Yoshi's Cookie Will Be Removed From Virtual Console Friday

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Yoshi's Cookie Will Be Removed From Virtual Console Friday

YoshisCookie

You'd think a game with Mario's faithful steed in the title would have a longer shelf life.

If you want a copy of the NES puzzler Yoshi's Cookie for your Wii, snap it up before 9 a.m., Friday, Oct. 18, when the game gets pulled indefinitely from the system's Virtual Console download service. After that point, customers won't be able to purchase it or redownload it if they already bought it. The game was already removed from the European and Japanese Virtual Console service.

Joystiq hypothesizes that an expired license is the cause of the delisting, noting that similar disputes have resulted in previous games being removed from the service. These include Konami's Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Irem's R-Type and the three Donkey Kong Country games.

Yoshi's Cookie, developed by Bullet-Proof Software, was released for the NES in 1992, with a Game Boy version also being released that year and a Super Nintendo version in 1993. It was released on the Virtual Console in 2008. Neither the Game Boy or SNES versions are currently available on the Wii Virtual Channel, according to Nintendo's official site.

Source: GoNintendo via Joystiq

Permalink

Why exactly does this need to be pulled? If the license is expired, that should just mean you can't charge for it anymore. Or is Nintendo afraid to realize that perhaps, just perhaps, making many of these old games free to download could *gasp* legitimately combat piracy?

"After that point, customers won't be able to purchase it or redownload it if they already bought it."

And that's why digital download games are not, nor will ever be a substitute for disc's.

That's why Nintendo sucks at digital distribution.

If homebrew emulation for the Wii is a much better deal than the Virtual Console itself, then something is deeply wrong with your service.

Dr.Awkward:
Why exactly does this need to be pulled? If the license is expired, that should just mean you can't charge for it anymore. Or is Nintendo afraid to realize that perhaps, just perhaps, making many of these old games free to download could *gasp* legitimately combat piracy?

The only difference between Nintendo hosting the game for free and people making roms for others to download online is that in the first instance Nintendo has to pay for the servers that hold the game.

Okay, they want to not allow people to buy the game anymore? Fine, that's their right, and regardless of whether or not I think it's a good decision, it's their decision to make.

That being said, preventing people who already bought the game from downloading it again just seems wrong. One of the oft-touted "advantages" of digital distribution is that if you don't have the hard drive space to download a new game, you can uninstall your old ones to make room, then download them again later if you want to play them again. But now, for this game at least, you won't be able to do that. Seems unfair at the very least.

[insert snarky comment about the Evils of Steam here]

OT: Daw. It doesn't seem very smart, though. Die-hard Mario fans are going to piss boiling oil if they lose their copy and can no longer get it legally.

or redownload it if they already bought it.

What?

Nintendo taking a lesson from EA or something?

If someone purchased, just ONE person, via this distribution method then they need to be able to download this title. All you have to do is stop selling it. That doesn't mean you pull the digital download service from your system. It's a drop in a bucket that's a bucket in a truck full of other buckets, that dumps those buckets into a dam that other trucks dump buckets with drops in into. That's how much keeping this available on your systems will cost compared to the rest of Nintendo's operational budget.

Is it really worth eroding the faith people have in your digital distribution service?

They really need to actually ask consumers what they think about some things before they do some things.

What I'm surprised about is that there was a pre-SNES yoshi. I had no idea that yoshi was a cookie eating dinosaur in the days before mario turned 16-bit.

I suspect that Nintendo isn't particularly happy to remove them from the site. I'm really surprised about R-Type.

Shit like this why digital distribution shouldn't be the future, or at least if it has to be, why an open platform like the PC, Steam box, or *gasp* Ouya is a necessity.

Kumagawa Misogi:
"After that point, customers won't be able to purchase it or redownload it if they already bought it."

And that's why digital download games are not, nor will ever be a substitute for disc's.

Not for consoles anyways. Some games on the PC just wind up as freeware after long enough.

SomeGuyOnHisComputer:
Shit like this why digital distribution shouldn't be the future, or at least if it has to be, why an open platform like the PC, Steam box, or *gasp* Ouya is a necessity.

That's a good joke. Using Ouya and necessity in the same sentence like that.

thiosk:
What I'm surprised about is that there was a pre-SNES yoshi. I had no idea that yoshi was a cookie eating dinosaur in the days before mario turned 16-bit.

I suspect that Nintendo isn't particularly happy to remove them from the site. I'm really surprised about R-Type.

yoshi was originally thought of after the release of the first game, but they couldn't figure out how to get him to work technically until the SNES

thiosk:
What I'm surprised about is that there was a pre-SNES yoshi.

