Talk:List of Virtual Console games (North America)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.	CVG Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
CVG To-do: edit  Gaming Collaboration of the week: Imagic Expand: New CVG Articles, Normality, Pac-Man World 2, Operation Flashpoint: Elite, Call of Juarez, Galactic Civilizations II: Dark Avatar, Ford Street Racing, Betrayal at Krondor CVG Peer Review: List of F-Zero titles, Kya: Dark Lineage, Wii Remote, Dynasty Warriors 4, The Sims 2, The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past, Kirby's Dream Land, Electronic sports, Fire Emblem, Dante (Devil May Cry), The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, Final Fantasy XII, Sonic the Hedgehog (16-bit), Classes in World of Warcraft Cleanup: Age of Mythology, Mario Kart: Double Dash!!, Betrayal at Krondor, List of Nintendo trademarks Merge: Deletions / Essential articles / Magazines Assess and Prioritise articles (Log)

	This article is part of WikiProject Nintendo, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Nintendo related merchandise and video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of Virtual Console games (North America) article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Archives /Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3 /Archive 4

Contents 1 The Wii Shop Server Screenshot Topic 2 Star Fox 64 3 Tecmo Bowl to appear this month? 4 Missing information 5 Why were my changes deleted? 6 ESRB's "Nintendo" Category, Once and For All. 7 Dr. Mario 8 The way the Shop Channel works? 9 zombies ate my neighbors 10 Super mario RPG source 11 Title Organization 12 Wii Points doesn't need to be listed 12.1 Do you wish to KEEP the "Wii Points" column or DELETE it? 13 What Games 14 Nintendo has licences to a lot of games. 15 Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels

[edit] The Wii Shop Server Screenshot Topic

I archived the last one, but it was titled something about January 29th updates so no one was probably still reading it anyway.

Excitebike is still outstanding from last week, and Bio-Hazard Battle has been added. -Arcanelore 02:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Let the revert wars continue, here's Chew Man Fu -Arcanelore 06:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Sigh, I know at least one person is going to add that for next weeks release because of this. It's bad enough people keep changing it now. TJ Spyke 06:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Zelda: Ocarina of Time and Elevator Action. Both easy finds, one being on the article already and all, and the other already having a spot on the European Servers. 121.208.68.212 14:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Sword of Vermillion -Arcanelore 22:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, Sword of Vermillion was already confirmed for next Monday. TJ Spyke 22:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I was aware of that. But given Sega's track record with their release dates, a little extra confirmation never hurts. -Arcanelore 22:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Tecmo Bowl and Super Ghouls and Ghosts. -Arcanelore 19:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Double Dungeons -Arcanelore 22:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Sonic Spinball -Arcanelore 19:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Splatterhouse -Arcanelore 21:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

And today brings us Zelda II, Romance of the Three Kingdoms IV, and Beyond Oasis. -Arcanelore 22:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles -Arcanelore 22:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Galaga -Arcanelore 21:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm keeping a personal list of all the game codes, do you happen to know where Dungeon Explorer is? It's the only one I can't seem to find. -MrDrake 10:58, 17 March 2007 (GMT)

Right here. -Arcanelore 23:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I was checking the European game codes, for some weird reason picture 0-3 for that code are Bonk's Adventure (Which already has it's own code), and 4-7 are Dungeon Explorer. -MrDrake 18:23, 19 March 2007 (GMT)

An interesting development today; the screens for Galaga, ROTK4, TMNT, and Zelda II have been removed. (At the moment that shot was our only source for Zelda II. Should we take it off the list or leave it (a la SMRPG and the other ESRB listings that have since been removed?) -Arcanelore 17:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I would keep it in like we do games that appear on the ESRB only to be removed later. TJ Spyke 23:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Romance of the Three Kingdoms IV has returned. -Arcanelore 20:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The latest Nintendo Power lists Zelda II as one of the games that should have already been released this month. I'd say that's a good source to keep Zelda II on the upcoming list, with a TBA release.Lamename3000 08:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, Zelda II has already been listed for awhile now. TJ Spyke 21:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Lamename3000's point wasn't that it needed to be added, but that NP should replace the missing Wii Shop screen as the reference link. That said, the recent ESRB listing sort of makes this discussion moot. -Arcanelore 23:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Just so you can keep an eye out for them: These are all games released in Europe/Australia, but not America (URLs are naturally the same except instead of 50 at the end of the code, it's 45): Zelda II, Castlevania, Punch-Out!!, TMNT, Galaga, Legend of the Mystical Ninja and Dragon's Curse. -MrDrake 13:44, 30 March 2007 (GMT)

TMNT is back, and Star Fox 64 has appeared. (As has Dragon's Curse but we were expecting that.) -Arcanelore 00:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Vectorman on the European server to look out for now as well. -MrDrake 20:40, 5 April 2007 (GMT)

[edit] Star Fox 64

I'm pretty sure starfox 64 is coming out in March, if you look at the other 64 games, its been one 64 game a month. So im sure starfox will be march, or at least Q1-Q2, obviously soon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Draggingalake (talk • contribs).

1)It's Star Fox (it annoys me when people spell it as one word) and 2)As of right now it has no release date. Also, how did you get 1 N64 game per month? There was no N64 game in December. TJ Spyke 22:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

well starting with janurary, feb, and so on—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Draggingalake (talk • contribs).

I definitely agree that SF64 is coming this month but we have no reason to believe that yet, so we can't add it. Evan1109 17:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

What reason is there to believe it will be out this month? It has been listed on the ESRB site for a few months, along with a ton of other games. TJ Spyke 23:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Its ESRB debut was only this past week; even the original N64 version wasn't listed before then. (And it still isn't.) It was added to the Wiki article based on some IGN article, but the reference link got lost somewhere along the way.

Of course this is hardly a reason to expect it this month, as there's still unreleased games that have been listed at the ESRB for months. -Arcanelore 00:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm almost 100% certain it's been listed for awhile. TJ Spyke 00:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Or not. TJ Spyke 21:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

No one is saying to change it to march because there is no proof of march. I was just saying I think its going to arrive in March because I think Nintendo will at least give us one N64 game a month, if so, that's only 12 games this year out of so many N64 games. I hope its more than one, but I wouldn't see why they wouldn't do one a month. If not Star Fox this month, then I'm sure it will be another N64 game. Lets hope. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Draggingalake (talk • contribs).

The N64 actually had a pretty small library, especially compared to the NES/SNES/Genesis. TJ Spyke 02:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I just want to know when it comes out! It has been my favorite game since I owned a N64! mrmean393 09:53, 24 March 2007 (MTC)

We don't know. TJ Spyke 19:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

WOO!! Star Fox 64 is out!!! Finally!!!! Also TMNT!!! Neo Samus 15:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Only 2 days off of March, Lets Hope Nintendo Keeps this up with about 30 days between a new N64 game. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Draggingalake (talk • contribs) 15:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

The game is called "Starfox." It is one word. "Star Fox" was an Atari game. Nintendo's game with Fox McCloud is "Starfox," one word. Why is it that hard to understand? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.69.138.140 (talk • contribs).

WRONG. Take a look at any time Nintendo uses it in print, it's "Star Fox". It has never been "Starfox", please do some research before replying. Do a search of the USPTO site, the trademark is for "Star Fox", a search of Nintendo's website shows it as "Star Fox" [1], and the intstruction manuals all use "Star Fox". Willing to admit that you are wrong? TJ Spyke 22:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tecmo Bowl to appear this month?

