Nintendo Revolution downloads NOT for free

[WastelandDan]

Joystiq Reports: (http://www.joystiq.com/entry/1234000830045939/)

According to a recent article in Famitsu magazine downloading classic Nintendo games onto your Revolution will not be free. Boss man, Satoru Itawa, explicitly stated the fact, but added that some games might be available for free download as a bonus for purchasing a Revolution title or through special promotions.
Most disappointing revolution ever.

[Tricky Thumb]

REALITY.

Hm, well there goes the Nintendo fanboy's high. Ah well, hopefully there will be something else to be excited about from Nintendo later this year.

[if76]

So if I buy a game on a 1GB+ disc, I get the priveledge of going online and downloading a 1-20MB game? Quite lame. Reminds me of the E-card reader. Makes me wonder if Nintendo is gonna have an online plan at all. I think I'll just continue to play old Nintendo games on my xbox.

[Liquidize105]

I don't know why people are getting bent outta shape for.

We don't even know what the revolution is yet.

[KDups]

Makes me wonder if Nintendo is gonna have an online plan at all.

Probably not. Not like they didn't say you'd be able to play their Rev games online for free. And download both classic games and new demos (confirmed today) onto the system. And setting up 1,000 wi-fi spots in Japan for the DS, probably not part of any sort of online plan either.

Boy, what are they doing?

[bobbler]

I'm still happy, as long as the prices are decent (50 cents a piece would make me happy -- a can of pepsi or a SMB3?). I doubt they will try to gouge, since, outside of bandwidth cost (which is factored into to other parts of the online service) it's all profit from the games they sell. Who knows though, we'll have to wait and see how they price stuff -- regardless I'm sure I'll find myself with at least a few of the old games...

One rather smart thing Nintendo is doing is allowing third parties to do the same. We might end up seeing all those old non nintendo published games we enjoy. Buy some new street fighter game and get a couple of the old ones free. Buy a new square crystal chronicles game and get a couple of snes FFs -- who knows.

It's a nice idea and I like that they are encouraging third parties to do the same.

This is the first time since N64 came out that I've been excited about anything Nintendo has done.

[bapenguin]

It's free, it's not free...it's free...it's not free.
It's a controller...it's a helmet...it'a controller...it's vr...it's a controller...it's a dildo

I think we just need to wait and see.

[LilAbner]

Surely you guys didn't believe that they were really free, did you?

I mean, Nintendo itself said they wouldn't go online until they figured out a way to make money. So far the extent of "Revolution's" online presence is in high-margin downloads....note there was nothing announced about online multiplayer.

[Kamalot]

Makes me wonder if Nintendo is gonna have an online plan at all.
Probably not. Not like they didn't say you'd be able to play their Rev games online for free. And download both classic games and new demos (confirmed today) onto the system. And setting up 1,000 wi-fi spots in Japan for the DS, probably not part of any sort of online plan either.

Boy, what are they doing?
Ahahahaha! Thanks KDups! :-)

I don't think they ever said they would be free. The whole rumor started when someone took info from an interview out of context.

Reality check!

[jeffool]

It's a controller... ... it's a dildoI know you have your heart set on it, but you really shouldn't get your hopes up. ;)

(Someone was going to, why not me?)

[KDups]

I don't think they ever said they would be free. The whole rumor started when someone took info from an interview out of context.

Reality check!

Literacy check! I said play REV games online for free. And download both classic and new game demos onto the system.

Like I thought a company that just last year released decades old games for $20 each would now allow you to download them for free.

Some of you bitch just to bitch.

[Blade]

Since the debut of force feedback, I think that's what all of us have been thinking. I mean, Rumble Pak? What the hell use is a vibrating controller if I can't pleasure myself with it?

[Evil Avatar]

Did anyone seriously think that the same company that just sold GBA ports of old NES games for $30.00 a pop would give away all their old titles for free?

It seems like a given that Nintendo would charge a premium for their older stuff. I'm talking $10.00 or more a game.

[Klade]

I actually did expect them to be free. The simple reason being that they aren't making money on NES games these days so why not allow people to download all those old games and have an instant library of hundreds of games at launch? Charging money would put a big crink in this plan, especially since you can download roms for free and many people already have them. Yes I know thats illegal but when was the last time you heard someone getting busted for downloading roms for their own personal use?

I guess I was just being silly though. Why be nice to your fans when you can price gauge them instead. I'd be pretty damn surprised if these things cost less then 10$ a pop. The reason being that people who don't know anything about roms are likely to pay that but not much more for old nintendo games. Now that promotions come into it I would think that at launch they might allow people to download 20 free games or some such.

[mister_slim]

...sold GBA ports of old NES games for $30.00 a pop...
?


Anyway, I'm not surprised. Nintendo obviously needs more PR people to reiterate the obvious every time an internet rumor spins out of control.

[Karmakaze]

I think I'll just continue to play old Nintendo games on my xbox.

Seriously. Hmm. 15 NES games for $150 (assuming $10 a pop.. if they're not free I'd be surprised to see them available for less), or buy a used xbox and a modchip for the same price and play all of them (and mame and genesis and even gba while you're at it). Oh, and xbox games too.

[BabyJesus]

DOH!


Man they better have something big up their sleeves.

[CapnBob]

Oh man! Nintendo doesn't give out free blowjobs. What a fucking disappointment.

[Deadend]

If old Nintendo games would have been free.... Everyone would have tried to own one.

[Fonz]

Oh please people, dont kid yourselves, you keep nintendo alive by buying remakes and "classic" versions of the same damn games. You really think Nintendo would give that out for free so easily?

[carneconcarne]

i think by offering them free nintendo could have gotten an unprecedented amount of market pentration. Oh well, let's see home much they cost, what are the bets? Mine is $10 bucks, which is way too much.

The whole reason those old games would be nice is because there have been less than ~25 titles really worth playing for the cube and N64. I bought my gamecube late, so i could enjoy them for cheap. If I i knew i would have great past games to play, while I wait on the sprinkling of AAA titles the revolution will bring, I'd buy it on opening day.

[Orphiuchus]

Well, this just proves than nintendo can lie too.

And yes, that IS what they did.

[Savok]

It's Nintendo's fault the Internet makes shit up how?

[Blue]

Oh man! Nintendo doesn't give out free blowjobs. What a fucking disappointment.

and....steals that for an away message.

[mister_slim]

Well, this just proves than nintendo can lie too.

And yes, that IS what they did.
Nintendo lied how? I will be very impressed if you can find a statement from Nintendo on this subject which is more of a lie than yours quoted above.

Come on, impress me.

[Redline]

Oh please people, dont kid yourselves, you keep nintendo alive by buying remakes and "classic" versions of the same damn games. You really think Nintendo would give that out for free so easily?

That's pretty much it really. People buy remakes and rereleases of the same old shit all the time. Look at the Sonic collection releases for crikeys sake. Then there was Super Mario Allstars of the SNES, that sold like hot cakes.

If the price is resonable, paying isn't too bad... or rather, isn't unprecedented at any rate. I think Nintendo should price it to cover their bandwidth cost and that's it. Not look at it as a revenue stream but rather a value-added feature of the Revolution.

[jacktion]

I can't believe all the shit I am hearing... errr... reading.

Nintendo never said the games would be free. If you think they did then show me the quote. They said they might give some away when you buy a game but there was never an announcement that said "All old nintendo games will be free!!1"

How can you be upset that Nintendo isn't giving stuff away for free?! One guy even said "Nintendo could be nice, but instead they want to screw their customers". Dude, it's called capitalism. "Damn, Ford is trying to screw me by making me buy a car! Why can't they be nice and just give me one?"

And Nintendo didn't sell the NES games on the GBA for $30. They sold them for $20. (still way too expensive, I know, but I am going for accuracy here)

And if you don't want to play these "old" games then don't play them. You can't really criticize the idea to offer them though, unless you're stupid. Nintendo is going to make money hand over fist on these things. It is a genius idea. You can bet Sony and *** are just mad they don't have the libraries of old games to implement it themselves.

[RMan]

Did anyone seriously think that the same company that just sold GBA ports of old NES games for $30.00 a pop would give away all their old titles for free?
Yep, I did, at least for NES, SNES, and likely N64 titles (although all the titles was a little optomistic). What can sell on a GBA and what can sell on a nextgen console are WAY different, since the SNES titles are pretty much in line with what the GBA tech can do, and don't look much worse than newer titles then selling on that system is viable. The bottom line is that they'll be lucky if the average Revolution owner buys even two of these old games at $10 a pop (since they’ll mostly be getting them for short term nostalgia), but if they give away most/all of their titles they could sell up to 50% more consoles (personally, I think that’s conservative) and the majority of the system owners will go online, giving them a huge boost to their online service and making other online distributed products more profitable (thus attracting more 3rd party support). In the end, they’d still get a cut from every 3rd party downloadable game, so the increased user base and percentage of users online will bring back the lost revenue from giving away the other games since just about every NES, SNES, and N64 game maker will put their games up for sale (since there’s likely little they have to do). At the least, if they want their system to really flourish they need to give away enough games that the average user can find 5 games he really wants to play (which means likely giving away 30 or 40), I’d think that would push the consumers that are “on the fence” over it, which in the end may be what they’re going to do. Maybe they just want to make sure people know they won’t get them all, because holding back choice titles for promotions would work pretty well.

Hmm, actually, since they're trying to appeal to a more casual gamer then pricing all these things as "micro" payment downloads would go a long way to making them the choice system for the average consumer. IOW, price the games at $2 each, because I'd bet they'd sell 5 games for $2 before they'd sell 1 game for $10, and they'd increase the online consumers because of the attractive game prices. I mean, to keep it in perspective, the cell-phone ring-tone industry makes billions (yea, that's billions) of dollars a year (I think it's 3 this last year). You can fleece people for a great deal of money if you can keep them from balking at the price, and since the distribution costs of these online games is virtually nothing then they can really go a long way with these things, IMO (their age and being designed for cartridge systems ensures they'll be nice and small).

[CrysDark]

I was hoping for a subscription based plan, 10 dollars a month or something. There goes my hopes of SoM or FFVI on the rev, good idea, but it's not revolutionary.

[Hg-203]

Honestly this doesn’t really surprise me, when I first heard about playing old games off the net I figured that you could get games off the internet with a ratio of purchased games i.e. buy 2 games get 1 ”classic” game. If you really think about it all the overhead in bandwith, server up keep, etc is not all that cheap so they would have to charge us for it anyways. I would be happy if Nintendo charges $3 or $4 per classic game, maybe pricing based off of how “classic” the game is like a Nintendo game 1 or 2 dollars higher as you get newer. I wouldn’t see this Nintendo’s price of these games too high seeing how they are so old that Nintendo most likely considered these games as no longer making a profit so Nintendo should be happy they can make dollar one from a game that is no longer even made. And as I said in a other thread this better not be the cornerstone of Nintendo’s “revolution”, i.e. tactile LCD controller so you can play all the old Nintendo game on the one controller.

Yes if anything I could be considered a Nintendo fanboy, but that doesn’t make my statements any less valid. I mean EA isn’t free to run, I’m betting evil must have high bandwith costs to pay for, just look at the merchandising and pay pal options given to us. Just because Nintendo has a policy of making money off of each console it sells, no mater how much Nintendo makes off of the Rev, they won’t make enough money to pay for bandwith and upkeep on their file servers. If anything the people watching/maintaining the servers need to be paid so that will tens of thousands a year.

edit: better clarity

[RMan]

If you really think about it all the overhead in bandwith, server up keep, etc is not all that cheap so they would have to charge us for it anyways.
Oh, it's pretty cheap. This system would require a fraction of the bandwidth that a small MMORPG would take, I mean, let's think about it for a sec. I can get a commercially available dedicated server that supplies 1000gig of monthly bandwidth for $100 (and you can bet they get it for less), since a snes game averages around 2meg compressed you could supply 500,000 a month (and again, they'd better pay MUCH less per month than a common commercially available server). So the hardware and the bandwidth and the server upkeep (but not the person setting it up and adding/removing titles) in the absolute worst case scenario would cost them .02 cents per game (even with an awful lot of broken downloads it wouldn’t come close to a tenth of a penny). Another thing, keep in mind that you could get 100 snes games and likely 20 N64 games in the same bandwidth you take to download the average game demo or larger promotional movie, and you likely get those for free.

[Nessus]

If Nintendo tried to charge $10 a game that'd be suicide.

Since they were seriously considering making it free I think it'll be on the order of like 25 cents a game.

They already talked about doing a phone card type deal. If I could buy a $10 "phone card" and get like 30 downloads or something I'd probably take advantage of that. Mostly for the N64 games that my Xbox can't emulate.

I do agree that if they had found a way to make the downloads free that would have been an instant system seller. As is, I'm afraid it's not horribly convincing. Though not surprising.

[KDups]

Microsoft pushes their microtransactions plan for Xbox 360 and we hear boo from you guys.

Sony compares online gaming to air conditioning in 1960s cars, continues to baffle with vague comments on their PS2/PSP/PS3 online plans.

Now Nintendo denies some internet speculation that's been floating around and Nintendo is labeled a)greedy, b)liars, and c)clueless about their online plans.

Some of you really need to get that chip off your shoulder.

[Thenetcase]

I can already tell you what the revolution is.
It's Nintendo shutting the hell up and getting out of the way of real consoles.
Nintendos era is very rapidly coming to a close. Sad, but true.

We really DO have them to thank for making consoles so popular. The Nintendo 8-bit was the single most common (and probably still is, really) console in the world. It was also the most amazing in what it delievered for nearly a decade.
Now Nintendo is not keeping up. They started a war that they could not win. It's really too bad.

I switched to being an xBox and PS2 fan a long time ago.

-TNC-

[Klade]

This does raise another point. Or at least someone else brought up that Microsoft and Sony don't have the large library of games to do this with. Microsoft I agree cause they are still selling their Xbox games retail and likely to do so for a while.

But Sony has a huge library of PS1 games that are no longer being sold. They have already made noises about online content services (unless I'm mistaking something they said for something microsoft said). What if Nintendo charges (whatever price) for their content service but sony opens theirs up for free? Would there be a nintendo after this next round of console wars? Would there be a microsoft? (probably they are used to losing money).

Just pure speculation of course but I find it a neat idea to consider.
Another thought, how much would you pay per month to gain access to all of sony's ps1 games? How much per month for all of nintendo's up through and including the N64?

[RMan]

Sony couldn't do what Nintendo could, Sony doesn't own all the games on the PS1 and doesn't have the ability to publish them for whatever cost they wanted. Even discarding the fact that these games would be more than 100x the size of SNES and some N64 games, Sony would have to obtain a licensing agreement with them, whereas Nintendo can (I'd imagine) do what they want with their rather large stable of Nintendo developed games. Nintendo is in a wholly unique position to get back into the game in a huge way, if they don't get boggled down in trying to make the quick buck.

[Hg-203]

Oh, it's pretty cheap. This system would require a fraction of the bandwidth that a small MMORPG would take, I mean, let's think about it for a sec. I can get a commercially available dedicated server that supplies 1000gig of monthly bandwidth for $100 (and you can bet they get it for less), since a snes game averages around 2meg compressed you could supply 500,000 a month (and again, they'd better pay MUCH less per month than a common commercially available server). So the hardware and the bandwidth and the server upkeep (but not the person setting it up and adding/removing titles) in the absolute worst case scenario would cost them .02 cents per game (even with an awful lot of broken downloads it wouldn’t come close to a tenth of a penny). Another thing, keep in mind that you could get 100 snes games and likely 20 N64 games in the same bandwidth you take to download the average game demo or larger promotional movie, and you likely get those for free.

Your right the cost to Nintendo to do this revolution isn’t much, but it does destroy the basic business model of console gaming. Games are sold at a large markup then what it costs to make each game. Nintendo’s new business approach is the same as the tried and true business approach. Nintendo already owns the license for the games and so it costs them nothing to make the game only to distribute and that’s dirt cheap. After all Nintendo’s goal is to make a profit.

[if76]

This whole discussion is kind of stupid. Nintendo could release ONE revolution disc with all old NES, SNES, and N64 games on it. It could even be a pack-in game. That is if they just wanted to give this stuff away for free. Nintendo is basically just using the internet as another money-making gimick.

[bobbler]

Oh, it's pretty cheap. This system would require a fraction of the bandwidth that a small MMORPG would take, I mean, let's think about it for a sec. I can get a commercially available dedicated server that supplies 1000gig of monthly bandwidth for $100 (and you can bet they get it for less), since a snes game averages around 2meg compressed you could supply 500,000 a month (and again, they'd better pay MUCH less per month than a common commercially available server). So the hardware and the bandwidth and the server upkeep (but not the person setting it up and adding/removing titles) in the absolute worst case scenario would cost them .02 cents per game (even with an awful lot of broken downloads it wouldn’t come close to a tenth of a penny). Another thing, keep in mind that you could get 100 snes games and likely 20 N64 games in the same bandwidth you take to download the average game demo or larger promotional movie, and you likely get those for free.

I think this is a pretty important point to consider. They won't be charging because of bandwidth and server costs are a really high, they'll be charging to get some extra income (or to nullify the cost of their entire online service).

There are two extremes that you can look at:

A) Nintendo is pushing this as a new way of making profits. They will charge stupid amounts per game -- $10-20 per game? This may cause some alienation and people may not use the feature much or maybe it'll get used plenty and Nintendo could bring in a nice chunk of change... who knows...

B) Nintendo is pushing this purely as a feature -- a selling point -- and thus profits from this are all bonus for them and not planned to be a major source of income -- they want people to buy N-Rev based on the fact that they can spend very little initially and still enjoy it. They charge a dollar a game and cover the entire cost of their online service without seeming too evil or losing money on their online service.

C) (there is always a C!) They charge different prices based on the game's success and people's fondness for it. SMB3 might be more expensive than some junky nintendo published game that nobody liked (I can't remember any off the top of my head). I have a feeling it'll be some system like this -- overall I think they'll be rather inexpensive and easy to purchase many of them and not realize it ($.5 - $2 range), however, the ones you actually want will be higher priced (but still justifiable by you since you actually want the game).

They could just as easily go any of the ways and end up okay. The higher the price the less people will download, obviously. The dollar mark has been shown to be a very good 'hey, lets waste money' point; nobody cares about a dollar -- even a dollar many times is negligable for most, however many dollars once is not (funny how that works). Who here feels bad when they spend a dollar? Hell, I'm sure most of you buy your daily vice from the pop machine and don't even think twice. A dollar is easy to spend many times without noticing, ~10 dollars isn't so easy to justify on a game you may play only a few times.

Of course, I don't really have any basis for any of these assumptions... just a gut feeling.

[RMan]

Your right the cost to Nintendo to do this revolution isn’t much, but it does destroy the basic business model of console gaming.
Well, it's certainly not the common approach, but so what, it can still be way more profitable than trying to sell the product. The concept of giving something away in order to add value to something else is a fairly common thing, I mean, likely none of you guys ever paid Google a penny, but they're worth $80 billion dollars (wild, but seemingly true). So, just because you never directly paid them doesn't mean they're not making money from you. This is somewhat different, but certainly has similarities since the added customer base will increase revenue from the online service and common retail games. Closer to home is the fact that the console makers are willing to take a fairly large hit on the hardware in order to make it back bigger on the software, this is pretty much the same thing.

[Rommel]

A few things to consider...

First of all, if they gave too much away they'd risk never selling a new game. People would buy a revolution to occassionally play older titles.

Secondly, I was one hundred percent right when I said that Nintendo's big E3 Revolutionary announcement was they discovered a new way to sell you things.

It is time to face facts: As of this moment there is no Revolution, there is just a name. And as far as I can tell... Nintendo doesn't have an idea about what to make it either. So far the machine is another electronic we hook up to our TV to play games. It has online functionality. It does not have a controller. Sorry folks, that is not a revolution.

[IndependentGMR]

It sure would suck to purchase a pepsi for a $1.00, and get an snes game for free. Can you see the tie-ins, like i-tunes. Or buy Punch-Out Revolution, and receive Super Punchout for free. Shit, any third-party company can offer their games as an incentive to buy, which is fine by me. I'll take Final Fantasy 3 with Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles 2. Or, I guess we can just sit here and piss and moan about shelling out a few dollars for classic games that we might otherwise not have access to. It's not like their forcing you to buy the games. It's an extra feature that is pretty cool. Sure, PS3 is backwards compatible with PS1 & PS2. But, if you want to play an old PS1 game, you may find yourself driving around to five different stores, trying to find a copy. I'd much rather just download, say Chrono Trigger from Square-Enix, for small fee, if third-parties make them available like that.

[IndependentGMR]

This whole discussion is kind of stupid. Nintendo could release ONE revolution disc with all old NES, SNES, and N64 games on it. It could even be a pack-in game. That is if they just wanted to give this stuff away for free. Nintendo is basically just using the internet as another money-making gimick.

Wow, who would of thought that a business wants to make money. This is shocking! I guess Sony and Microsoft are in it for the love of the game! What a joke...

[Derwin]

Wait doesn't XBox Live make you actually pay money to play games online? Oh no!

[WastelandDan]

In a certain way Nintendo is in a very unique position. Aside from the new generation of gamers, most of us grew up using Ataris and ColecoVision before Nintendo even showed up, and when it did it was truly unbelievable. Nintendo may seem to be making questionable choices these days, with an almost complete lack of online play for the Gamecube, a near refusal to publish mature titles and an apparent fascination with all things gimmicky. However, one thing they have that nobody else has is retro appeal. I subscribed to Nintendo Power, one of the worst gaming mags _EVER_ just to get the Gamecube disc with the two Legend of Zelda N64 games.

Most of the old games that came out weren't even any good. I can only think of a handful of N64 titles, and while the SNES was undoubtedly the Golden Era of Nintendo gaming, NES games were for the most part buggy and unbelievably difficult. Nintendo has us in a tight spot because we're willing to pay to relive an essential part of our childhood, even if in reality it wasn't that good to begin with. We wouldn't even be paying for content, we'd be paying for memories.

[outontheporch]

/cry
//sniff

[bapenguin]

I love how people suddenly are saying "Nintendo" never said their games would be free. The passed 2 or 3 articles we posted on it they didn't seem to have a problem believing it.

[MosBen]

I'd just like to say that while I think the people calling for Nintendo to release these games for free are being a little unrealistic, I don't think people are wrong to be wary of this. $20 for an NES game is just too damn much money, even if you personally are willing to pay it or can afford it, and I think we're right to be cautious when Nintendo says they're going to charge for these downloads on the Rev. Again, I'm not saying they have to be free, but as someone said earlier, these should be like ringtones, not budget games.

