiasm for Nintendo's current first party output. That's just the way it is. Their games review well, but play out pretty much the same. Mario Kart 8, Mario Party 10, Zelda 6, or whatever. Many casual gamers that like Mario Kart would probably turn to their Wii before seeing point in reinvesting in a new console. You and I are going to disagree here, but the fundamental truth is that Nintendo's games alone (plus their VC catalogue) are not desirable enough on their own for suitably large numbers of gamers to adopt the console; hence, the console is not selling well. Even if you argue this is down to their graphics or online infrastructure, that still ties into this point because those negatives leave their marks on those games.

I can join but it'll be more like 8PM. That ok?

It's frustrating that you either haven't the time or the aptitude to actually read my argument. I'm arguing that developing your hardware and strategy around VC, something that is perhaps under-appreciated but regardless is so, is not the best of ideas. The fact Wii U VC isn't helping drive console sales is not my attempt to say VC is shit, or 'don't bother with it at all', rather a point that VC is not important enough to make such a major focus for all future hardware. I've never said don't bother with VC, or that it's not worth the time developing. I'm arguing there's a better way to go about it to preserve games for posterity, through streaming to everyone (IMO), rather than locking every single future console into this path and catering to only a small subset of gamers who continue to buy Nintendo home consoles.

Well I guess it wins that, but then there's pretty much fuck all else that falls into that category worth any note. :p Edit: hang on a mo. You saying this is more fun than Mario Galaxy and Sunshine? Some lols you're having there with us here, surely.

So you think if everyone was made aware that the Wii U had a VC and you could play Mario Bros etc. then they would all rush to buy the system? These are old games and I don't doubt when the Wii reached its peak that a lot of people that wanted these retro titles went and got them then. Really though, it's mostly all about the new games, or old games made shiny. That's where their main focus should be with VC as a small side project, IMO.

lulz, you and saying "straw man argument". Do you even know what it means? Here a straw man argument would be propping up an easy to defeat argument myself so that I could easily topple it. Yet I have done no such thing - the comment regarding the importance of VC and the need for Nintendo to centre their future hardware ambitions around this ('for posterity') was not argued initially by me, rather it was Dcubed. To topple this point, that Nintendo should focus their hardware around this goal, I only need to point out that VC is fairly unimportant to your average gamer and is unlikely to win Nintendo much support. And yeah, I'm going to bring in the failings of the Wii U. The fact the Wii U has so much other crap going on for it does not play down that VC games are not really doing anything to rescue it from this situation. You can bet your ass that if Minecraft was a Wii U exclusive with full online support that it would shift units. VC does not. Put simply, VC games have little drive in causing people to buy a console, and I even doubt they sell in significant numbers to everyone who even has the consoles, beyond that initial spike when a popular game is first available. So really, can you fault me for critcising focusing your hardware on providing something that, while nice to have, can be done in other ways that leave them free to chase other things with their system? Not just that, but Nintendo have shown with their mobile plans that they want to reach a bigger audience. Streaming to everyone versus providing to a dwindling number of people who are prepared to stump the cash to buy your home console. It's a no-brainer! Lastly, regarding the allure of the Wii U's exclusives, you're damn right I'm saying they're not resonating with most gamers today like they are in your sugar spiked brain. If they were, lots more people would buy the console, especially now that it's fairly cheap. Simple!

Man, don't compare this to BK. DK64 is not worthy to be in the same sentence.

Like bob says, nobody does. But if you are free to do everything you want to right now then that's great.

Actually it's more that you insisted you have 100% independence/freedoms even after you pretty much agreed you don't after people asked you whether you could do a list of things. Whether you are happy with that level of independence/freedoms is another matter, and nobody judges or looks down on you because of it.