Usually, when a game appears on the servers (which Tecmo Bowl did) the game comes out in the shop about 1-4 weeks. It has happened with Link To The Past, Super Mario World, Contra III, Kirby's Adventure, Elevator Action and other games. So should a March 2007 release date be put as Tecmo Bowl's? WikiLoco 03:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

For what feels the like millionth time this has been asked: NO. Unless Nintendo or some other official source (i.e. the developer/publisher) announced it, it's not official and just a guess. TJ Spyke 04:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is the exception - Excitebike. It appeared on the server in mid-Feb and still hasn't gotten released. Because of that, we can't take the gamble --Bishop2 13:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

He's right. Unless it comes from some official source; be it Nintendo, Hudson, or Sega, we cant post any release date. Machinehead09 21:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

HAHAHA! Nintendo did that just to mess with our minds and to try to disrupt the accuracy of the server checking! Anyway, I agree that, although it's very fun to try to find the games popping up on the servers, we shouldn't take that as proof of upcoming release, only as eventually. Or something like that. Clever Nintendo.. :) Lamename3000 10:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

...and with that, Tecmo Bowl is available in the VC store. --PeanutCheeseBar 13:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It's still not reliable though. The only thing it tells us is that it will be available soon. But it seems like it's within a 4 week period. Neo Samus 14:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Has it been 4 weeks yet for Exitebike? Because that game has been on the server FOREVER now. Maybe next week is the 4-week mark, I'm not sure. --Bishop2 15:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Excitebike appeared on the servers February 12, and has missed all four of the following Mondays so far. -Arcanelore 16:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, make it 1-5 weeks then. But the conclusion can officially be drawn. Anytime a game shows up on the servers, it shows up on the shop in a few weeks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WikiLoco (talk • contribs) 20:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

You are of course assuming that Excitebike will actually show up next week. There's still no official release date. The longer it sits there, the more we have reason to doubt. --Bishop2 21:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Splatterhouse was also added to the servers last week. Bishop is right, just appearing on the VC doesn't mean anything other than it will eventually be added to the VC. TJ Spyke 00:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

This coming Monday March 19, 2007 will mark the fourth Monday that Excitebike has been on the server but not available to purchase. I have a gut feeling it will finally see release this coming Monday. Neo Samus 18:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

We have to wait until it is official. It's fun to hunt down what's on the server, and I hope that it DOES come out on Monday, but we have to wait until it is official. Lamename3000 00:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I know. I was just stating my opinion. By the way how do you look through the server to find the images? Neo Samus 22:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Here: http://www.tech-recipes.com/rx/1879/wii_hack_to_view_wii_shop TJ Spyke 22:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry I meant how do you find the images. I know how to view the Wii shop channel from firefox. but how do people like arcanelore locate the images? By hacking? That was what I ment to say. I should have been more specific with my question. Neo Samus 15:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

See those last 3 numbers in the URL of the links? Those are the pictures. 001 is the title screen, 002 is the first pic and 003 is the third pic. Once you find the game, the pics are easy. Maybe he can explain in more detail if you need it. BTW, Excitebike is FINALLY up (along with Splatterhouse and Beyond Oasis). TJ Spyke 16:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Here are a couple of previous discussions on this: 1 2. -Arcanelore 19:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I noticed the numbers at the end of the URL and I figured they were the pic numbers. Finally Excitebike came out. So the longest a game has been on the server without release is 4 weeks. Still not good enough for a reliable reference but it gives us a better idea on how long a game can on the server. On another note, I'm shocked that TMNT didn't come out this week. Neo Samus 16:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Missing information

This article would be much more useful for browsing purposes if it had player numbers and controller requirements too, since they vary from game to game and have a major effect on the desire to purchase a game. This is the most complete or accurate VC list I've seen, so it'd be nice if it was a little more functional. Bradofarrell 12:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Player numbers is covered in the individual games articles, and the controller compatibility is in the main Virtual Console article. TJ Spyke 12:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why were my changes deleted?

