*** Nintendo Switch ***

Another direct, another mass of old games being ported to the money printer.

I can’t imagine Nintendo foresaw this but the low power of the Switch has basically made it a port machine. Companies roll out their old games with minimal changes and make millions.

Very frustrating the lack of new IP or new entries in the main series.
 
Interesting observation for me anyway, the Megadrive controller isn't the 6 button version which although wasn't massively used was still required for some decent games.

I wonder what the logic there is.
 
Cavallino said:
https://www.neowin.net/news/nintend...ion-pack-will-add-n64-and-sega-genesis-games/

New games added to Switch online (but looks like they may "charge" extra for this which would be a bit of slap in the face.

You can see the N64 and megadrive controller.

Wouldnt mind picking them up.

E: just saw the N64 list. No Goldeneye. Fail but not unexpected.
Click to expand...
They will and are charging for the N64 and Megadrive games. They announced that it's a new tier of the service. But coat and other details will come later.
 
Cavallino said:
E: just saw the N64 list. No Goldeneye. Fail but not unexpected.
Click to expand...

How is that a fail? It’s an obvious licensing issue.

Goldeneye was a 3rd party title developed by Rare, now owned my Microsoft using IP owned by a bunch of other people.

I’d put money on that they simply just don’t own the rights to the game anymore and likely a bunch of other licensing and revenue sharing issues.
 
Cavallino said:
Please read the bit after the fail.
Click to expand...

I know it’s not unexpected but I just can’t see how it’s a ‘fail’ when it’s highly likely they legally can’t port/emulate and sell the game because it’s not actually theirs to sell. A fail implies a conscious decision like charging extra for N64 games.
 
I think your really clutching at straws there. They can’t sell you a game they don’t own, it’s really that simple.

Why isn’t <insert some other 3rd party N64 game> a fail because that isn’t included either? It just reeks of ‘I don’t like the announcement so I’m going to moan about it on the internet even though my point I’m moaning about isn’t even valid’.
 
b0rn2sk8 said:
I think your really clutching at straws there. They can’t sell you a game they don’t own, it’s really that simple.

Why isn’t <insert some other 3rd party N64 game> a fail because that isn’t included either? It just reeks of ‘I don’t like the announcement so I’m going to moan about it on the internet even though my point I’m moaning about isn’t even valid’.
Click to expand...

Because golden eye is a triple A title and my expectation would be that such a service should include such classics which Golden eye is one (rather than any other title as you mentioned). Hence FOR ME it's a fail as a consumer. But is not unexpected due to licensing issues. Not clutching at straws. It's expressing my opinion and not "moaning"..
 
Cavallino said:
Because golden eye is a triple A title and my expectation would be that such a service should include such classics which Golden eye is one (rather than any other title as you mentioned). Hence FOR ME it's a fail as a consumer. But is not unexpected due to licensing issues. Not clutching at straws. It's my opinion and not "moaning"..
Click to expand...
If Nintendo made the game I could maybe see your point. But it was developed by Rare and is likely never to appear. So it's not a fail as much as its an impossibility.
 
Yup, especially when you consider the XBL remaster back in the early 2000’s was effectively blocked by Nintendo.

I can’t see MS wanting to agree for it to be sold on Nintendo when they can’t sell it on XB either.

The irony is that if they sold it on both systems they’d make more money than 0 while everyone else just plays it in an emulator.
 
steve5424 said:
If Nintendo made the game I could maybe see your point. But it was developed by Rare and is likely never to appear. So it's not a fail as much as its an impossibility.
Click to expand...

As I said. It's not unexpected (due to licensing) which is understandable.
But for me it's a fail because it's the consumer who loses out due to technicalities such as licensing issues.

It's like if they released an N64 mini with no Goldeneye. A game which defines the N64. Again licensing issues understandable. But it's a kick in the nut to the gaming community/consumer that one of the very games that defined the console is not available. .
 
b0rn2sk8 said:
Yup, especially when you consider the XBL remaster back in the early 2000’s was effectively blocked by Nintendo.

I can’t see MS wanting to agree for it to be sold on Nintendo when they can’t sell it on XB either.

The irony is that if they sold it on both systems they’d make more money than 0 while everyone else just plays it in an emulator.
Click to expand...

Precisely. Think sonic is now openly available on Nintendo platforms. But not Goldeneye.

Who would have thought that sonic would appear on a ninty platform 2 decades ago eh?
 
Well Sega’s hardware business collapsed so it’s not that’s not strange at all. It was either sell on other platforms and survive or die. They chose the former.
 
This is clear but my intention was to explain that irrespective of Sega's hardware woes that licensing the games to other platforms helped them to survive and make more money.

I.e it would be good if Rare/MS would consider this model!
 
I think it would be better described as a disappointment that Goldeneye isn't appearing, rather than a fail. A 'fail' kind of implies someone dropped the ball and stuffed it up.

Nobody has really failed at doing anything here, it's just a game that isn't appearing because of the licensing mess it ended up in years ago, which is disappointing as a consumer but to be expected.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom