Why is Nintendo taking too long to add new N64 games to Nintendo Switch Online?

[Alolan_Apples]

We’ve gone three months without a new N64 game on Nintendo Switch Online, and there’s only five months left this year. Yet, they promised us six N64 games this year for NSO, but we only got two as of this date. I’m beginning to think that Nintendo is no longer a reliable company when it comes to making and keeping promises.

What is taking them too long to upload new N64 games? What’s the holdup? We used to get one a month, but then they’ve slowed down. They also don’t have Diddy Kong Racing, Donkey Kong 64, Banjo-Tooie, Hey You Pikachu, or Super Smash Bros in their library or one of their planned releases from last September’s direct.

 

[Corrie]

But we're not allowed to go emulate them instead lol. Like come on.

 

[Alolan_Apples]

But we're not allowed to go emulate them instead lol. Like come on.

When you’re purposely refusing to distribute older games that you own, piracy is justified. Yes, it’s illegal, and in a case like this, it’s vigilantism. But it’s not a good business practice to purposely refuse distribution of older media. Disney does have a good reason to keep Song of the South out of the public, but Nintendo does not have a good reason to keep N64 and GameCube games out of the public.

If we can’t emulate their games without DMCA takedowns, we can still steal their ideas from older games, but with different stories, levels, and characters. Original franchises and stories, but gameplay and mechanics are the same.

 

[Captain Jigglypuff]

Hey You Pikachu won’t be one of the games on the service due to it requiring a microphone in order for the game to function properly. The Switch has no built in microphone and not everyone has a Bluetooth head set or smart phone or even wants one just to play one N64 game.

 

[Foreverfox]

I don’t think they have to redistribute anything. Anything they redistribute is really a blessing and not anything we’re owed in any way. They own the content, and therefore, they’re allowed to do what they want with it. That could include locking it up in a vault and never releasing it again. And because they own it, they are allowed to go after anyone who tries to illegally source their product. Sure they said they would release it, but maybe there’s a reason behind the delay that we can’t see and don’t know, and maybe there will be something better that comes out of it because of that. Always try to find the positive.

 

[Belle T]

Remember that when N64 was first introduced to NSO, it was plagued with emulation issues. The majority of which have been resolved to a level of satisfaction that a casual player would probably find acceptable, but it's still the least preferable way to play the majority of the games on the service. I don't think that's why there haven't been more games on the service, as I'm sure if they really cared, they could easily sort out the issues. But I do suspect that perhaps they might want to cut their losses and not hire a team to do that again unless they have something specific they wish to promote.

I don’t think they have to redistribute anything. Anything they redistribute is really a blessing and not anything we’re owed in any way.

People are literally paying money for their service, on which redistribution of older titles is literally one of the primary selling points. They aren't Santa's elves working tirelessly to bring cheer to all the good little boys and girls out of the kindness of their own hearts. Nintendo is a multibillion dollar corporation who wants your money and nothing more, nothing less. They are not a blessing; they are a transaction. And as is the case with any transaction, if a company wants us to give us their hard-earned money (in the midst of a global recession, no less) then they do owe it to us to create a service that is worth paying that money in the first place.

This is why I don't subscribe to NSO, despite how much better my experience with games such as Animal Crossing or Smash Ultimate would be if I did. I simply do not consider the service to be worth the asking price. And it's perfectly fair for people who are paying for it to complain that the service that they are parting with previously $20 and now $50 of their hard-earned money (an amount which historically could have covered a one-time purchase of many older games, but now only entitles them to lesser versions of only a small handful) is not meeting their expectations.

They own the content, and therefore, they’re allowed to do what they want with it. That could include locking it up in a vault and never releasing it again.

And they can be criticized for that all the same. Asking for people to pay for something that they're not selling to begin with is... er, you know... bad business. It's also a mindset that only executives and shareholders (i.e. the people who already filthy rich) seem to hold, whereas ground level developers (i.e. the people actually creating the games and don't make nearly as much money) have been either indifferent to or have been appreciative of the preservationist efforts largely attributed to people finding alternative ways to archive and play older titles. The idea that we should allow companies to have sole control over how a game is distributed, particularly again if they are not even selling it, is frankly ridiculous.

And because they own it, they are allowed to go after anyone who tries to illegally source their product.

Legally, it's their right, but exploiting the legal system's historic inability to distinguish nuance in order to ruin people's lives over minor offenses is usually considered a morally bad thing to do.