I know they are ESRB rated and they were taken off in minutes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dartheyegouger (talk • contribs) 02:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

If you had read the various warnings on the page, you would know that you have to provide a source. Also, games like Beetle Adventure Racing just say "Nintendo", not "Wii" for their platform (all other VC games say "Wii"). TJ Spyke 02:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutopia was confirmed by IGN. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dartheyegouger (talk • contribs) 02:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

The games need to be confirmed by either the companys publisher or the ESRB (or found on the VC servers). Neutopia has not been announced by Hudson Soft and isn't on the ESRB site (maybe someone familiar with doing so can check the VC servers). TJ Spyke 02:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by VC servers? The actual Wii Shop? Also, why would the games be "confirmed" on IGN if they weren't really coming out? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dartheyegouger (talk • contribs) 02:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

See Talk:List of Virtual Console games (North America)#The Wii Shop Server Screenshot Topic. About IGN, the first reason that comes to mind is that the people at NeoGAF made up a fake press release announcing that Konami would release "Metal Gear Triology" for the Xbox 360 (they misspelled it on purpose). Not only did IGN print the press release, but they even made a game entry in their database for "Metal Gear Triology", only to remove it after a few hours when they found out it was a hoax. BTW, sign your posts. TJ Spyke 03:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ESRB's "Nintendo" Category, Once and For All.

I notice someone's added Beetle Adventure Racing and Aerofighters Assault back to the article, presumably based on the fact they're listed at the ESRB for the "Nintendo" platform. Now, it seems many believe that this "Nintendo" category is a list of games re-rated for the Virtual Console, given the non-specific "Nintendo" heading and the fact that it contains a mix of NES, SNES, and N64 titles.

I, however, believe it is merely a collection of first-release ratings that have been erroneously lumped together instead of going into the correct "Super Nintendo" and "Nintendo 64" categories, and as such all such games should be removed from the article unless some more definitive source arises. And even if I can't convince anyone that this category is a mere error, I believe I can at least throw enough doubt on it to justify the removals.

Before I bore everybody with a detailed breakdown of how the likes of Super Mario Bros and Dr. Mario could possibly have ESRB ratings without the VC, I'd just like to point out Beetle Adventure Racing and Mario Party for "Nintendo" being rated... in 1999. Surely VC titles weren't being rated before the Gamecube was even off the drawing board? (And other games on that page are correctly listed as being "Nintendo 64" games.)

Now that we've shown the "Nintendo" category predates the VC by several years, we now turn to the issue of whether the ratings given could be from the games' original releases. The 30-odd "Nintendo" titles basically fall into the following categories:

Misplaced N64 Titles: As the N64 came out after the inception of the ESRB, obviously all N64 titles should have ESRB ratings.

Misplaced SNES Releases (DKC, Hagane, Tin Star, Uniracers, Frogger, etc.): Any game released very late in 1994 or later should have gotten an ESRB rating, and none of the SNES titles in the "Nintendo" category seem to be pre-ESRB releases. Well, except for:

Misplaced SNES Player's Choice Re-releases (Super Mario World, Super Mario Kart): Late in the SNES's life cycle Nintendo reissued several games under the Player's Choice label. These would have required ESRB ratings. (The Wiki article helpfully shows us a SMW box with an ESRB rating.) Also note Super Mario All-Stars and Tetris & Dr. Mario on that list.

Apparent NES titles: Surely these couldn't have been rated before the VC? Well, not so fast. Wario's Woods was released very late in 1994 (December IIRC, but I'd have to check), and in fact became the only NES title to get an ESRB rating during the system's lifespan. And the rest? I submit that they're not referring to the NES versions at all; as I mentioned above, All-Stars and Tetris & Dr. Mario would have been rated.

But, you say, the ESRB doesn't individually rate games on compilations! It's true that they don't do that today, but there is at least one other instance of this happening early in the ESRB's career: check the Super Nintendo section for three separate Ninja Gaiden (Trilogy) listings.

Admittedly there are a few holes in this theory, but nothing major:

Super Punch-Out! - This isn't listed in the Wiki article as being a Player's Choice title, and its original release was too early to have been rated. However, a quick eBay check brings up a mix of carts both with and without an ESRB rating... did this get some sort of post-ESRB reissue?

Where are Tetris and Super Mario Bros. 2 (USA)? Good question. But missing titles are hardly surprising; the original N64 versions of Mario Kart 64 and Star Fox 64 aren't listed. Neither is Motoroader, a recent VC release.