[Goronmon]

I love how people suddenly are saying "Nintendo" never said their games would be free. The passed 2 or 3 articles we posted on it they didn't seem to have a problem believing it.
I never saw anything that said they would be free. I saw one article about an interview where the words "free" and "downloading old games" occured in the same paragraph. Then a bunch of posts here that said "OMG, old games for FREE!"

Heck, I think I even replied to the thread stating that I thought people were misinterpreting the interview. Though, I'm sure 90% of the people don't even read the articles, just the news post and then infer any information they want from that.

[Goronmon]

Nintendo is basically just using the internet as another money-making gimick.
I'm sorry, try not to take too offense to this, but thats a pretty dumb thing to say.

"Money-making gimmick"? Its the internet, not some proprietary technology they are using to sell a product. Hmm...I guess those stores in malls must just be another "money-making gimmick" that Nintendo abuses just to make some $$$, right?

Let's all be realistic here. If Nintendo doesn't make money, they are no longer a company. It doesn't make any sense for them to release old games for free with having no pay for in some way. No sense at all.

Someone mentioned Google as offering a free service. Well, Google makes money from the enormous amount of ads they display everytime you perform a search or use your e-mail. Sure, Nintendo could follow this model and have ads display between every level of the downloaded games you are playing, but who wants something like that.

For all this complaining, as long as Nintendo offers the games for a decent price (ie. under $5) plenty of people (including ones complaining here) will take advantage of the chance to pick up some of the classics, and fun will be had. Its amazing to me that once people here the word "download" along with any type of product, they automatically expect that said product should be free.

[bapenguin]

I never saw anything that said they would be free. I saw one article about an interview where the words "free" and "downloading old games" occured in the same paragraph. Then a bunch of posts here that said "OMG, old games for FREE!"

Heck, I think I even replied to the thread stating that I thought people were misinterpreting the interview. Though, I'm sure 90% of the people don't even read the articles, just the news post and then infer any information they want from that.

Maybe these will refresh your memory: article 1 (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2584&highlight=revolution+free+games) and article 2 (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2625&highlight=revolution+free+games).

[Goronmon]

Maybe these will refresh your memory: article 1 (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2584&highlight=revolution+free+games) and article 2 (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2625&highlight=revolution+free+games).
First of all, that second article is about the list some random person made up of possiblities for downloadable games.

Second of all, from that first article. I will copy a post that I read within the comments that explains my point

Hey, the article that reported this misunderstood the point that the interviewee was trying to get across.

Past-Gen Nintendo-Created Titles will not be downloadable for free.

From the original interview:
1) They contradict that it will be free:

"GS: Do you plan on having like a per-download pricing model along the lines of the microtransactions that will be used in the next-gen Xbox marketplace?

GH: Well, we can use it in a variety of ways. We've used some of the older games already as little bonuses, either as bonus gifts or hidden in levels of games. Certainly for the first-party titles we'll be making some of those available. We haven't really talked about whether we would sell them. The third parties can make their own decision whether they want to sell them, or maybe they will add it on as sort of a free benefit when you buy a current version of the game. "

2) The part of the interview that was misunderstood:

GS: To continue with what's so revolutionary about the Revolution...

GH: Well, I think certainly being wireless out of the box is revolutionary. People sort of picked on us for not jumping in prematurely into online or Internet gaming, but we just looked at it, the way it was evolving, and just felt that it was not time to jump in. But certainly with the next console it would be, with a couple of important changes like eliminating the access fee so there's not really a monthly subscription, and making use of first-party games, downloadable for free.

He speaks of eliminating access fees then says "making use of first-party games" outside of the context of backwards compatability; he could have meant that downloadables, such as new maps for a Nintendo FPS, would be downloadable for free because access fees would be eliminated.

I'd love to be wrong.

[Savok]

I love how people suddenly are saying "Nintendo" never said their games would be free. The passed 2 or 3 articles we posted on it they didn't seem to have a problem believing it.
I blame myself on that one, I thought the editors here checked facts. Not only that I didn't click the link to see that it was Games Radar, it's rather like reading something from Spong and taking it as fact.

Goronmon, as you say it is the Internet, if something isn't free it's too much money and the user is being robbed. Such is the mentality these days.

I'll post the questionable part of the interview here, bolding the interesting parts:

GS: Do you plan on having like a per-download pricing model along the lines of the microtransactions that will be used in the next-gen Xbox marketplace?

GH: Well, we can use it in a variety of ways. We've used some of the older games already as little bonuses, either as bonus gifts or hidden in levels of games. Certainly for the first-party titles we'll be making some of those available. We haven't really talked about whether we would sell them. The third parties can make their own decision whether they want to sell them, or maybe they will add it on as sort of a free benefit when you buy a current version of the game.

GS: To continue with what's so revolutionary about the Revolution...

GH: Well, I think certainly being wireless out of the box is revolutionary. People sort of picked on us for not jumping in prematurely into online or Internet gaming, but we just looked at it, the way it was evolving, and just felt that it was not time to jump in. But certainly with the next console it would be, with a couple of important changes like eliminating the access fee so there's not really a monthly subscription, and making use of first-party games, downloadable for free. That to us will be really revolutionary. Right now the estimates are anywhere between six and maybe 10 or 12 percent of console owners are playing online. You know, if you really have people embrace it and enjoy it, we think that should be well over 50 percent. I think I heard Nintendo president Mr. Satoru Iwata, and Nintendo vice president of sales and marketing, Reggie Fils-Aime, say this morning as much as 90 percent is the goal for DS online, which is a great goal, rather than keeping it a niche aspect of gaming, to make it a broad-based application.
That didn't confirm or deny anything, it contradicts itself at best. That is of course if he's even talking about past-gen games, and not some sort of first party Mario Solitaire.

