Ah.
So it's not implemented yet, in other words. System Update and all. Sounds good.
I'd love to play Melee on it as well. Possibly with some updates, like online. Doubtful, but if regular emulators(I.E. Project 64) can put 64 on online, and I think GC Emulators have made it online accessible as well, you know, why not? I don't expect it, but before Brawl was made, the ideal of Melee with Online was brought up at one time among Nintendo's team. I forget the exact details. It was a possible idea, and not a fan one.
Shadow?Didn't one of the many versions of the PS 3 support both PS 2 and PS 1 games?
edited 4th Jan '14 1:27:00 AM by MagcargoMan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8yAjWvAqyMBecause they were created to support them. They also had the same physical disc sizes, so that cuts down on costs alone.
This isn't as much of an option with a system that uses different-sized discs. Likewise, the more backwards compatible it is, the more it take to program it and puts in parts. The reason the Wii U is far cheaper than other systems is the lack of these types of things.
Mind you, the Wii U cannot use a Game Cube Controller anyway. Never was an option. Why? I dunno. Classic Controller is going to be required, and they have the Tablet, which works just as well, imo.
...Oh, right that. I haven't figured out where to put it among my list of Nintendo Console Controllers. It's pretty comfy, despite being large. I'd have to play a long enough session to see if the heaviness matters.
Shadow?Nobody said it was "hard" to do.
But it does require more stuff as is. More programming, more materials to make the disc reader able to do more. More processing power. Game Cube controller ports.
Which does bump up the price. Nintendo went the most cost-effective method. I don't necessarily agree with this, but that's pretty much the reality of the situation.
Backwards compatibility always requires more and bumps up the price of a console. If you're going for a lower price, you have to cut things. Normal business practice and all.
edited 4th Jan '14 2:01:35 AM by Irene
Shadow?Just paying the extra $50 to have backward compatitiblity is going to end up more cost-efficient to the consumer than buying all the Virtual Console/PSN stuff in the long run.
I can tell you now that paying more for a Wii U is gonna cost me less than buying five or six Gaemcube games I already own on Wii U VC.
edited 4th Jan '14 2:03:48 AM by MagcargoMan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8yAjWvAqyMAnd that means Nintendo makes less from the consumer and gets more money in the end.
Kind of obvious what a Business wants in this case, the most money they can get.
It's not always about costing the consumer less. All parts cost money. They don't make more money if it's backwards compatible with Game Cube games. This means that they can either A) lose money or B) get far less that what they do now.
I don't see why they wouldn't use the option that makes them the most, which is the most logical for a business to do.
Shadow?Am I the only one on this site that prefers integrity over money-grubbing?
Nintendo's not gonna go bankrupt if they don't do a Gamecube VC for crying out loud.
edited 4th Jan '14 2:12:32 AM by MagcargoMan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8yAjWvAqyMThe updated Wii doesn't. But the original does have Game Cube ports.
It's mostly because a game like Brawl severely wanted Game Cube controllers. That, and it was made with it in mind.
Nintendo stopped wanting to sell GC controllers when they stopped supporting the GC by stopping making actual games. You can still find 3rd party GC controllers, thankfully.
And no, the latest version of the Wii can't(the Wii Mini). The one without GC ports.
edited 4th Jan '14 2:19:53 AM by Irene
Shadow?It's never about costing the consumer less:
Have you been lurking (*Sincerity Mode*)? I have never seen you on this thread before.
edited 4th Jan '14 2:35:05 AM by MagcargoMan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8yAjWvAqyMFor the record, backwards compatibility is actually really hard to do. Not only do you need to have the parts to play those discs, but you also need to emulate any parts you don't have in the system. You have to manufacture those parts, put those parts into the console, and keep it form over heating or breaking too easily. All of that ads A LOT to the costs for a feature only a minority will use, which is why it's largely been cut from modern consoles.
nyo ho hoBecause the people who have gamecube games to play probably already have gamecubes, and adding another hundred bucks to a price tag just for convenience is pretty dumb. It's a very small community who want to play games from previous generations who won't just buy cheap older consoles, or already own them. For those who do, you can just sell them on the eShop, which is much more profitable and cheaper for everyone.
nyo ho hoAlso, for Nintendo, they don't have a secondary market for stuff like Microsoft and Sony do. Microsoft has computer stuff. Sony has general electronics. They all have their own toys(often Legos and Megablocks). Nintendo has no true secondary market.
So Nintendo using the most cost-effective design is completely understandable, especially if they make money through the VC than selling old consoles that don't make anymore(they refurbish them at best, or have? I don't know if you can send in a Game Cube anymore to get it fixed).
Shadow?Again, that's hardly true. It's hardly just old games that are being bought for them, lots of new games are still being made for them. And they still manufacture the consoles because there's high demand. Lots of people are still buying new Xbox 360s and PS3s. And there's a high overlap between people buying these consoles and the new ones.

Wait, I thought GC VC games were possible on the Wii U? Or was that a scrapped idea?
Shadow?