Always try to find the positive.

That's really not an appropriate usage of this phrase, but I'll just conclude with this: As I stated, Nintendo is a multibillion dollar corporation, and these kind of uncritical takes hold them to a standard that is both not in line with basic human interaction, but also allows them to get away with much worse offenses, such as manufacturing their hardware using conflict minerals, or abusing their employees with unpaid overtime and fostering a toxic work environment, or any other number of terrible things. And if I may speak from a little bit of experience, this sort of mindset does come back to haunt you. Not necessarily in direct consequences, but as corporations continue to gain more influence and power over every aspect of life, ultimately leading to disastrous results when they fail as we are currently seeing with Twitter.

I'm not saying this to guilt you or anyone about enjoying Nintendo products. I own a Switch, I play Nintendo games. They've been my favorite publisher for as long as I can remember. But it's not negative, cynical, or pessimistic to understand the costs of your favorite entertainment or to be critical of the shortcomings of the organizations that bring them to you. Nor is it positive to be uncritical of them to the extent of framing criticism of their service under the lens of who is owed what.

 

[Foreverfox]

Remember that when N64 was first introduced to NSO, it was plagued with emulation issues. The majority of which have been resolved to a level of satisfaction that a casual player would probably find acceptable, but it's still the least preferable way to play the majority of the games on the service. I don't think that's why there haven't been more games on the service, as I'm sure if they really cared, they could easily sort out the issues. But I do suspect that perhaps they might want to cut their losses and not hire a team to do that again unless they have something specific they wish to promote.


People are literally paying money for their service, on which redistribution of older titles is literally one of the primary selling points. They aren't Santa's elves working tirelessly to bring cheer to all the good little boys and girls out of the kindness of their own hearts. Nintendo is a multibillion dollar corporation who wants your money and nothing more, nothing less. They are not a blessing; they are a transaction. And as is the case with any transaction, if a company wants us to give us their hard-earned money (in the midst of a global recession, no less) then they do owe it to us to create a service that is worth paying that money in the first place.

This is why I don't subscribe to NSO, despite how much better my experience with games such as Animal Crossing or Smash Ultimate would be if I did. I simply do not consider the service to be worth the asking price. And it's perfectly fair for people who are paying for it to complain that the service that they are parting with previously $20 and now $50 of their hard-earned money (an amount which historically could have covered a one-time purchase of many older games, but now only entitles them to lesser versions of only a small handful) is not meeting their expectations.


And they can be criticized for that all the same. Asking for people to pay for something that they're not selling to begin with is... er, you know... bad business. It's also a mindset that only executives and shareholders (i.e. the people who already filthy rich) seem to hold, whereas ground level developers (i.e. the people actually creating the games and don't make nearly as much money) have been either indifferent to or have been appreciative of the preservationist efforts largely attributed to people finding alternative ways to archive and play older titles. The idea that we should allow companies to have sole control over how a game is distributed, particularly again if they are not even selling it, is frankly ridiculous.


Legally, it's their right, but exploiting the legal system's historic inability to distinguish nuance in order to ruin people's lives over minor offenses is usually considered a morally bad thing to do.


That's really not an appropriate usage of this phrase, but I'll just conclude with this: As I stated, Nintendo is a multibillion dollar corporation, and these kind of uncritical takes hold them to a standard that is both not in line with basic human interaction, but also allows them to get away with much worse offenses, such as manufacturing their hardware using conflict minerals, or abusing their employees with unpaid overtime and fostering a toxic work environment, or any other number of terrible things. And if I may speak from a little bit of experience, this sort of mindset does come back to haunt you. Not necessarily in direct consequences, but as corporations continue to gain more influence and power over every aspect of life, ultimately leading to disastrous results when they fail as we are currently seeing with Twitter.

I'm not saying this to guilt you or anyone about enjoying Nintendo products. I own a Switch, I play Nintendo games. They've been my favorite publisher for as long as I can remember. But it's not negative, cynical, or pessimistic to understand the costs of your favorite entertainment or to be critical of the shortcomings of the organizations that bring them to you. Nor is it positive to be uncritical of them to the extent of framing criticism of their service under the lens of who is owed what.

I think all of that is fair, but also, if you don’t like someone’s business practices, don’t do business with them. Corporations don’t care if one person doesn’t like something they’re doing or not doing. There is still time until the end of the year for them to deliver…my point is, wait and see what the end of the year brings, it could be what people paid for and more, you don’t know.

