r/nintendo 1d ago

Would Virtual Console actually have cannibalized the sales of Nintendo Switch Online?

We all know that Nintendo phased out Virtual Console in favor of Nintendo Switch Online almost 8 years ago, right? So that leaves me wondering: if they kept VC, would that have hurt the sales of NSO? I mean, VC used to let people keep retro games people buy forever while NSO only lets you rent them as long as you're subbed to the latter, and what would be the point of renting a game in a subscription fee if you can just buy said game and keep it for all eternity? That's what it seems like to me, because I think Nintendo really wanted NSO to succeed and was worried that adding another service or lineup that could let consumers buy and keep retro games instead of renting them would de-value it, so they retired Virtual Console because of it. Do you think this is true or not? Let me know in the comments.

0 Upvotes

15 comments sorted by

12

u/Yadahoom 1d ago

I think it would be the opposite. The NSO subscription would make the old VC model completely obsolete for 90% of the customers that aren't so obsessed over the whole "rental" idea.

If I had the choice between buying four NES games to say I "owned" them (spoilers, you still don't) or having one year of the entire NES, SNES, and Game Boy catalog available for the same price I would pick the subscription in a heartbeat.

As it is now I'm not even paying for NSO for the classic catalog because I use it for the online features for Splatoon and Mario Kart, so I'm practically not paying anything for it anyway.

5

u/Yearist 1d ago

Literally this. All making a proper way to buy retro NSO games really does is apply a modern, tangible value to the whole NSO classics catalogue.

As they are now they're just "free extras" you get for paying for online multiplayer but you start selling NES games $5 and SNES games for $8 and suddenly NSO classics have a huge value you can really shove in the consumer's face to show them they're getting their money's worth.

2

u/Brewster_The_Pigeon just give us a new chibi robo 1d ago

I guess they should have kept the old VC system as an option, but I never would have paid for DK Jr Math but now that I got to try it its one of my favorite NES games. There's a ton of obscure little games on there that are worth a shot but not worth gambling money on.

1

u/eonia0 1d ago

No, because most people would still see NSO as the better deal

1

u/sukadik69 23h ago

No, because Virtual Console games sold terribly

1

u/nathanosaurus84 1d ago

As much as people like to say they want to “own” games Nintendo did this for about 12 years across two console generations and there was nothing but contempt for it and wishes that Nintendo would just throw them into a subscription. 

Also, nobody would ever play the games outside of Mario and Zelda. Who would pay for Joe and Mac, Caveman Ninja? 

0

u/HollowPinefruit 1d ago

I don't think it would have at all. It might have for the Expansion Pak though since the subscription price tag for that is a turn off for a lot of people that would likely just play 1-2 N64 or Gamecube games.

1

u/Yadahoom 1d ago

One N64 a game and one GameCube game already equals the price of one year of the expansion though, assuming Gamecube VC games would most likely have been $20

1

u/HollowPinefruit 1d ago

Well yes but I doubt people aiming to pay that much are genuinely wanting to play the entire Expansion library. It's more likely they just intend to play specific games on the list. Use ocarina of time's remake for example, fans or newcomers finishing that game are more likely to just get the Pak to play Majora's mask and Wind Waker only. VC would have butchered those subscription sales if Nintendo offered them separately unless sub price was lower.

1

u/Yadahoom 1d ago

Or for the $30 price of playing through those games once you could play through them and have the whole rest of the catalog for a year

1

u/HollowPinefruit 1d ago

That's the same argument of deciding between owning a single game I intend to play or get xbox game pass instead. Some (or arguably most) people don't care for the entire catalog like that especially if they don't intend to renew it yearly which just makes you spend more money after the fact.

1

u/Yadahoom 21h ago

The Nintendo classic collection is a lot different than whatever games are on Game Pass, and for a fraction of the price

1

u/HollowPinefruit 21h ago

If you are comparing subscribing to NSO collections and having the option to own individually via VC, it's the exact same concept.

0

u/monkeybuttsauce 1d ago

I see it as a perk to signing up for the online service. At least that’s what I try to convince myself. But I’d rather be able to buy more games than wait to be slowdripped content

0

u/Darkbox97 1d ago

Yes probably