Why is SMB2J not listed as "The Lost Levels"? Well, you've finally got me there.

As a final aside, three games from this "Nintendo" category have in fact seen VC releases: Wario's Woods, Super Mario World, and Donkey Kong Country. However, soon after the ESRB spawned duplicate "Wii" listings for SMW and WW, and tacked "Wii" onto an already existing dupe entry for the GBA version of DKC. These examples don't seem to vindicate the "Nintendo" category being for VC releases.

And now I'll finally shut up. -Arcanelore 03:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I lied. Dr. Mario for "Nintendo", released on 8/25/1996, rated in 2004. -Arcanelore 04:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

That Dr. Mario one is odd. The only Mario related games released in August 1996 was Tetris Attack for the Super NES/Game Boy. TJ Spyke 04:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It'd be around the right time (give or take a year) for the Player's Choice re-release of Tetris & Dr. Mario, but I can't find an exact release date for that. -Arcanelore 04:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope, the Player's Choice version of Tetris & Dr. Mario came out in November 1998 (the PC versions of Super Mario Kart and Super Mario All-Stars were released the previous month). TJ Spyke 06:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Huh. Well, I have no idea what they were on about then. -Arcanelore 16:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

A couple of updates. First, the original Super Mario Bros. is another example of a "Nintendo" game getting a VC release. And like DKC, the ESRB just tacked "Wii" onto an existing duplicate GBA entry shortly thereafter. Second, I found Tetris and SMB2US... they're in the Super Nintendo section. -Arcanelore 16:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. Mario

I noticed dr mario being removed from NA VC to be released list. Is there a source for that or is it an error? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.75.251.212 (talk) 16:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

See the above section. TJ Spyke 16:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The way the Shop Channel works?

I find it funny that Excitebike was on the Virtual Console servers for a month, and now when it is released, it is not labeled as new. Maybe the internal guts of the channel know that it has been there for so long, and so it auto removes the label after a certain number of weeks.. Anyone know the exact amount of time before a game's new label is removed? Lamename3000 20:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It was likely just a mistake, this has happened before (a game is released but not in the new section). It will likely be fixed soon. TJ Spyke 23:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Darn, and I thought I was being clever... :( ... :) Lamename3000 01:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, It's still not labeled as new (way to go, Nintendo) and they are only releasing 1 VC game this week? What the heck!??!?Lamename3000 14:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Only one title was released the week of The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past. This isn't a first. Though at least ALttP was a bit more famous of a game...66.67.9.170 17:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] zombies ate my neighbors

is this game only listed in the upcoming games because it was given the ambiguous "nintendo" rating on the esrb site, or is there another source for it? i would love to see this game come out on VC, so i'm going to have to kick the teeth in of the person who added that to the list if it never comes out. Pandapatrol 14:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It's listed at the ESRB, with an unambiguous "Wii" listing. -Arcanelore 17:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

well i guess being listed as "wii" is better than being listed as "nintendo" hopefully this game comes out. Crazy4metallica 18:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Super mario RPG source

This doesnt appear to have any source. Is this vandalism or is it actualy confirmed to be coming out? Mattyatty 18:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC) Ive just noticed that this also goes for Super Metroid Mattyatty 18:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

These were originally from IGN, which in turn sourced them to the ESRB around fall of last year, before the Wii's release. --Bishop2 19:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Title Organization

I don't quite feel that the word "The" should be used in putting games like The Legend of Zelda with other "the" games. So, how about "Legend of Zelda, The" for such games? For colons, "Legend of Zelda, The: Ocarina of Time." How about that? All SMiles 13:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this. This would be an intelligent move. --Bishop2 13:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I actually did this a while back, and someone changed it back. -Arcanelore 16:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree in this case, as if you look in the Wii Shop Channel the games with 'The' at the front are listed alphabetically in the T's. I feel that this should not be changed to be consistent with the actual Wii Shop Channel. Zomic_13 16:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