I don’t have anything else to add to this, anything else would just be reiterating, which doesn’t contribute to anything. I hope you all have better experiences with Nintendo.

 

[Alolan_Apples]

I don’t think they have to redistribute anything. Anything they redistribute is really a blessing and not anything we’re owed in any way. They own the content, and therefore, they’re allowed to do what they want with it. That could include locking it up in a vault and never releasing it again. And because they own it, they are allowed to go after anyone who tries to illegally source their product. Sure they said they would release it, but maybe there’s a reason behind the delay that we can’t see and don’t know, and maybe there will be something better that comes out of it because of that. Always try to find the positive.

The only thing I have to agree with you on is their right to use DMCA takedowns of fan games and unauthorized distribution of their games. After all, how would you feel if you made some creation, and then someone else made profit off of your creation or if some fan work of your creation was a huge insult to your vision (like Kamp Koral was to SpongeBob)?

What I’m against is not letting any newer or current generations of gamers have access to their older games, especially if they acknowledged that their older fans want to play their older games on newer systems. For instance, Super Mario 3D All Stars was only given a 6-month run on the shelves, with SMG2 being excluded from the collection. It doesn’t help that newer games have been disappointing in many aspects. Sure they don’t have to re-release older games, but there are many nostalgic fans who prefer to stick to the older games than newer games, and older consoles are out of print, increasingly harder to obtain, and wearing out after years of usage. And Nintendo catered to the nostalgic fans for a while.

 

[Halloqueen]

I expect that Nintendo is probably focusing more on whatever console they'll be releasing next and are slowing down on the Switch. Which isn't to say they're necessarily abandoning it entirely yet, just prioritizing the future. The Switch is over 6 years old now. I saw rumblings a while back and even saw a headline today about a potential next console being in the works for a release next year. Granted, news outlets have been saying stuff like that for practically as long as the Switch has been on the market, but the longer lifespan a console has, the more likely a successor is around the corner. I also recall recently hearing that new sales for the Switch were lower than Nintendo had projected.

As for the point about Nintendo being able to do whatever they want with their older games, this is true, but there is a hunger out there among the Nintendo community for these older games. A bunch of these games that they're slapping onto Nintendo Switch Online were previously released on the Wii, 3DS and Wii U as part of their Virtual Console and were available for individual purchase from the eShop. There were many, many more to choose from too! Withholding these and other games to dripfeed to the consumer after they already had that precedent merely comes off as moneygrubbing. Also just going to echo Belle T's post, they made a lot of good points.

 

[Mr.Fox]

Corporations don’t care if one person doesn’t like something they’re doing or not doing.

In general, this is a hard truth that people have trouble accepting. They like to think they matter, but they don't.

Case in point, I had a woman tell me today that she'll be switching pharmacies because our wait times are too long. My reply was just 'that's your decision' and she stormed off. Did she honestly think her absent patronage alone would put my store out of business? We process (on average) 1,500 prescriptions daily. If anything she's helping me out by leaving lol

 

[Belle T]

Corporations don’t care if one person doesn’t like something they’re doing or not doing.

I mean, that's not necessarily wrong, but it also kind of completely undermines the point you're trying to make? For that matter, I'm not pretending we live in a state of complete democracy where the squeaky wheel always gets the grease, but to pretend companies have never altered their strategies in response to outcry from the community is slightly disingenuos.

But under that same notion...

, if you don’t like someone’s business practices, don’t do business with them.

That would be the perfect solution if a business that did not engage in morally bankrupt behavior actually existed. But they don't. All companies do, and not just in the games industry. Every transaction you make is a trade-off of values of some sort, whether it be a luxury item or a necessity. That's why I went on the "not trying to guilt people" tangent because not only would it be hypocritical, but also because many of these issues are much larger than any of us put together.

The only thing I have to agree with you on is their right to use DMCA takedowns of fan games and unauthorized distribution of their games. After all, how would you feel if you made some creation, and then someone else made profit off of your creation or if some fan work of your creation was a huge insult to your vision (like Kamp Koral was to SpongeBob)?