[Savok]

See, this is why I don't fact check stuff myself, because I take far too much time doing it.

[bapenguin]

I blame myself on that one, I thought the editors here checked facts. Not only that I didn't click the link to see that it was Games Radar, it's rather like reading something from Spong and taking it as fact.


It's pretty hard for us to look up every story and do background research for everything submitted. Usually I'll check too see if another site is carrying the story and if it is I'll let it pass...or if the source seems credible enough I'll post it up. I'm not about to learn Japanese and make sure the translation comes through ok just so people don't get their panties in a bunch... :D

[netcraazzy]

When I read the previous post where everybody was speculating that the old games would be free it sure seemed too good to be true. It's still not totally impossible, Nintendo might offer a few games for free but they have good financial reasons not to offer their entire library. For one, nobody would have much reason to pay for an old rereleased Nintnedo game ever again once they can get them all for free on the reveloution. I think giving users the ability to download prevous versions of the game when they buy the latest release is a cool idea. Look at how popular the Zelda disc that came free with a preorder of WindWaker is.

[Goronmon]

See, this is why I don't fact check stuff myself, because I take far too much time doing it.
Well, it does bug me when people go beyond paraphrasing an interview and actually go so far as to interpret what was said, without supplying any quotes, as was done in that article everyone was so pumped about.

[Kamalot]

So, Nintendo is selling something that people want and are willing to spend money on?

How bizarre!

Lots and lots of people pay good money for downloadable images and ringtones for their phone. While I can't see paying $2.00 for a JPEG, to a lot of people this is perfect.

Lots and lots of people purchase those games-in-a-joystick systems that plug into your TV. While I don't want to switch between 8 different joysticks to play the classics, some people don't mind.

I think this downloadable-old-games thing is like magic to a lot of people and will let them feel young again for a small price. It may even be great fun for families as little Suzie needs help in Zelda and dad will be more than willing to lend a hand.

[Savok]

It's pretty hard for us to look up every story and do background research for everything submitted. Usually I'll check too see if another site is carrying the story and if it is I'll let it pass...or if the source seems credible enough I'll post it up. I'm not about to learn Japanese and make sure the translation comes through ok just so people don't get their panties in a bunch... :D
I don't expect you learn to Japanese or hunt down stuff that's in print magazines. Hell, completely false stories have made their way here before and no one has really cared once someone in comments smashed it pieces. However when the news is this huge and comes from such a shonky source things must be checked, gaming journalism is seen as a joke already, spreading false assumptions just like the real media only makes it more of one.

Well, it does bug me when people go beyond paraphrasing an interview and actually go so far as to interpret what was said, without supplying any quotes, as was done in that article everyone was so pumped about.
And you bloody well should be bugged, keep up the cynicism.

[fitbabits]

Is that the sound of collective sobbing I hear coming from the Nintendo fanfolks?

I can't see how this was ever going to be free - when have Nintendo given away anything for free that they knew they could make money from? I give you Super Mario 64 DS, Super Mario Brothers 1, 2, and 3 on GBA... The list really could go on forever. Point being, so long as those devout Nintendo fans continue to shell out money for repackaged goods, Nintendo will keep milking those same gullible people.

[DCJoeDog]

I think people were referring to THIS (http://gamesradar.msn.co.uk/news/default.asp?pagetypeid=2&articleid=36071&subsectionid=1587) article when they were talking about Nintendo saying 1st party games would be free.

More specifically this section from the article

"People sort of picked on us for not prematurely jumping into online or internet gaming," he mused, going on to point out that now the company has more to offer besides online gaming. Harrison then confirmed that past-gen, Nintendo-created titles will indeed be downloadable for free.

This was from the horse's mouth, that Nintendo's OWN games would be free but 3rd party games, if they wanted them available, would be able to charge whatever. BUT, this maybe the NA territory plans and not the JPN's plan, since he is in charge here and not there.

Just my 2cents

[Goronmon]

Point being, so long as those devout Nintendo fans continue to shell out money for repackaged goods, Nintendo will keep milking those same gullible people.
Gullible? How so?

If someone never had the original Zelda for NES but owned a GBA, whats easier?

a) Trying to find a used copy of the original game (assuming they have a working NES, which if the don't involves another purchase), and still end up paying whatever amount the place they are buying it from feels like charging.

b) Going into Best Buy and picking it up for $20

Hell, option a might not even be cheaper.

[Goronmon]

I think people were referring to THIS (http://gamesradar.msn.co.uk/news/default.asp?pagetypeid=2&articleid=36071&subsectionid=1587) article when they were talking about Nintendo saying 1st party games would be free.

This was from the horse's mouth, that Nintendo's OWN games would be free but 3rd party games, if they wanted them available, would be able to charge whatever. BUT, this maybe the NA territory plans and not the JPN's plan, since he is in charge here and not there.

Just my 2cents
Seriously, try reading previous comments before you post. We just finished explaining that the article misinterpreted what was said in the interview and that no where did anyone say that 1st party games would be free. In fact, the guy states they haven't decided how they are going to offer them.

[DCJoeDog]

Sorry, I read the first 5 or so pages and then posted, DOH!

[Goronmon]

Sorry, I read the first 5 or so pages and then posted, DOH!
Nah, its no big deal, I just hate going over stuff twice ;)

[DCJoeDog]

And here I thought I was being helpful linking the offending article. LOL

[fitbabits]

Gullible? How so?

If someone never had the original Zelda for NES but owned a GBA, whats easier?

a) Trying to find a used copy of the original game (assuming they have a working NES, which if the don't involves another purchase), and still end up paying whatever amount the place they are buying it from feels like charging.

b) Going into Best Buy and picking it up for $20

Hell, option a might not even be cheaper.

