Nintendo's Plan for A Video Gamers' Netflix

[IchabodPlain]

This is a softball for Nintendo. Virtual console sales (the online 'cafeteria' for purchasing older/classic games à la cart) are sluggish, to say the least. Ironically, these games currently enjoy distinct advantages which would make them exactly those titles which are the most profitable, per unit sold. The advantages:

• Emergence of the casual gamer
• have already been produced
• are relatively microscopic in file size
• require no packaging
• already have brand recognition

The idea is simple: lay out a feature, or 'channel' for the Wii which gives access to the library of games from the NES, SNES, Nintendo 64, and possibly even some/all of the handheld library for $8/mo. or $60 as a one year pass. Set up similarly to Nexflix, the games are streamed instantly, playing the original title as produced. Unlike Netflix, the upload time and intermittent signal interruptions would be greatly reduced, and here's why: the size of the entire NES library (over 800 games) is >128mb, or smaller than one episode of Breaking Bad.

As time goes on, games get bigger in terms of file space, and it gets harder to guarantee that the game won't pause while Batman (or whomever) is strung out on a line looking make a tight landing. Older games can do this (Super Mario World is, about 20MB), but the technological advantage won't last.

There will, I'm sure, be squabbling over who gets what portion of the pie between the people who own the rights to this or that set of tiles - but let there be no mistake - there will be pie. Globally, Nintendo has nearly 100M Wii units sold, occupying over 40% of the traditional game system market. If Nintendo can convince 15% of Wii users to subscribe to this service, the annual revenue would be billions. These deals could all be set up non-exclusively (Capcom can still sell Mega Man on Xbox Live), and revenue can be at least partially distributed on the basis of traffic.

As a gamer, I would jump at the chance to essentially pay the price for one new game, and be able to play between thousands for an entire year. Heavy-hitting titles from Nintendo, Konami, Capcom, SNK, Temco, Square, and others would anchor the service, providing thousands of hours worth of potential gaming hours with some of the best games ever made. I'm curious to hear what those in the forum think of this. If anyone works for Nintendo, or knows a guy who serves lunch to someone who does, send a PM for contact info.

 

[Almo]

Very few NES titles have stood up over the years. Most of the people I knew while I was in the games industry who were Nintendo fans were so because they were too young to recognize how bad many NES games really were. People love to talk about the Atari 2600's shovelware problem, but the NES had it too.

So I don't think having sudden access to all the NES games is much of a good thing. Maybe the SNES, as more of those games have remained playable.

 

[IchabodPlain]

Very few NES titles have stood up over the years. Most of the people I knew while I was in the games industry who were Nintendo fans were so because they were too young to recognize how bad many NES games really were. People love to talk about the Atari 2600's shovelware problem, but the NES had it too.

So I don't think having sudden access to all the NES games is much of a good thing. Maybe the SNES, as more of those games have remained playable.

It's a matter of personal taste obviously, but off the top of my head I can think of dozens of titles consumers would take interest in - Mario, Zelda, Battletoads, Mega Man, Final Fantasy, G.I. Joe, Castlevania, Contra, Kirby, Dr. Mario, Metroid, Ninja Gaiden, etc. Setting that aside, this isn't just NES games, but rather the first three generations of home consoles (NES, SNES, N64) with the possible inclusion of some portable games (and import games, who knows?).

Are some games of lesser quality? No doubt. This is as much a problem for any system (I'm thinking of the original PlayStation which, for all its great games, has A TON of throwaway titles), but it's having the entire library - not a few hand selected titles -that provides the sense of value. The top 20 games I play may not exactly be your top 20, but both of us see a wall of titles giving us the feeling of endless opportunities to relive old titles, and discover new ones (SNK's Guerilla War comes to mind here).

The system could lend itself to online play in the future, or picking up games not apart of the original 3's lineup (Sega, Atari, etc).

 

[Stacko]

It's a matter of personal taste obviously, but off the top of my head I can think of dozens of titles consumers would take interest in - Mario, Zelda, Battletoads, Mega Man, Final Fantasy, G.I. Joe, Castlevania, Contra, Kirby, Dr. Mario, Metroid, Ninja Gaiden, etc. Setting that aside, this isn't just NES games, but rather the first three generations of home consoles (NES, SNES, N64) with the possible inclusion of some portable games (and import games, who knows?).

I don't think it will be as easy to get third party publishers on board with a Netflix like service compared to digital sales because they'll have to negotiate a bizarre form of revenue splitting. That throws a wrench in the works for the highlighted titles. So many companies have also gone under from that early era that hunting down who owns the rights to certain games would be a pain.

 

[IchabodPlain]

I don't think it will be as easy to get third party publishers on board with a Netflix like service compared to digital sales because they'll have to negotiate a bizarre form of revenue splitting.

How so? Netflix currently engages in this type of revenue splitting, however older, "Classic" movies have much larger sales (I can still buy Pulp Fiction at Wal-Mart). If you're sitting on the rights to older games, you have few areas to monetize. Currently, there are two main methods: Re-release or put it on one of the few virtual console cafeteria services. I've shown the latter to be no better than a mixed bag, and re-releases are worse. The sense of value is lost, packaging costs, distribution, etc. Sega tried it recently with their Mega Collection, but the results weren't stellar.

This vehicle provides the lowest out-of-pocket cost, while opening up wider streams of potential revenue without giving away the rights to distribute it somewhere else to maximize earnings.

That throws a wrench in the works for the highlighted titles. So many companies have also gone under from that early era that hunting down who owns the rights to certain games would be a pain.

I disagree, especially considering that there are benchposts to work from in other mediums of entertainment (including video games, I'm not the first to think of Netflix for video games, don'cha know). The larger mediums - TV (Hulu), movies (Netflix), have worked out deals; it's almost inevitable that games will eventually go down that route.

It probably will be a pain to find the owners for every game, but the ones you've highlighted will be the easiest, if only because the owners are still in business (Castlevania, for example, is still owned by Konami, who's still licensing out the name for others to produce).