A streaming library can be permanently available. The same can't be said for consoles being supported indefinitely (in terms of connection to the eShop). Streaming individual titles would pay for themselves so it doesn't make too much sense for them to remove any titles or kill the service. With downloaded titles, you're essentially limited to the life of the console or disk, once that console's online connectivity is dropped. That's not preservation and that's more or less the issue we're tackling here. Dcubed's solution is for each console to carry over the games, which I think is less than wise since VC plays such a small factor in console success, and to centre your hardware around this goal each time seems, to me, a little mad. If all you are wanted was to fire up Mario Bros 3 every once in a while and your console died, you'd also have to spend hundreds on a new system. PS Now's way is to continuously update the service to work on new devices that people already have; a method free from a dedicated console purchase. Most ISPs here don't. And even then, it obviously will change. It already has. We've gone from 56K to 150Mbit around here in the space of me growing up. You're kidding yourself if you think streaming isn't going to take off to an even greater extent in the future.

But it wouldn't do that. If people have a Wii with Mario Bros, Super Metroid, ALTTP, etc, all on their system....they can just fire up their Wii to replay these games. In fact, I don't doubt that's what people are already doing. Whether their games carry over or not is almost certainly going to be a rather small factor for most people. The overwhelming majority of people justify their new console purchases based on new games they want. I'm going back to the PS4 again, but just look at how it sells based on spec, upcoming games and features. It really is new content that is going to do it for Nintendo. Once your bread and butter VC titles have been around a while, they lose what little pull they ever really had to turn the tides for Nintendo. From what I have heard, most people who have trialed PS Now are happy with it, and it's only going to get better. I disagree that latency is not going to get better to the point that Nintendo would be happy with it. Nintendo were previously the champions of old school gaming free of in app purchases and removed from mobile gaming. Now look at them. What I'm saying is, don't treat them like saints because they've proven to do new things that will turn a buck. I'm sure they would approve of the level of quality of the service before too long. Whether they would adopt such a strategy is another matter though. As I've said, target everyone with a smart TV or compatible device, or just Nintendo console owners (which I don't doubt will continue to be a small proportion of gamers for the forseeable future). As the tech and costs to stream becomes cheaper, and it will, this only becomes a more and more logical angle to take.

It hasn't at all descended into that and trust you to make an argument out of something where there isn't one. Nobody is judging Serebii for living at home. What people are arguing is that you don't have the same level of independence and freedoms as when you have your own place. If he didn't argue against what is pretty clearly true then none of this would have happened.

And yet VC does not save the Wii U. That's the point I'm making. It's now priced reasonably, and it has a roster of great VC titles. And you know what? Hardly anyone cares. VC is not an influential factor in determining the success of a new console. And why would it be? The plan you propose is that pretty much every console from now will play all the consoles before it. So why bother buying the next console for VC? Also Onlive was shit, PS Now isn't. It makes no sense to compare them as the difference is light and day. If you can make a streaming service that works and people don't have to pay for a new console to play the games, it makes sense that it will become the new method of playing past retro games. Just look at what Netflix did to DVD rentals. As soon as Netflix became viable (ie broadband speeds could hack it), the rental shops died. You and I know that speeds and latency reduction continue to improve; in the same turn, so will streaming. Do you also know you need to pay £200-300 to buy a Nintendo console with a limited roster of new games relative to the other systems, just to play the VC games as they will be in the future? Suddenly VC games being available to everyone via streaming is potentially much more lucrative than having one system maybe hardly anyone wants as your selling front.

If quality of VC catalogue and the ability to play past games was so important then the Wii U would have sold a lot more than it has. VC might be considered important to you but it seems like you're thinking that means it's important to everyone. Truth is, it isn't really. What will do well for Nintendo is to make new games that people connect with; games like Minecraft are what the kids of today want. And to be honest, having your VC available on every console gives many people little reason to upgrade their system. See what I mean? It's the new games that make people want to buy a system. VC factors almost inconsequentially. Also regarding streaming being too expensive to maintain, clearly it isn't. It must be either profit making or reasonably close to doing so for a business to be centred around it. And this isn't a question of whether it's the bees knees now; my point has always been that it is clearly the future. A service that can be played by anyone without the need for costly additional hardware. It's just so obviously the way forward; if Joe Bloggs, a casual gamer with no consoles, wants to relive the old days in Super Mario Bros 3 then I'm sure he'd rather not pay a £200-300 up front cost for a console. He'd probably just stick to his Wii tbh!

