I've never heard of that. I knew of her through Not Enough Shaders. She's got some pretty good editorials.


So I guess some people know her for other reasons.

Ok, so despite the rabble-rousing, could someone educate the uninformed (me) and describe who Emily Rogers is in a non-derogatory way, and explain why her twitter account is a reliable source for Nintendo information?

I'm sincerely unaware, and would appreciate some education on the subject.

Is she usually wrong? If so then why is NWR reporting on this?

Because she has proven lately that she knows things about the eShop and its inner workings. Regardless of whatever she did in the past, she's been reliable for, as far as I can see, at least around a year.


I do remember her terrible rumors from 2 years ago. But that was 2 years ago. Now she's way more reliable. Still a rumor, though, as it could still turn out to be wrong.

Gifting ability was awesome. I loved our secret santa.

That's all I need to know. If she's generally reliable with her rumors, then there's no reason to take this "with a whole bag of salt".

That was literally the first thing I thought of when I saw this.

This. Bold for emphasis.

No, it's based on almost every post you have made.

Fjurbanski, she is sometimes right. The problem is that her accuracy is low enough that someone just predicting things could be as reliable as her. For example, here were rumors she posted about E3 2011 that ended up being false:

*She said Pikmin 3 would be playable, it wasn't
*She said over 20 Wii U titles would be playable (there werent)
*She said Smash Bros. was in development (the game did not start development until about 6 months later)
*She said Soulcalibur V would be a launch game (no Wii U version even exists)
*She said Rockstar Games was working on a Wii U game (no such game has ever been announced)

lolmonade. Emily Rogers was a Internet blogger who got Internet fame when she posted a bunch of Nintendo rumors, and claimed she slept with a guy at Nintendo to get her info. Some of the rumors came true and some didn't. Since then, she has a very SPOTTY track record and being right (see above for some of the many rumors she was wrong about just regarding E3 2011).

Legitimate criticism of the woman is fine. Argue she's not reliable, also fine. But don't make it personal and derogatory.

I wasn't being derogatory, I was stating how she got the rumors that made her name known. If she is the one who admitted to doing those activities, is that bad? It's like saying Rush Limbaugh has had a drug problem, it's factually true. To censor me TWICE for describing what she admitted to doing? To me, it's part of why she isn't reliable for rumors. How about telling me (in PM if you want) what about her I can't say, especially when I have only been truthful (nothing I have said has ben libelous).

Thanks for providing some more detail. 

I remember listening to a freakonomics podcast speaking about people who get paid to predict things, and how everyone remembers the times they we're "right", but seem to forget all the times they've been "wrong". 

Reminds me of how every time Michael Patcher speaks, every video game news outlet decides to regurgitate his commentary, even though it seems like he's rarely correct.

So while I think you could have proceeded with some more tact, I appreciate some more context as to why she could seem questionable as a source of information.

She works closely with various indie developers helping them get on the Wii U/3DS eShop. She's also known to have a good, working relationship with the eShop Mastermind Dan Adelman.


Simply put, she knows people that would know about the Wii U update and Virtual Console.


Also, all the blatantly false rumors from two years ago were all her. She colossally messed up. As far as I know, she admitted to making stuff up and has since focused on not being so full of crap.


I wouldn't call her infallible now, but she's in a position where she would know things.

So basically. A fallible human being, who is correct enough times that she has at least some credibility, has stated that we won't be seeing anything one day from now, but instead two or three days from now.


Riveting.

I found it odd that the service was going to launch on a Tuesday. While Nintendo's been known to release things on other days, I figured something like this would be on the normal Thursday. I'm guessing that's what's happening: announced tomorrow, released in Thursday's set of eShop downloads.

Remember that up until the 3DS eShop, Nintendo used to release digital games on Mondays. And the TurboGrafx-16 was first added to the VC on a Tuesday. So it would not be unheard of for it to launch tomorrow.

As I said, they've been known to release things on different days, I'm merely arguing that it was unusual given current circumstances.

If gifting 3DS/Wii U games becomes a thing, I foresee a forum goer who hates money gifting every member of RFN Funky Barn if only to have a live reaction show a' la Muscle March.

I can't believe no one is talking about the possibility of playing VC games you own across both 3DS and WiiU :Q ! That is the one thing I want most out of the new VC service. They can implement like Sony does with their PSP/Vita/PS3 games (which probably would require an account based system), or charge me a $1 per game that I own to transfer over to 3DS like they are doing with Wii to WiiU. 