Gullible because people continue to pay top dollar for what amounts to little more than a tarted-up version of a very old game. I could see the point in it if the games were released at budget prices, but this is not the case for the most part.

Which brings me full circle to the reason I posted what I did - Nintendo will never release something for free if they know they can make money from it.

I don't see Nintendo reaching out and thanking their loyal fans with freebies. What I do see, though, is Nintendo stringing everyone along with vauge allusions to something revolutionary and having nothing concrete to show for it.

[Goronmon]

Yeah, I changed my preferences to show the max posts per page just to force me to skim through as many of them as possible before posting ;)

[TheBrainKills]

Gullible because people continue to pay top dollar for what amounts to little more than a tarted-up version of a very old game. I could see the point in it if the games were released at budget prices, but this is not the case for the most part.

Which brings me full circle to the reason I posted what I did - Nintendo will never release something for free if they know they can make money from it.

I don't see Nintendo reaching out and thanking their loyal fans with freebies. What I do see, though, is Nintendo stringing everyone along with vauge allusions to something revolutionary and having nothing concrete to show for it.


mmmm then these 2 discs, the 2 game Zelda bonus disk, and the Zelda collectors edition are what? I didnt pay for them yet I have them, and no I didnt steal them either.

[Savok]

Which brings me full circle to the reason I posted what I did - Nintendo will never release something for free if they know they can make money from it.

Ignoring Ebay, wasn't the Zelda Collector's Disc a free gift for preordering WW?

[Savok]

And Goronmon, again you forget this is the Internet. When people want to play old games they just go and pirate them, paying for things is wrong afterall.

[fitbabits]

Ignoring Ebay, wasn't the Zelda Collector's Disc a free gift for preordering WW?

Allow me to re-phrase my statement:

Nintendo will seldom release something for free if they know that they can make money from it.

[fitbabits]

mmmm then these 2 discs, the 2 game Zelda bonus disk, and the Zelda collectors edition are what? I didnt pay for them yet I have them, and no I didnt steal them either.

See reply to Savok above.

[Mac]

I won't be getting the Revolution as is, but I'm holding out judgment on these downloads being free or not until it's 100% confirmed. Right now it's all a 'he said', 'she said' game with multiple sources claiming different things.

Welcome to the information age.

[jacktion]

Allow me to re-phrase my statement:

Nintendo will seldom release something for free if they know that they can make money from it.

Your condemnation of Nintendo is getting weaker and weaker. Can't you apply your statement to any company, anywhere? Most businesses will not give away stuff for free when they can make money off of it. They are businesses after all.
You're not a COMMUNIST are you??!!

[Goronmon]

Gullible because people continue to pay top dollar for what amounts to little more than a tarted-up version of a very old game. I could see the point in it if the games were released at budget prices, but this is not the case for the most part.

Which brings me full circle to the reason I posted what I did - Nintendo will never release something for free if they know they can make money from it.

First of all, budget prices. Whats a budget price to you for a new game? $2? $5? I mean, if $20 is "top dollar" to you, then maybe you should consider avoiding the gaming scene for a while and fatten up that savings account.

And come on, even you must know that a comment like this is utterly pointless. What company will ever release anything for free if they think they can make money off it? Is that the point of being a business?

I don't see Nintendo reaching out and thanking their loyal fans with freebies. What I do see, though, is Nintendo stringing everyone along with vauge allusions to something revolutionary and having nothing concrete to show for it.

Where did this expactations for thanks from developers come from? I know some people take gaming seriously. But to expect companies to thank customers for buying their product by giving it away just defies logic to me. Sure, give the fanboys some extras, but to hand out copies of games for nothing? Please.

[Savok]

I won't be getting the Revolution as is, but I'm holding out judgment on these downloads being free or not until it's 100% confirmed. Right now it's all a 'he said', 'she said' game with multiple sources claiming different things.

Welcome to the information age.
And why the ending to MGS2 was so stupid :P

[Zanzibar]

I'm still happy, as long as the prices are decent (50 cents a piece would make me happy -- a can of pepsi or a SMB3?). I doubt they will try to gouge, since, outside of bandwidth cost (which is factored into to other parts of the online service) it's all profit from the games they sell.

Somebody doesn't own a Game Boy Advance. Can you say '$30 for SMB3'?

[fitbabits]

First of all, budget prices. Whats a budget price to you for a new game? $2? $5? I mean, if $20 is "top dollar" to you, then maybe you should consider avoiding the gaming scene for a while and fatten up that savings account.

And come on, even you must know that a comment like this is utterly pointless. What company will ever release anything for free if they think they can make money off it? Is that the point of being a business?



Where did this expactations for thanks from developers come from? I know some people take gaming seriously. But to expect companies to thank customers for buying their product by giving it away just defies logic to me. Sure, give the fanboys some extras, but to hand out copies of games for nothing? Please.


Budget price in this instance would mean a compilation of Nintendo's 'greatest hits' released at $20 approx - not individual releases. $20 a pop for an ages-old game seems a little much. I may be wrong, but I don't recall Nintendo ever having released a 'greatest hits' compilation featuring classics and sold it at a budget price?

[funtownarcade]

N64 games will be WAY more than $10.

[TrackZero]

I don't know why people are getting bent outta shape for.

We don't even know what the revolution is yet.

True enough. I never really expected their entire game library to be free to download either, it just didn't seem realistic. My only concern is whether they'll be smart enough to price the games properly. I'd be afraid they consider NES/SNES titles worth more than I'd be willing to pay.

[fitbabits]

True enough. I never really expected their entire game library to be free to download either, it just didn't seem realistic. My only concern is whether they'll be smart enough to price the games properly. I'd be afraid they consider NES/SNES titles worth more than I'd be willing to pay.

Maybe the Revolution will be nothing more than a fancy Phantom-like set top box for downloading games? I thought about that when I read about the 'free' downloadable games and I still can't shake the feeling.

