Why don't Nintendo just port their old games

[Grim Reaper]

Ever since yesterday I got this urge to play Ocarina Of Time, I played it a few years back and I do own it just don't got the charger for my 3DS anymore so I'd have to get a new one. Regarding their old N64 titles however, I seriously don't get why Nintendo still just holds onto them? It's not like you can even get an N64 anymore lol, other than that one shop in Japan or if you don't live in Japan you just find it from a third party.

Wouldn't it just be more profitable to port these old games to PC and potentially other systems? I mean it can't possibly be that hard and probably a hell of a lot more profitable than just holding onto them. Especially considering the respect these games still have.

[Ulfrinn]

引用自 crunchyfrog：

引用自 Ulfrinn：

They don't need to be reworked, nor is it even an invasive procedure to do it. The REBirth people have already done it. Their patch is dragging and dropping a couple DLLs into the install folder and suddenly it runs at modern resolutions with full controller support. Many old games on Steam and GOG don't even include those improvements, and it's easy enough for fans to do themselves. The only thing Capcom needs to do is release them digitally so people don't have to go to questionable websites of questionable legality to get them.

The tweaks are little more than a .DLL designed to run the game in a version of DirectX compatible with modern GPUs (Usually DirectX 9) and to identify inputs from xinput controllers in a way the game recognizes. These are small tweaks. In fact, there are third party apps that wrap earlier versions of DirectX to DX9, and the Xidi mod is a dll that adds xinput controller support to most games of that era.

As long as people are given a safe and legal way to acquire the original games, someone like me can teach them which tweaks to make for optimal performance.

You are so missing the point.

For bedroom coders to do something that inlves very little.

But it absolutely does if you're the rights holder as you have all the legalities, publishing and so on, at minimum.

So sorry they do a cost effective study and they clearly realise it's not worth it.

Unless you demosntrate it is, you got nothing.

What are you even talking about at this point? All the legalities in publishing and so on? Such as? What does that have to do with anything and how is it any kind of obstacle to Capcom releasing their old games digitally? Again, most games of that era released on digital storefronts aren't even patched to run correctly on modern hardware, they're completely raw.

[crunchyfrog]

引用自 Ulfrinn：

引用自 crunchyfrog：

You are so missing the point.

For bedroom coders to do something that inlves very little.

But it absolutely does if you're the rights holder as you have all the legalities, publishing and so on, at minimum.

So sorry they do a cost effective study and they clearly realise it's not worth it.

Unless you demosntrate it is, you got nothing.

What are you even talking about at this point? All the legalities in publishing and so on? Such as? What does that have to do with anything and how is it any kind of obstacle to Capcom releasing their old games digitally? Again, most games of that era released on digital storefronts aren't even patched to run correctly on modern hardware, they're completely raw.

I became aware of what happens behind the scenes when I wrote as a freelance writer for the Ofificial PS mag and a few others. It ain't as simple as you seem to thin kit is.

For example, as I said we're talking a re-release of these games. That means new legal work. Capcom would need to go to their lawyers and make sure that copyright and publishing is all up to date and tied up for these new entreis (yes even if they're re-releases).

Then they'd need to arrange agreements with the respective platforms they wish to sell on.
And they DO need to do testing and coding unlike what you think as Capcom would likely be putting this on consoles too, so there's a MASSIVE book that each of the console manufactueres have that they must abide by before the get accepted (I can't recall the name off hand).

In short, again it doesn't work how you think.

All that time and money must be made back and they seem to think it's not cost efective.

Don't believe me? Go and ask anyone that works in development for a major.

[Plaid]

I wonder if Sony is doing better now that they've entered the PC market in a bigger way, actually letting their exclusives go! (that still amazes me).
I know Nintendo makes profit on their hardware, so maybe they need those golden IP's to draw people to their (otherwise quite weak) consoles.

I wish we could do an experiment but that would require Nintendo playing along and they won't :)

(come on Nintendo, just ONE game, ffs...)

[sleeps]

in my opinion, they just won't. if they do it, it will be like blowing your own foot. i bet it won't work financially. beside their exclusive games, the only way they make profit is their own console and services. if they did port their games to pc, their console will be obsolete (not completely obsolete but you can see that i think). this is worse when valve is involved with their steam deck

if sony did it then why don't nintendo? from what i've seen, how sony did it because they focus on accessibility. which in itself is a good thing. plus, sony did more than gaming like... well... anything else which is the reason why they succeed

look. i didn't actually do my homework so take this in a grain of salt. this feel more like a baseless rant rather than a factual buzzword fact or something

[Grim Reaper]

引用自 sleeps：

in my opinion, they just won't. if they do it, it will be like blowing your own foot. i bet it won't work financially. beside their exclusive games, the only way they make profit is their own console and services. if they did port their games to pc, their console will be obsolete (not completely obsolete but you can see that i think). this is worse when valve is involved with their steam deck

if sony did it then why don't nintendo? from what i've seen, how sony did it because they focus on accessibility. which in itself is a good thing. plus, sony did more than gaming like... well... anything else which is the reason why they succeed

look. i didn't actually do my homework so take this in a grain of salt. this feel more like a baseless rant rather than a factual buzzword fact or something

I was talking about their old games, of course the newest Zelda coming out soon doesn't have any reason to come to PC.

[Pierce Dalton]

Because they want you to buy a Switch.

Simple, isn't it?