I actually don't agree with this, either. First, these things don't exist in binary. There are different degrees to the situation. If someone is directly taking your work and claiming credit for it as though they made it, then sure, that's terrible. But most fan works are distributed free and have disclaimers every which way stating that it is a fan game and not affiliated with Nintendo. And even if they did try to sell it, companies like Valve don't seem to mind. Hunt Down the Freeman is a fan game that can be bought on Steam to this day, even though everyone involved in the project wishes that you couldn't.

Second, I don't think companies should be allowed to decide what is considered proper distribution of their games. Reminder that Nintendo tried suing Blockbuster because they didn't like people renting their games. Or how the video games industry at large has been antagonistic towards the used game market. Alternative vendors allows for competition, which means more choices for the consumer, which is only a good thing. Granted, I don't believe people should be making money from selling ROM's or anything like that, but that's also generally not what's happening.

I suppose to the latter point, if someone made a fan project and it goes against my creative vision, then... honestly that's their right. Again, provided they are transparent about the fact that it is a fan project and isn't affiliated with me, then I feel it is kind of unsporting at the very least to deny people their right to creative expression. Granted, that doesn't mean I'd have to like it. But no matter what the law says, I think it is a severe overreach, particularly if the party in question is a corporation with enough power and influence to override that of any fan project.

Finally, I don't think Kamp Koral is a particularly good comparison. It's not a fan project; it was created by Nickelodeon and Viacom, who own the rights to the SpongeBob IP (in the same way that Nintendo owns Mario, not Shigeru Miyamoto). No amount of copyright protection would have prevented the spin-off from releasing. The backlash to the show stems from the fact that Nickelodeon (allegedly) waited until Hillenburg's death to announce it, because they (allegedly) knew that he would publicly speak out against it, not because it infringes upon his intellectual property.

To be clear, I hate Kamp Koral. I find it to be a rather charmless cash-in from a series that lost its luster a long, long time ago. But I think legality should not play a factor in that. Because we do not want governments to decide what is and is not congruent with another person's (particularly a dead person, who is no longer here to speak their opinion) creative ideology.

 

[Corrie]

I think all of that is fair, but also, if you don’t like someone’s business practices, don’t do business with them. Corporations don’t care if one person doesn’t like something they’re doing or not doing. There is still time until the end of the year for them to deliver…my point is, wait and see what the end of the year brings, it could be what people paid for and more, you don’t know.

I don’t have anything else to add to this, anything else would just be reiterating, which doesn’t contribute to anything. I hope you all have better experiences with Nintendo.

I'm not really a fan of the "don't like, don't buy" mentality because it basically tells those who have critiques about a company to just shut up and deal with it and that the business' practices are okay. I think it's healthy to express concerns and talk about it. But it's also okay for someone to like their games all the same. Do I like some of Nintendo's games? Of course. But that doesn't mean I can't dislike stuff about Nintendo as a company.

 

[Alolan_Apples]

@Belle T Before I talk about the DMCA thing, I would like to say that the Kamp Koral comparison may not been a good one, but I brought it up because it was simply an insult, not a fan project.

Back to the DMCA takedowns, I didn’t know Nintendo used to be extremely strict about how their games were distributed. To me, this shows that Nintendo is one of the biggest copyright nazis in the entire global economy, not just the gaming industry. If they’re going to sue 12-year-olds for making fan games (yes, they actually did that), are they going to sue ordinary people for comparing them to the Gestapo or the Taliban over their DMCA takedowns?

But we should really return to the original discussion, which was why Nintendo isn’t releasing N64 games on NSO like they promised from last year’s Direct, if they were going to release one game a month from last year. You may answer the comparison question from above, but after that, let’s stop talking about the DMCA takedown topic.

 

[MiniPocketWorld]

I think the reason why they are moving like molasses on adding more to the NOS is because they want to wait until they launch a remake and most people buy the remake. After playing the remake, it is unlikely that the majority of players will also play the older version on the NOS. And then be able to compare the old and new.
All of this is personal opinion of course.
I personally feel that the quality of Nintendo games have gone down. Sure the graphics often look fantastic (though they may not run all that smoothly all the time... lag) but I feel like there are little details and such that are left out. Game series are becoming shorter or have features left out or less features. Some may say it is nostalgia talking, but I have played some older games not that long ago that I have never played before, and I still feel like they are better quality than some of the stuff Nintendo is cranking out today. They just may not look as nice, but the content and experience is better (IMPO).
I think it is a business strategy on the development side of things for the long term. I also think that is part of the thing with drip feeding content that would normally be on the cartridge on day one in the past. It makes it seem like they have added more but honestly, they didn't.
I am not sure why this is happening. It could be money, or it could be how much time and resources these better today graphics are taking.