[dr_wily]

eh whod believe a site called joystiq anyway

basically almost every single news post based off this was a partial to complete fabrication or manipulation of a nintendo reps words.

"hi I'm Mr. Iwata and I like cheese"
"So are you saying that online games WONT BE FREE?!"
NEWSPOST!

Is EA so desperate for news that they have to post every single random news post, whcih nowadays has the integrity of a fanboys forum comment?

Keep talkin, and I will keep making fun, since I'm sure between now and the release I'll see 900 EA articles covering every single speculative revolution comment. That's why i love EA!

[Kelegacy]

seeing how most classic games are fairly cheap (used) for the actual cartridge, i dont see downloading old games being that expensive. I think it's a neat gimmick, at the very least. Of course, if you were evil you could already own all of them via an emulator (*I raise my hand guiltily) but given the option of downloading Super Mario 64, Paper Mario, Zelda, Mario RPG, etc etc for fairly cheap, I probably would. Who wouldnt want to play all those sweet ass games from yesteryear (there are still a ton on N64 I ended up missing when I ran off to college and abandoned my system...after that a succession of Dreamcast, PS2, beer, and college whores made me forget all about Paper Mario, Excitebike 64 and Majora's Mask. With the revolution, I'll make up for gaming time wasted)

Xbox guys dont seem to mind spending money to download freakin' empty maps for Halo 2...so spending 5-10 bucks on a classic Nintendo game (hopefully cheaper) should definitely be kosher. Some of those blasted games are so hard to find too, and even scarce cartridge-only 64 games run upwards of 30-50 bucks!

[Kelegacy]

Jesus, i forgot about GBA games! If you can download and play those too, that right there is a seller for me. I dont even own a GBA and so lots of games get overlooked by me. Hot diggity!

For me, if they secure some 3rd party support (though i still believe it will be marginal compared to MS and Sony) for NEW games, and continue to focus on the future, while letting nostalgic gamers have their fun with the old-school downloads, then the order of systems for me will be this:

1. Revolution
2. PS3
3. The Ghey Named Xbox 360

In the past few months I've started to admire Nintendo more and more. After the Gamecube started to release games once every 2 months, I started to fret...and the DS didnt help matters either. But now...well, I seem to understand how important they are to the industry, to the continuation of incredible gaming despite your age, and most of all....to me. I think a gaming industry without Nintendo being strong or in the console-making field would be like a battle of Wal-Marts: Sony and Microsoft fighting each other for supremacy, blind to the ants clambering at their feet. Sometimes they drop a morsel for us to chew on, satiating us, but most times they really dont give a shit. It's about dominance and not the gaming artform.

Call bullshit on me for my reborn Nintendo devotion...but pity is all i have for someone who dismisses Nintendo as meaningless.

[Kamalot]

Xbox Live microtransactions are okay? It is okay to download new skins and things for your game like people download ringtones, paying $2-$5 a piece. Everyone's kosher about that, but downloading a game? Gawd forbid you have to pay for it.

How much are games for mobile phones? I dunno. I have a Treo and load my own software on there, freeing myself from the Vader-like death-grip the cell-phone companies have over people.

[MosBen]

As happens all too often in these debates, the people on the extremes are acting like there are just two sides to this argument. Not everyone that's not thrilled about this is completely against the idea of paying any money for these. There are plenty of people that do want to be able to play these games, but aren't willing to spend much money for it. I'd love to play SMB3 again, but I'm not paying $20 for it because I played the hell out of it when I bought it for $50 or however much it was when I bought it right after The Wizard convinced that it was the closest to God that I would ever be while on this Earth. I could see maybe $5 for the really good games, but any more than that is too much I think. I mean, I'm not against companies making money, but they *already* made their money on this game the first 5 times they released it.

[31 Flavas]

Allow me to re-phrase my statement:

Nintendo will seldom release something for free if they know that they can make money from it.Ok, what freebies has Sony or Microsoft given away? Maybe a t-shirt? 10 day free trial of Live? Anything the size of the two Zelda bonus discs? Heck, Nintendo gave away free copies of Dragon Warrior in the NES days.

[mister_slim]

I'd just like to say that while I think the people calling for Nintendo to release these games for free are being a little unrealistic, I don't think people are wrong to be wary of this. $20 for an NES game is just too damn much money, even if you personally are willing to pay it or can afford it, and I think we're right to be cautious when Nintendo says they're going to charge for these downloads on the Rev. Again, I'm not saying they have to be free, but as someone said earlier, these should be like ringtones, not budget games.
Nintendo hasn't said they would charge either. Everything they've said implies they will be tied to purchasing new games in some way, but we really have no idea.
I love how people suddenly are saying "Nintendo" never said their games would be free. The passed 2 or 3 articles we posted on it they didn't seem to have a problem believing it.
I think I've been consistently saying Nintendo would not give away their entire past library and that their statements were not implying such.
This was from the horse's mouth, that Nintendo's OWN games would be free but 3rd party games, if they wanted them available, would be able to charge whatever. BUT, this maybe the NA territory plans and not the JPN's plan, since he is in charge here and not there.
Free as in speech, free as in beer, free as in with purchase, free as in extra 33%, free, freee, freeeeeee?

[Savok]

Is EA so desperate for news that they have to post every single random news post, whcih nowadays has the integrity of a fanboys forum comment?
Nope, they knocked back my last submission, which was actually real news (for Australia anyway).

They won't have GBA games, not a chance, it's a different area/market entirely. If we're extremely lucky, we might see GB games and possibly GBC after that, but it's about the same chance of Nintendo sending hookers to your house for a free pole polish.

[fushi]

I say: Ban usage of gamesradar as a news source. They were the source of this, along with the fanboy on the nintendo boards who made a fabricated list. The rest is just the usual hyperbole.