However, this isn't meant to list games in the order they appear on Wii Shop Channel, or you would be able to change this list to sort by recent releases and such. The Wii's website already has all the Virtual Console games listed in that order, and this is meant to be an online encyclopedia of the North American Virtual Console titles. It is not proper in an encylopedia to alphabetize starting with the articles, such as "a", "an", and "the".66.67.9.170 17:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

All Smiles, what are talking about? The only Zelda game that has come out on the same day as other games on the same system is the first Zelda game, and it is the second game listed (so is listed under L). The other two Zelda games are also in the correct spot since we list games in the order they came out. "The Legend of Zelda" is correct, "Legend of Zelda, The" is just odd. TJ Spyke 20:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

On this old version, the default sort is fine. The problem arises when one elects to sort by title, at which point "The Legend of Kage" and "The Legend of Zelda" get thrown into the T's. For the moment I've gone ahead used a similar trick to the one we use for the date column to sort this correctly while still reading "The Legend of Zelda". -Arcanelore 21:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Good job. TJ Spyke 21:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wii Points doesn't need to be listed

I really don't think listing the price is helpful. Seeing as how regular video games don't have their prices listed, why should Virtual Console games have it listed? Being a download that costs points (instead of actual money) doesn't make it an exception at all. Especially since the points originally cost money. This is an encyclopedia: not a guide to prices. RobJ1981 19:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Not only is it consistent with sections like the Xbox Live Arcade area, but it also allows us to point out the different "points" setups between various regions of the country. And it's good to indicate what games are dubbed worthy of breaking the set price structure, such as R-Type for TG-16. --Bishop2 19:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

In response to your comment about "breaking the set price". Isn't that just original research? Saying things such as "I think the price of this game or that game will be higher" is opinion, not factual. Correct me if I misunderstood that. RobJ1981 19:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I meant that the points listing allows us to delineate which games have broken with the set points structure for the VC games. For example, most TG-16 games cost 600 points, but then R-Type was released and was announced as costing 800 points. This is the only example in North America so far - Japan has a lot more examples of breaking with the standardized structure. --Bishop2 19:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that including the price is interesting and helpful information. The prices of regular video games change from store to store and as time goes on; none of that is true for the Virtual Console, so the analogy's not valid. TomTheHand 20:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Regular games are the same price at most stores: the only exceptions are sales on them, and the used stores such as EB. WP:ILIKEIT applies here, in my opinion. It being "interesting and helpful" isn't a correct reason to keep it. Many things are interesting: it doesn't mean we should list them in the article. As I stated before: it should be all with prices, or none at all. Downloads should be no exception, period. This is an encyclopedia, not a guide to prices (as I also stated before).RobJ1981 20:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Most games have the same MSRP, but stores don't always follow that. Wal-Mart usually is lower than it, and EB Games used to be higher (I remember EB chargin $53 for games most other stores had at $50). They also drop prices and have sales, something that doesn't happen here. Also, that "all or nothing" demand doesn't work. TJ Spyke 20:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Best Buy and Toys R' Us frequently set their own prices as well. Walk into EB Games and get Gunstar Super Heroes for $29.99. Walk into Best Buy, get it for $19.99. Walk into Toys R Us, it's now fixed at $9.99 and has been for the last 6 months. There's no such thing as set pricing. --Bishop2 22:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Good grief, pretty soon we'll be lucky if the game title will be left. What is with the constant complaining about what the chart has? Controller compatibility, price, system, developer/publisher... Ryuzx 21:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Just keep the price. It doesn't hurt anybody, and it's useful. Isn't the point of an encyclopedia entry that it is useful. I agree, the reason other games shouldn't have a set price listed is because there IS no set price. Different stores have different prices, and there are sales and price drops. So far, though, we haven't even seen Virtual Console have price drops, and it would be very surprising if they had any sort of sale. The prices are set for each region and so they are constant. So that throws out the argument that other games don't have set prices listed. This is a different situation. And we're taking off too much useful information, so just leave this on. Soon there won't be any useful information other than what games are available... unless someone has issues with that, too? I stand by my case that encyclopedias are for useful information that is constant, and the prices for the Virtual Console games are both useful and constant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.67.9.170 (talk) 14:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

