Page 3
Nintendo recently announced at the Game Developers Conference that Sega would be supporting Revolutions 'Virtual Console' with Sega Master System and Sega Genesis titles. Is this an important victory for Nintendo? And is it important for Nintendo to receive support form different consoles?
CURTIS
Not only does this bode well for Nintendo fans of old, but the Virtual Console can now offer games from other consoles, meaning kids who might not have been as privileged as others can now play many of the amazing games from Sega and others. This also bodes well for Nintendo, scoring fans of old games from other consoles, such as my brother who still to this day loves his Sega Genesis, and is probably more excited for the Revolution then I am. He really doesn't care about playing any next-generation titles.
And at a low price point, Revolution is going to be able to push consoles based solely on the Virtual Console aspect. The ability to access over twenty years of Nintendo gaming is perfect, especially for those still holding onto their N64s or SNESes who can subsidize their Revolution purchase by selling off their old consoles and games.
One of the most expected games for the Xbox 360 is Street Fighter for the Xbox Live Arcade. XLA is attracting more and more players everyday, and do you really think Geometry Wars can compete with Super Mario Bros. 3? I didn't think so. Not only will this score big, but Nintendo's Virtual Console may very win Nintendo the next-generation console war, as with support from other consoles, they can attract users from all different areas.
GARETH
I guess it's good news, but I'd have to question the importance of such an announcement. If Nintendo is as committed to bringing gaming forward as they claim, then why do they need to be focusing so much on the past? Everybody enjoys the old classics, but the entire point of the Revolution is to be creating new games to call classics. Also, in this day and age, the appeal of 2D games is extremely limited. Sure, there's a subset of gamers willing to hold on to their old consoles and games, and those willing to download emulators to play old classics, but how many are really going to spend their next-gen dollars just to be able to pay for old games for download?
The entire problem is that Nintendo is putting a lot of focus on Virtual Console to sell its system. Microsoft is pushing the Live Arcade as a selling point for Xbox Live, not for the Xbox 360 itself, because the 360's selling point is the new games. With Nintendo, they're focusing so much on the ability to play outdated 2D platformers that it makes me wonder if they really have much going for them beyond that.
And while Sega may be pledging support for the Virtual Console, there's no telling that other companies will be jumping aboard with them. How long will the VC keep updating its library before Nintendo decides, in usual Nintendo fashion, that it isn't in their best interests to keep funding the project and pull the plug? We could very well be stuck with maybe 50 Virtual Console games before the service shuts down, making the Revolution's Virtual Console yet another failed gimmick and broken promise, following in the footsteps of the Virtual Boy, the N64DD, GC/GBA connectivity, and the GameCube's promising online plan.
Agree or disagree, it's up to you who you felt had a stronger case against the cause. Within the next day, we'll be posting a thread on our forums for you to argue your point. We'd love to hear your feedback on our rationale, and to hear your own opinions of the discussion.