There wasn't, or not in any game at least. Yoshi debuted in Super Mario World in 1990. Yoshi's Cookie is from 1992.

And this is why hard copies are far superior to digital copies. The only good aspect to digital downloads is that you can re-download the content if gets corrupted or whatnot, and they are taking that away from people. This shows that it can be done, and that is enough to ward me off.

Kumagawa Misogi:
"After that point, customers won't be able to purchase it or redownload it if they already bought it."

And that's why digital download games are not, nor will ever be a substitute for disc's.

Or in this case, cartridges.

Sarge034:
And this is why hard copies are far superior to digital copies. The only good aspect to digital downloads is that you can re-download the content if gets corrupted or whatnot, and they are taking that away from people. This shows that it can be done, and that is enough to ward me off.

Well, physical copies are also susseptable to their own kind of issues, such as going out of print or being damaged.

If the physical copy goes bust then you would turn to digital. If the digital copy is bust there's often the black flag method of obtaining the software.

Abomination:
Well, physical copies are also susseptable to their own kind of issues, such as going out of print or being damaged.

If the physical copy goes bust then you would turn to digital. If the digital copy is bust there's often the black flag method of obtaining the software.

It might surprise you to know that I still have a Yoshi's Cookie cartage and it still works perfectly fine. So excuse me if physical media has proven to be more reliable than digital media to me.

It sucks it has to be pulled, but it's not end of the world by any means. I'm sure there are plenty of online emulators out there if someone really needs their Yoshi's Cookie fix.

Sarge034:

Abomination:
Well, physical copies are also susseptable to their own kind of issues, such as going out of print or being damaged.

If the physical copy goes bust then you would turn to digital. If the digital copy is bust there's often the black flag method of obtaining the software.

It might surprise you to know that I still have a Yoshi's Cookie cartage and it still works perfectly fine. So excuse me if physical media has proven to be more reliable than digital media to me.

To you, yes.

Both have their advantages but I'll be damned if one can claim to be objectively better than the other. Both are objectively better than the other in different fields.

What a nice way to find out this game exists :(

Dr.Awkward:
Why exactly does this need to be pulled? If the license is expired, that should just mean you can't charge for it anymore. Or is Nintendo afraid to realize that perhaps, just perhaps, making many of these old games free to download could *gasp* legitimately combat piracy?

Nintendo isn't afraid of Failure, just of altering their mindset in any way, shape or form.

AzrealMaximillion:

Kumagawa Misogi:
"After that point, customers won't be able to purchase it or redownload it if they already bought it."

And that's why digital download games are not, nor will ever be a substitute for disc's.

Not for consoles anyways. Some games on the PC just wind up as freeware after long enough.

And even on PC you should always make an independent back-up. I learned that the hard way believe me.

Abomination:
To you, yes.

And that is the only opinion that matters to me. Funny that...

Both have their advantages but I'll be damned if one can claim to be objectively better than the other. Both are objectively better than the other in different fields.

Then I guess you'll be damned because physical copies come out on top in so many more categories than digital copies do that, at least for now, physical copies are better. Somehow a physical copy has survived and continued to function since 1992. While the digital version was released in 2008 and ceased to function in 2013.

Physical copy- 21+ years
Digital copy- 5 years

Longevity goes to physical copy. Ownership goes to physical copy. Less hard drive space goes to physical copy. Win goes to physical copy.

If you have counterpoint share them. I may very well be missing something that pushes my view to a neutral, or even positive, view of digital copies. Doubtful, but never say never.

Sarge034:

Abomination:
To you, yes.

And that is the only opinion that matters to me. Funny that...

Both have their advantages but I'll be damned if one can claim to be objectively better than the other. Both are objectively better than the other in different fields.

Then I guess you'll be damned because physical copies come out on top in so many more categories than digital copies do that, at least for now, physical copies are better. Somehow a physical copy has survived and continued to function since 1992. While the digital version was released in 2008 and ceased to function in 2013.

Physical copy- 21+ years
Digital copy- 5 years

Longevity goes to physical copy. Ownership goes to physical copy. Less hard drive space goes to physical copy. Win goes to physical copy.

If you have counterpoint share them. I may very well be missing something that pushes my view to a neutral, or even positive, view of digital copies. Doubtful, but never say never.

I'd rather not attempt to engage in a competition with shifting goalposts, if that's all the same to you.