The excuse of "it doesn't hurt anybody" doesn't apply to this. As I've stated before: this is an encyclopedia, NOT a guide to prices. How are the prices useful? If people want to buy the games, they can easily go to the official source to find out. Wikipedia shouldn't be used for this purpose. What do you want next on Wikipedia: a guide to where you can actually buy a game? There needs to be limits somewhere. Also: what exact "useful" information has been taken off the game charts? So called "useful" information isn't always useful, if only a few select people care about it in the long run. RobJ1981 20:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

"If people want to buy the games, they can easily go to the official source to find out." Then why have anything but the title listed? If people wanted to find out other info, like publisher, release date, ESRB rating, etc. they could just go to the official source to find out. The point value is important and should remain on the list. Zomic_13 21:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point!Lamename3000 03:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid Bishop2 is correct for the fact that not all Virtual Console games for one particular system share the same price point (which could potentially set a precedent for pricing of other games released in the future in the shop), though since VC games are only available as VC games from one source (and given the fact that the article is a list of games to be released on VC), the prices should stay. --PeanutCheeseBar 12:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

We now have two games (R-Type for TG-16 and TMNT for NES) that have different prices than the rest of the games in their category. Although some feel it is probably repetitive, it shows that points can vary and that there is a need for the points column. Zomic_13 17:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It goes back to listing prices for normal games: they are all the same price (with the exception of sale prices, certain stores, and used game stores). Just because something varies in price, doesn't mean it makes it special and/or notable for the article. If this was the case, there would be mass price listings at movie and CD articles stating where it's cheaper or more money. That's not the case, and this certainly shouldn't be an exception. I don't want to sound like a broken record but... Wikipedia isn't a guide to prices. How exactly are download prices, encyclopedic? They remain the same, but I certainly don't think that's enough to prove it's encyclopedic. RobJ1981 18:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The price is pertinent to the article just like the ESRB rating, publisher, etc. What makes having the ESRB rating so encyclopedic and prices not? Zomic_13 18:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Lets vote to put an end to this otherwise endless debate. Zomic_13 18:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Do you wish to KEEP the "Wii Points" column or DELETE it?

VOTE EITHER KEEP OR DELETE

Keep - The Wii Points column is no less important than any of the other columns. Zomic_13 18:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep - I not only agree with the above, I also think it's MORE important than some of the columns. The release dates have little relevance after they've passed, for example, but points continue to be relevant. --Bishop2 18:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep - Useful and notable information; comparing this with listing prices for other objects is not valid. TomTheHand 18:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep - It's handy for people like me that want the know the price before I go to the Wii Shop channel to download the game. Also because when I'm at work my internet is extremely filtered. Why is this even an issue?? Neo Samus 19:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep It's informative information and very helpful. TJ Spyke 21:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep There are now two examples of deviations from "standard pricing." Wii Points are also a notable feature of the VC. --Billdorr 23:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep as the standard pricing is no longer guaranteed. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 23:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep As I stated in my argument above, prices may not be consistent for all games of a particular system; today's VC release of TMNT proved me to be correct on that matter. --PeanutCheeseBar 00:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep Since it can get very complicated with some games, as demonstrated by TMNT and R-TYPE, games from one system aren't always the same price, so I vote Keep. Lamename3000 07:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep I say it is useful information, especially if there are going to be games (like TMNT) that are going to be a different amount of points from other games on the system. Minirogue 03:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep: 10

Delete: 0

Current Consensus: Keep

[edit] What Games

What games were released on April 2, 2007? Smash Attack 14:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Nothing yet, because games are released at 12 p.m. ET/9 a.m. PT, which is still 90 minutes away. However, GoNintendo is reporting it will be Star Fox 64, TMNT for NES and Dragon Curse for TG-16. Nintendo's press site, on the other hand, contains no confirmation.--Bishop2 14:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