EDIT
I want to clarify I am talking about the whole NOS retro game thing.. and not just N64 games themselves.

 

[DarthGohan1]

Came across this thread and credit is due, Nintendo came through with not 6, but 7 N64 gamaes added to NSO this year. 3 games came in the last month of the year, but 2 of the 3 being excellent games (Jet Force Gemini and Harvest Moon), so better late than never!

Although... there were 11 games released in 2022, so a bit disappointing that they've slowed down. I imagine it's only going to get worse if Switch 2 comes out next year, too. And I wish they'd let us play Custom Robo, it's still Japan exclusive!

 

[Alolan_Apples]

It’s a good thing that all the N64 games they announced back in September 2022 are on NSO. The next thing I wish for is Donkey Kong 64 to be added, as well as Diddy Kong Racing, which hasn’t even been announced. I guess I’ll have to wait until February to find out.

I predict that fewer games will come out next year, but there’s not much left to complete the library.

 

[PacV]

I'm still waiting for more GBA games, Diddy Kong Racing, DK 64 and Smash Bros 64 with online!

 

[Alolan_Apples]

I'm still waiting for more GBA games, Diddy Kong Racing, DK 64 and Smash Bros 64 with online!

Now I understood why Diddy Kong Racing, as well as Banjo Kazooie, Goldeneye, both Pokémon Stadium games, Hey You Pikachu, Banjo-Tooie, Conker’s Bad Fur Day, and Mario Party 1 were omitted from the Virtual Console on previous systems. It’s because of licensing issues, external hardware requirements, or (in case of Mario Party 1) safety issues. But since Microsoft made a deal with Nintendo, and since they don’t care about the transfer pak thing anymore, Nintendo decided to include all these games on NSO (or are impending to be added).

What I don’t understand is, why wouldn’t they add Donkey Kong 64 or Super Smash Bros? They are Nintendo property that don’t require external hardware (like how a Wii game requires a Wii mote or how the Labo games require the Nintendo Labo kit). If there’s no reason to omit some game, then they shouldn’t omit it at all.

 

[Snap Crackle Pop]

I really miss the old virtual console that the wii had, yeah you had to buy the games but it made it a lot easier to get and I feel like Nintendo would have put it out faster if people had to individually buy the virtual console games. It was less of a hassle honestly. I feel like they probably aren't worried or focusing on NSO since a new gaming system is coming out soon no? Or is in the works of being made so the Switch's lifecycle is almost over. I really wish they would add more games to NSO, and I wish they were faster at releasing them but there could be issues that we just are unaware of. (I really really want them to add twilight princess from gamecube and windwaker as well but that probably won't happen anytime soon.)

I think yeah it's good to complain and criticize a company, but sometimes if you are really that unhappy then don't get NSO, I'm not saying to stop buying Nintendo products but if NSO is that much of an issue don't buy it.

 

[McRibbie]

N64 NSO is coming out as slowly as I'd expect it to given it's the second year of the service and the available pool of N64 games has never been very big, even back when it was being sold piecemeal on the Virtual Console (NSO's library of 31 titles is 10 titles more than either the Wii or Wii U had, even considering the 4 or 5 titles NSO doesn't have). Going by the fact that they've added another Rareware title for the launch of the Japanese 18+ app, can probably expect a couple more of those to come out this year, but I think we're going to get another 8 titles max this year (think it's quite likely that we're getting Smash Bros and Donkey Kong 64 but the rest is very much up in the air imo.). It also still needs to make its emulator less rubbish, because while it's still an improvement on the state it was in at launch it's still in need of improvement.

imo the main "why is this coming so slowly?!" is the Game Boy and Game Boy Advance libraries. They're massive! Even considering purely first-party stuff they can easily put on there there's a good 50-70 titles they can put out on each one, yet GB NSO's only getting updated when they're updating the base-tier NSO apps (and those got a decent amount of titles during their first year), and GBA's sharing the Expansion Pack slot with the N64 emulator (and getting the exact same amount of titles afterwards as it's getting this year, but imo it's getting a better deal than GB NSO is rn). Bring on the first three generations of Pokémon! Super Mario Land! The other 3 Wario Land games!