But would you mind sending me your copy of that game? I'm in New Zealand though so the shipping costs will probably be high.

One word:

Emulator

If they have to take it down, then so be it. Personally they should've given everyone who had already purchased it a code so if they lose the original game, they can have a one time chance to re download it. Then again, if the game isn't on their servers, how is anyone going to get the game anyway?

I mean, I'm pretty sure they could've renewed the license or something.

To be honest....all I can think of when I hear this news is a teeny, tiny violin playing a sad tune. Clearly this is a tragedy for Yoshi Cookie fans everywhere.

And as everyone else has stated before hand. There are probably a million ROM hacks of the thing.

Abomination:
I'd rather not attempt to engage in a competition with shifting goalposts, if that's all the same to you.

So what exactly are the "shifting goalposts"? My point was that physical was better, I then provided points and facts. Unless you are talking about the ever improving technology...

But would you mind sending me your copy of that game? I'm in New Zealand though so the shipping costs will probably be high.

Yes I would mind. How do you think I know it still works? It aint because I have left it on the self since '92.

Sarge034:

Abomination:
I'd rather not attempt to engage in a competition with shifting goalposts, if that's all the same to you.

So what exactly are the "shifting goalposts"? My point was that physical was better, I then provided points and facts. Unless you are talking about the ever improving technology...

Points in its favour do not make it objectively better. If the basis for something being objectively better is how long it remains available to you then I would agree, but your statement was that physical media is objectively better than digital media.

It is in some ways, and it isn't in other ways.

But would you mind sending me your copy of that game? I'm in New Zealand though so the shipping costs will probably be high.

Yes I would mind. How do you think I know it still works? It aint because I have left it on the self since '92.

No but I want to play it. Can you send it to me and I'll send it back. In return I'll send you a digital game, something worth about $20... and you can keep it. Problem is it'll cost you more to send me the physical copy.

Abomination:
Points in its favour do not make it objectively better. If the basis for something being objectively better is how long it remains available to you then I would agree, but your statement was that physical media is objectively better than digital media.

It is in some ways, and it isn't in other ways.

I literally stopped reading and laughed and laughed and laughed. The ONLY way to determine what is objectively better is to draw up all pros and cons for the competing items and see who takes more points in its' favor. I brought up some of the categories that physical media wins and asked you to provide a counter argument which you have failed to provide. Instead hiding behind the non-answer that is "Both are objectively better than the other in different fields." This is true, however the objectively better one is objectively better in more objective fields than the other. I brought up longevity, ownership, and hard drive space. I will add accesses without internet and easiest on bandwidth restrictions.

No but I want to play it. Can you send it to me and I'll send it back. In return I'll send you a digital game, something worth about $20... and you can keep it. Problem is it'll cost you more to send me the physical copy.

If you want to play it so bad get the digital copy. You seem to think that is an acceptable venue so use it. Oh wait... You CAN'T because this digital media has already been scrubbed in Europe! I don't know you, I don't trust you, and I don't care if you play the game. I know what you are trying to say and if I had a friend that I actually trusted a ways away I'd tell them no too. Not because it is "more expensive" to send the physical copy, but because I am very whimsical when it comes to what I want to play. I never know when I might really want to pop in any game. Also, other than Steam (who retains ownership of the games you are renting btw) who lets you barrow and trade digital games? To my knowledge, no one does. So add that to the physical media pros, barrowing/trading allowed.

Edit- Sorry, double post.

Sarge034:
the objectively better one is objectively better in more objective fields than the other.

Sorry, there's no metric there for this.

One point in its favor doesn't count against one point not in its favor. The value of the objective benefits is subjective depending on the person using the medium. Perhaps it's better for YOU in YOUR scenario but that doesn't mean it's better for someone else in their scenario. To some people ease of access and not requiring physical space is more important than the potential benefits that a physical copy provides, some might find how cheap a digital copy is compared to a physical copy to be preferable.

One is not objectively better than the other. Better for YOU perhaps, and more power to you, but certainly not better for everyone... and that's okay. It's okay to like a certain thing more than someone else likes something... and it's okay for them to like a certain thing more than you like a certain other thing.

Sarge034:
I literally stopped reading and laughed and laughed and laughed.

Just don't be dismissive about it.

Abomination:
Sorry, there's no metric there for this.

One point in its favor doesn't count against one point not in its favor. The value of the objective benefits is subjective depending on the person using the medium. Perhaps it's better for YOU in YOUR scenario but that doesn't mean it's better for someone else in their scenario. To some people ease of access and not requiring physical space is more important than the potential benefits that a physical copy provides, some might find how cheap a digital copy is compared to a physical copy to be preferable.