[Pierce Dalton]

引用自 Ulfrinn：

There are business related reasons why Capcom won't release the first four Resident Evil games on newer hardware either. They do try to suppress the existance of RE1, RE2, RE: Nemesis, and RE: Code Veronica so they can sell us their remakes. IMO, that's far more egregious than anything Nintendo does anyway.

At least they kept the original RE4 on Steam, unlike Rockstar which removed the original GTA trilogy.

As for the older RE games (123), I guess they don't even run on modern OS's. And CV never was ported to PC, sadly.

[Brian9824]

引用自 Grim Reaper：

Ever since yesterday I got this urge to play Ocarina Of Time, I played it a few years back and I do own it just don't got the charger for my 3DS anymore so I'd have to get a new one. Regarding their old N64 titles however, I seriously don't get why Nintendo still just holds onto them? It's not like you can even get an N64 anymore lol, other than that one shop in Japan or if you don't live in Japan you just find it from a third party.

Wouldn't it just be more profitable to port these old games to PC and potentially other systems? I mean it can't possibly be that hard and probably a hell of a lot more profitable than just holding onto them. Especially considering the respect these games still have.

Multiple reasons, Nintendo doesn't own all those titles, the studios that made them own them. Some like Zelda are owned by Nintendo and they can port them, but the majority of the games are owned by 3rd party studios and Nintendo has no say if they are ported or not.

Other issues for old titles can include stuff like not owning the rights to the music in it, and porting CAN be labor intensive, and for many games harder to recoup the cost. People don't want to pay $30+ for a port of an old game, and the potential audience is far smaller, and the competition is much fiercer now.

[Birds]

引用自 Pierce Dalton：

Because they want you to buy a Switch.

Simple, isn't it?

I have a competing theory.

They don't want you to buy anything.

[MinionJoe]

引用自 Bird：

引用自 Pierce Dalton：

Because they want you to buy a Switch.

Simple, isn't it?

I have a competing theory.

They don't want you to buy anything.

If they didn't want people to buy their products, they wouldn't immediately sue people for using their products without paying.

[Birds]

引用自 MinionJoe：

引用自 Bird：

I have a competing theory.

They don't want you to buy anything.

If they didn't want people to buy their products, they wouldn't immediately sue people for using their products without paying.

Negative publicity. Harms their image, restricts access to the IPs they already don't want people playing, and ultimately encourages people to seek out both to spite them.

Perfectly calculated to keep them hanging on as an iconoclast without actually expanding or generating new revenue streams or spurring any interest in the company itself.

[MinionJoe]

引用自 Bird：

Negative publicity. Harms their image, restricts access to the IPs they already don't want people playing, and ultimately encourages people to seek out both to spite them.

Remember the artificial scarcity of the Switch when it first came out? They wanted people fighting each other for the ability to play.

And Nintendo wanted people streaming their games on YouTube and Twitch, but not for free. So they tried to claim the revenue.

Anyone using Nintendo products in ways they do not approve of get slapped with litigation. Just like Ferrari and Sony do with their customers.

[Grim Reaper]

引用自 MinionJoe：

引用自 Bird：

Negative publicity. Harms their image, restricts access to the IPs they already don't want people playing, and ultimately encourages people to seek out both to spite them.

Remember the artificial scarcity of the Switch when it first came out? They wanted people fighting each other for the ability to play.

And Nintendo wanted people streaming their games on YouTube and Twitch, but not for free. So they tried to claim the revenue.

Anyone using Nintendo products in ways they do not approve of get slapped with litigation. Just like Ferrari and Sony do with their customers.

Hell remember what happened to AM2R? A guy poured countless hours over the course of years into a passion project, and then Nintendo tried to take it down from everywhere. Just shows how much they care about their fans, they don't, I know that companies are interested in profit first and foremost but even Sony and Bandai Namco make goodwill gestures like porting their exclusive games or giving people a discount on the Dark Souls Remaster if they already own the original. They don't have to do this, but people will like them all the more for it.

[Dracoco OwO]

引用自 MinionJoe：

引用自 Bird：

Negative publicity. Harms their image, restricts access to the IPs they already don't want people playing, and ultimately encourages people to seek out both to spite them.

Remember the artificial scarcity of the Switch when it first came out? They wanted people fighting each other for the ability to play.

And Nintendo wanted people streaming their games on YouTube and Twitch, but not for free. So they tried to claim the revenue.

Anyone using Nintendo products in ways they do not approve of get slapped with litigation. Just like Ferrari and Sony do with their customers.

Let's not forget the tournaments they closed as well for games like smash bros and i think Pokémon.

[Birds]

引用自 MinionJoe：

引用自 Bird：

Negative publicity. Harms their image, restricts access to the IPs they already don't want people playing, and ultimately encourages people to seek out both to spite them.

Remember the artificial scarcity of the Switch when it first came out? They wanted people fighting each other for the ability to play.

And Nintendo wanted people streaming their games on YouTube and Twitch, but not for free. So they tried to claim the revenue.

Anyone using Nintendo products in ways they do not approve of get slapped with litigation. Just like Ferrari and Sony do with their customers.

Artificial Scarcity? What's driving demand for these products nobody can get or see or hear about?

Oh, denying access itself is.

Argh why do so many people want to give this evil company money!

Arrgh I bet they just shuffle money as a front for the yakuza, the way Sony does when it hires scalpers to sell their consoles! Which they got caught doing with the ps4.