Outside a very few games from the N64, I would prefer to carry and play ALL VC games on my 3DS.

Make that WiiWare and eShop games and we're talking.

I think we're not talking about it because there's too much disbelief regarding it.  We'll talk more about it if it comes true.

We've been asking for cross-buy for years, and Nintendo never so much as acknowledged it, and now suddenly a somewhat reliable source says it's happening. I'm still kind of in shock.

Yeah, pretty much. Nintendo has been so adamant in keeping their various consoles and handhelds separate that I'm extremely skeptical of any rumor that Nintendo's suddenly not only bringing them together but also not taking an easy opportunity to make you buy a game twice for 2 different platforms (see: Nintendo charging you to play your Wii Virtual Console games outside Wii Mode on the Wii U).  Until Nintendo formally announces such a service, I don't see the point in discussing a rumor that runs contrary to everything Nintendo has built their business around.

Cross-buy needs to happen. Perhaps... just perhaps the reason it hasn't happened yet (besides Nintendo's stubbornness) is a matter of horsepower and circumstance? Maybe the DS didn't have it under the hood to run everything (esp. N64) as is, and adding it to the Wii to 3DS would be pointless, as they'd given up on Wii? Just a thought, and N is probably just stubborn as usual. Just something that popped in my head just now.

Nintendo recently unified their handheld and console divisions. I think that had a lot to do with having separate accounts. This rumor is more believable than ever.

Oh, this again. I disagree. Not that I'm against it, but I try to fair. First, Nintendo isn't making anyone buy anything. You do that on your own volition. Second, just because you buy a game on Console A doesn't mean you're entitled to it on Console B. We all go through this every generation. Nothing is stopping you from playing the game on the platform you originally bought it on. Third, you're paying for extra functionality and convenience while Nintendo offers the transfer to Wii U at a discount with the transfer from Wii to Wii U Wii Mode being free. Nintendo didn't have to do either. If you want to take this even further, should we not have had to pay for VC games if we still own the original cartridge? We all want a good bargain, but where does it end?

"But Steam lets me X, Y, and Z." Good for Steam and good on Valve for instituting that. I think it's great, personally. I would love for Nintendo to do the same. I understand why people don't want to pay for a game twice or pay extra in general, but that's nothing more than blatant consumerism. Being admittedly cheap as fuck, I'm all about consumerism and savings and whatnot, but it has its limits. If you keep following that path, eventually you're going to want almost everything free all the time forever.

There is another issue: Getting the Nintendo Club rewards off of a game you bought your parents/significant other.  I wonder if the purchase will count for the buyer or receiver. Moreover, what about the deluxe digital credit? 

That's not really an issue (the Club Nintendo thing).  Nintendo doesn't see Club Nintendo coins as being given for buying games (I know, crazy, right?) - but in exchange for taking surveys.

Since the questions posed are ones about playing the games, then the person who receives the games will be the ones to take the surveys and get the coins.

This is what was done with the Wii Shop and Gifting.

As for the Digital Promotion... I'd vote for the person buying the games to get the "cash back" - is it is a reward for making purchases.

Cross-platform VC is what we all want and it really is the ideal service that makes sense.  But there is just such an obvious incentive for Nintendo to have two stores and make it so that those that want to play on both platforms need to make two purchases.  It isn't consumer friendly but it isn't unfriendly enough that Nintendo would really suffere from it.  Historically if Nintendo has the chance to squeeze an extra nickel out of you they typically take it.  While I would be thrilled if they unified the VC, I would be very surprised if they did.  It just doesn't seem like the Nintendo way to go about things, you know?

The seperation of console and handheld is largely arbitrary.  It is the hardware limitations that has kept them seperate.  But no one really wants to have two systems for different purposes with different games.  The ideal future is to have one videogame system (per company) that you can buy in a handheld model if you wish so you can play on the go and then when you come home you can hook it up to your TV or continue playing it on the handheld or connect it to some tablet for that off-TV play if that really proves to be an essential service.  One system with multiple ways to play.  In that sense the unification of the VC is an obvious step towards that.  I believe that having one system is the future of videogames and Nintendo will have to sync these things up sooner or later anyway and might as well get some of that infrastructure in place now.

Damn straight. Nintendo not having to divide their resources between handheld and home console. Me not having to buy a portable system that I don't actually want just because that's where the games are. None of this great 3DS, horrible Wii U garbage. Just one (hopefully) great console. That would be ideal.

Gifting will be nice, I liked the secret Santas that used to go on here. I don't personally care about the VC though, but that would also be a good step in making it a better service.