One is not objectively better than the other. Better for YOU perhaps, and more power to you, but certainly not better for everyone... and that's okay. It's okay to like a certain thing more than someone else likes something... and it's okay for them to like a certain thing more than you like a certain other thing.

You keep using the word, "objectively"...
image
An objective point can never be subjective, or it would be a subjective point.

Objective point- Physical media takes up less hard drive space than digital media.
Subjective point- If the user cares about hard drive space.

You keep saying that neither can be objectively better and this is false. If you said that it was up to the individual to determine which was subjectively better and it will be different from person to person I would have agreed wholeheartedly. But you are acting like it is impossible to jot down the quantitative data and tally it.

Just don't be dismissive about it.

I was actually quite the opposite. I addressed your statement with clarifications and fact. This, however, was just too much. "Points in its favour (favor) do not make it objectively better." If they are objective points, which mine were/are, then they do in fact make it objectively better. Assuming, of course, that there are more points in the column those are included in than the other column.

Sarge034:
Assuming, of course, that there are more points in the column those are included in than the other column.

Keep using that 4th grade version of objectivity then. A point is only as valuable as it is to the person who considers it valuable.

This isn't a game of soccer. A "point" isn't as valuable as any other point.

Abomination:

Sarge034:
Assuming, of course, that there are more points in the column those are included in than the other column.

Keep using that 4th grade version of objectivity then. A point is only as valuable as it is to the person who considers it valuable.

This isn't a game of soccer. A "point" isn't as valuable as any other point.

I did learn a lot in fourth grade. Let me share my vast wealth of knowledge.

obĚjecĚtive

a. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See Synonyms at fair1.

b. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.

So like I said...
image

Sarge034:

Abomination:

Sarge034:
Assuming, of course, that there are more points in the column those are included in than the other column.

Keep using that 4th grade version of objectivity then. A point is only as valuable as it is to the person who considers it valuable.

This isn't a game of soccer. A "point" isn't as valuable as any other point.

I did learn a lot in fourth grade. Let me share my vast wealth of knowledge.[/img]

Something can be objectively better than something else in a particular fashion (a "point"), but how much value that "point" has can be subjective.

Digital media is subjectively better than physical media in some areas. Physical media is subjectively better than digital in some areas. How valuable those areas are to a consumer are subjective. If someone cares more about value for money than data space on their hard drive then they will consider the point for how much cheaper digital media can be to be subjectively better for them, ergo the fact that physical media can objectively take up less space on their hard drive is less valuable to them than to someone who is struggling to have all the programs they want installed on their computer.

This isn't a 1 for 1 point system. We aren't playing soccer. Just because one medium has more "points" doesn't mean it wins. A point for one person could be worth 5 whereas that same point for someone else could be worth 3. The fact they are points is objective. The value of those points is subjective.

Abomination:
Something can (has to) be objectively better than something else in a particular fashion (a "point"), but how much value that "point" has can be (is) subjective.

You almost got it exactly right. Something can be objectively better, but someone can prefer the other based on subjective views.

Digital media is subjectively better than physical media in some areas. Physical media is subjectively better than digital in some areas. How valuable those areas are to a consumer are subjective. If someone cares more about value for money than data space on their hard drive then they will consider the point for how much cheaper digital media can be to be subjectively better for them, ergo the fact that physical media can objectively take up less space on their hard drive is less valuable to them than to someone who is struggling to have all the programs they want installed on their computer.

True and irrelevant to the conversation. The two are devoid of each other. To objectively judge a winner you must simply calculate what does what better. To subjectively judge a winner you must decide how you feel about those objective points.

This isn't a 1 for 1 point system. We aren't playing soccer. Just because one medium has more "points" doesn't mean it wins. A point for one person could be worth 5 whereas that same point for someone else could be worth 3. The fact they are points is objective. The value of those points is subjective.

EXACTLY!!! This has been my point the whole time and in an objective system it is a "1 for 1 point system". That is the only way an objective system works.

How bout this for a simple demonstration. I have a gaming PC that is going on 5 years now, an Xbox 360, and a PS3. Objectively (spec wise)- PC > PS3 > 360
Subjectively (enjoyment wise)- 360 > PC > PS3

I was taking issue with the fact you said, "Both have their advantages but I'll be damned if one can claim to be objectively better than the other." Unless they are dead even there HAS to be one objectively better. I think I got the verbiage through to you because you started using "subjective" a lot more.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here