Yeah I don't doubt you do, what I mean is that many people who want those titles have had plenty chance to grab them already. If you look at the system that's storming it right now it's the PS4; a system with no VC whatsoever. Thus, VC is not really much of a deciding factor at all for most gamers.

See here's the thing. VC just has so little pull for your average gamer. Right now, the Wii U plays host to many games that are critically acclaimed. And you know what? Most people hardly care. The console hardly sells, and you'll be lucky to see even 1 of these games chart every week. What doesn't make sense is to consider VC as some kind of system seller, or even at the very least, something Nintendo must champion. If A* rated new Wii U games don't sell the system well, you can be sure as shit a VC catalogue of Wii U games we've had plenty of chances to replay in the past years is going to prove more than a drop in the ocean in swaying consumers to your system, or even making much cash. Nice to have? Sure! But in any way meaningful to the success of the system? Not at all. Fast track to 20 years when the Wii U games available on the VC of the latest console look dogeared and people have already had maybe 5-10 years to pick up these games....do you see these games selling any better than they currently do now? I don't. I really, really don't. I think your quote above is somewhat telling and is really what I was getting at with regards to how sustainable this approach is. You said you can see them sticking to this 'for the foreseeable'. That to me doesn't sound like 'forever'. Rather, until some new technological leap comes along, or they change focus. Tell me, honestly, do you truly believe that 50 years from now they will be using a similar setup in order to play these games; games most people are past caring about? What's madness is to think there is any financial sense to this, or that it will even happen! Streaming really is the future and this isn't. Streaming completely removes the need to develop your primary console around past fossils that many care little for. Not only is streaming free from the shackles of consumer bought hardware, it is available to anyone. Sony are getting it to work on Smart TVs and then beyond, which means they can get it to everyone. Reach maximum audience, no comsumer hardware costs (beyond the controller and the continuously updated devices people buy anyway for other reasons) and for all intents and purposes, indefinite availability. As the tech improves even more, there's no reason why this won't become the most logical choice for VC distribution. Many people don't want to buy Nintendo consoles these days unless there is some must have gimmick, and Nintendo know it. They're not branching out to mobile for no reason, you know.

And in say, 30-40 years, do you still think they will be using hardware where they've kept the compatibility with every generation before? I certainly don't. It's a nice idea, but ultimately a pointless one as there is much more to be gained from tossing out the old and taking in the new. Many people who wanted Nintendo's back catalogue have had plenty opportunity already. And if you look at the HD remaster of Wind Waker, the money and the wow factor is in completely remaking your games and putting them out on the console of the time, even if they don't last forever. People will pay again for that great game they remember playing, with a new lick of paint. In the long term, streaming is where it's at; if not right now, definitely in the future.

Backwards compatibility can only go so far though. Eventually they will drop past systems because it's too expensive to make new consoles compatible with everything. It also makes no sense financially for them to make their new console compatible with games that are maybe 30-40 years old (talking about the future here). If anything, the future is streaming. From what I hear from the guys here who trialled PS Now, the tech is definitely getting there, if not almost there. On demand streaming of any game that you want, where every play of a game gives them back money and they needn't role out the technology to every new console owner. Especially important given that only the minority will realistically want to play old games on their new console anyway. After all, that's not really why you buy a new system, and many such nostalgia vultures keep their old consoles and games anyway...

No. 10char.

And yet, many also do. Still amazed at your parents' leniency at letting you do all that though, and your post not at all being BS to win arguments or nuthin'.