All those titles have been confirmed and are now avaiable. Neo Samus 15:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is TMNT 600 points? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Draggingalake (talk • contribs) 15:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

That's a good question, to which I would like to know the answer to. Maybe Konami made Nintendo raise the price to try to get an extra $1 out of each person who downloads it. Because really, who's going to not get if they WERE, and it's a dollar extra (Besides me)? Also the upcoming movie may play a factor. Lamename3000 16:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The movie isn't really "upcoming" any more, since it's been out in theaters for two weeks now. :) I think the answer is likely due to Konami's license rights. They probably wanted extra cash to help fund paying for the TMNT license again. It's unclear whether they paid UbiSoft for the rights to put out their old games (since UbiSoft is now making the games based on the movie) or if they still had the rights to the television cartoons and just had to pay for THAT, but the fact remains that it's still a license. --Bishop2 18:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hm. You're right... I wasn't really following the movie, so I assumed it was still upcoming.. Lamename3000 07:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

My best guess is that it has to do with the license. I don't think Konami has the TMNT license anymore and to have it on the VC they have to pay Ubisoft royalites per each download. Neo Samus 19:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

IIRC, Konami has the license for the anime/cartoon and Ubisoft has the license for the movie. TJ Spyke 21:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

One way or the other, Konami has to pay royalties to Mirage... I believe this is the first licensed game to appear on the VC, at least in North America (correct me if I'm wrong). Djister 00:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nintendo has licences to a lot of games.

I listen to a lot of podcasts and there's always a question like "will this game go on virtaul console" or so forth. Usually the Game Editors or whomever say, "It depends on who owns the licences to that game." THIS IS NOT A LIST OF UPCOMING VC GAMES, this is a list of unusal games (I think so) that nintendo has the the rights to. The source is www.nintendo.com/doc/n64_games.pdf

Banjo-Kazooie • Nintendo • June 1998
Banjo Tooie • Nintendo • November 2000
Blast Corps. • Nintendo • March 1997
Command and Conquer • Nintendo • June 1999
Conker's Bad Fur Day • Nintendo • March 2001
Jet Force Gemini • Nintendo • October 1999
Ken Griffey Jr's Slugfest • Nintendo • May 1999
Killer Instinct Gold • Nintendo • November 1996
Kirby 64: The Crystal Shards • Nintendo • June 2000
Perfect Dark • Nintendo • May 2000
PilotWings 64 • Nintendo • September 1996
The New Tetris • Nintendo • July 1999
StarCraft • Nintendo • June 2000
Conker's Bad Fur Day • Nintendo • March 2001
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Draggingalake (talk • contribs).

Wrong, that is a list of who had the license at the time they were published. Command & Conquer belongs to EA, Ken Griffey belongs ton Nintendo (but they would have to license his name/likeness again), Kirby belongs to Nintendo, Pilotwings belongs to Nintendo, Tetris belongs to The Tetris Company, Starcraft belongs to Blizzard (technically Vivendi Games since they own Blizzard), and the rest belong to Rare (technically Microsoft). TJ Spyke 22:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

So your saying at that date in time Nintendo had the rights, because if you look at the whole list, and your saying at that time, Nintendo didn't own the rights to a lot of games on that list. I understand Rare made a handful of those games, and everyone knows Starcraft is Blizzard. I'm just confused I guess because if your saying that they we're owned by Nintendo at that time, then why arn't all the games on the list say Nintendo by them? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Draggingalake (talk • contribs) 23:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

By license, I mean published. Nintendo published or distributed those games. Even if Nintendo wanted to put a game on the VC, they need the permission of the IP holder (for example, they would have to get permission from The Tetris Company in order to put any Tetris game on). TJ Spyke 23:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels

A while ago, this game was listed as a future release for the VC. Now, I don't see it. Any particular reason why? TanookiMario257 00:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It was decided that all games that only have "Nintendo" listed as their platform won't be included since there is no way to tell if they will be on the VC or not. If/when the game gets a "Wii" listing (like all the other VC games have), it will be added again. TJ Spyke 00:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)