With the recent leak that Nintendo originally planned to do VC instead of NSO, we see the same arguments over and over about why NSO is a worse model. So I'm going to go through all of these arguments and prove why NSO is better.
NSO drip-feeds us rather than giving us more substantial updates more frequently.
I hate to break it to you, but so did the Wii/3DS/Wii U. If you think it didn't, you are suppressing your childhood memories. Here is when each game was released by Virtual Console in North America (that spreadsheet was a pain to make, so I'm not going to make one for non-American regions, someone else can do it if they want). As you can see, it was also a drip-feed. Now, yes, if you got one of these consoles nowadays and were somehow able to access its now-defunct digital storefront, then NOW you can access everything, but that's because these are consoles from previous generations. The Switch is technically still a current console, even if it is close to not being such anymore. So it still has updates yet to come.
Virtual Console games were cheaper than NSO.
No, they weren't. An NSO subscription gets you about 300 games with the Expansion Pack (an exact count will vary depending on whether you also download the Japanese versions of the NSO apps or not, as unlike the Wii/3DS/Wii U, the Switch is not region-locked). Now, let's say you wanted to buy 300 games on Virtual Console. How much would that cost? Well, hard to say, because it depends on the game. Some games went for $5, and some went for $10. I'm gonna lowball it and say that the average game was $6. Now… given that, it means that 300 games will cost you $1800. For that price, you could get THIRTY-SIX YEARS of Nintendo Switch Online + Expansion Pack. So, yeah, I think it's clear that NSO is the better deal from a financial perspective.
I'd like to be able to pick-and-choose what to buy.
I'm sure that some people genuinely prefer the old method where this was possible. Maybe you're one of them. But there are HUGE advantages to doing it with the new method of getting an entire library at once. So I wouldn't dismiss it outright. Now, for some games, like Mario and Zelda, it really doesn't matter which method of distribution is used. Either way, people will buy them in order to play these games and experience the classics. But what about games that aren't so mainstream? The only people who would buy them are the people who grew up with them and want to experience the nostalgia of their childhood. Which… is a minority, given that these games aren't mainstream. Even some mainstream games fall through the cracks. A perfect example is Sin and Punishment. Lots of people who played it loved it, but not every N64 owner had their own copy of it. And for someone who didn't, and therefore has never played the game before, it can be hard justifying that $10 cost for a Virtual Console copy. That's your own hard-earned cash, after all. But with NSO, there's no need to justify it, because you get it for free with your membership, at no additional cost beyond what you're already paying anyways for Mario and Zelda. This lets new fans experience the games and keeps them alive and relevant. I myself have discovered many hidden gems through NSO, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. So while some people may prefer the old model of being able to select games individually, I personally prefer the new model of getting the consoles' entire libraries.
You don't actually own a permanent copy of the game. Eventually, the NSO servers will go down.
Yeah, and eventually, your Wii will brick and you'll lose your Virtual Console purchases too. Sorry, but that's just going to happen at some point in the next million years. You don't own a permanent copy of a Virtual Console game either. That's just how digital purchases work. So… Virtual Console and NSO are in the same boat here.
You're missing the point! I still own a digital copy, but with NSO, nothing is actually "owned" by the player. It's just rented until NSO stops existing (or the player stops being a member). In other words, just pretend that my Wii/3DS/Wii U is somehow magically indestructible.
You still get NSO for as long as Nintendo plans to keep Nintendo Switch Online up. And… I'm not convinced that they'll ever stop. Now, yes, people can point at the precedent for this, and correctly point out that Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection on the DS and Wii was shut down, as was Nintendo Network on the 3DS and Wii U. But the difference is that those were free services. Meaning… Nintendo was operating them at a loss, because it isn't free for Nintendo to keep the servers up. They were losing money on it, so OF COURSE they were going to shut it down eventually. By contrast, Nintendo Switch Online is a paid service. Nintendo actually GAINS money off of operating it. Now, yes, eventually people will want to stop paying for it and then that will dry up a source of revenue, but until that happens… which seems unlikely to be any time soon, there's no reason for Nintendo to shut it down. In fact, they're incentivized to keep it up so that more people continue to pay them!
by lgosvse