Old Games, New Risks: Nintendo Plays Its Remake Card

Nintendo has given remakes equal standing with new games as its Ocarina of Time revival reaches Switch 2, raising the stakes for the company's creative priorities. ^[1][3]

Nate Bihldorff, Nintendo's senior vice-president of product development and publishing, told Polygon that both kinds of game belong in its lineup and are of "equal importance." He spoke at the launch event for the Ocarina of Time remake, which Nintendo lists as available from November 5, 2026. ^[1][3]

That follows Star Fox, another major remake released in June. By September 30, it had sold 1.17 million copies worldwide, according to Nintendo. Rebuilding familiar games is already a business with a measurable audience on the new console. ^[1][2]

Nintendo's argument is straightforward: old games can be new experiences for people who missed them. Bihldorff said there was satisfaction in returning to special games such as Ocarina of Time, including for players who never experienced the original. ^[1]

The risk is that Nintendo turns a useful part of its catalogue into a default answer to what it should make next. Giving remakes equal importance is a defensible publishing principle. It is also a principle that needs a counterweight: a willingness to make games whose appeal cannot be demonstrated by pointing to an earlier version.

What "equal importance" leaves open

Nintendo's current lineup does not support the argument that it has abandoned new work. Its Switch 2 games page lists original releases including Yoshi and the Mysterious Book, Pokémon Pokopia, Mario Kart World and Donkey Kong Bananza alongside Star Fox. ^[3]

Nor should every familiar title be counted as a remake. Nintendo separately lists Switch 2 Editions of Breath of the Wild, Tears of the Kingdom, Animal Crossing: New Horizons and Super Mario Bros. Wonder. These are enhanced editions with upgrade paths for owners of the existing Switch games. They belong in a different category from rebuilding Star Fox or Ocarina of Time. ^[3]

That separation matters when judging the creative choices. A new game in an established series, a rebuilt old game and an upgraded edition are three different propositions. Putting them all into a single pile labelled "old ideas" would make the argument easier and the analysis worse.

The question is how much authority the remake receives inside Nintendo's planning. Equal importance could mean that an excellent remake deserves the same care as an excellent new game. That is hard to dispute. It could also become a reason to keep choosing projects whose characters, structure and audience already exist.

Bihldorff's interview named no future remakes or release schedule. Nintendo has not specified whether equality means budgets, staffing, release frequency or simply respect for both kinds of work. Project costs, team allocations and the Ocarina of Time remake's sales are not established by the published figures, so neither a company-wide pivot nor a financial dependence on remakes can be demonstrated. ^[1][2][4]

Calling this an addiction would outrun the evidence. Calling it a creative risk does not. The danger lies in letting the existence of a beloved original become too persuasive an argument for commissioning its replacement.

A million sales are a reason to continue

Star Fox's 1.17 million sales give Nintendo a concrete reason to take remakes seriously. That total includes bundled and digital copies, as Nintendo's software figures do generally. It measures units sold, rather than development costs or profit. ^[2]

The number answers one useful question: whether there is an audience for this particular revival. There is. It cannot answer the more important business question of whether the same investment would have produced a better return in a new game.

For a publisher, familiarity offers an obvious selling proposition. A remake can appeal to someone who remembers the original and someone curious about why it mattered. Bihldorff's case explicitly includes that second audience. Nostalgia is only part of the pitch. ^[1]

Nintendo's older catalogue also shows how large the lifetime audience for an individual title can become. New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe had reached 19.22 million worldwide units on Switch by September 30, including bundled and digital copies. ^[4]

That is a lifetime figure for a different game on a different platform. It should not be set against Star Fox's early sales as a performance contest, much less treated as proof that remakes beat new games. Its useful message is narrower: a title can remain commercially substantial over a console's life.

The temptation is to move from that observation to an investment rule. Familiar games have demonstrable audiences. Unfamiliar games must establish theirs. If proof of demand becomes the deciding test, the old game starts with an advantage that the new one cannot possess.

That is where sensible commercial reasoning can produce an excessively cautious catalogue. Every individual decision may look reasonable while the combined result leaves less room for discovery.

The strongest case for going back

There is a good creative argument for rebuilding an old game, too. Someone encountering Ocarina of Time for the first time is not repeating a childhood experience. They are discovering a game. Bihldorff is right to count that player. ^[1]

A publisher should not treat its audience as a fixed group that experienced everything at release. New players arrive. People miss games. Making an older work approachable on a current console can have value beyond serving existing fans.

Nor is newness a guarantee of quality. A remake can be worth playing, and an original game can be uninteresting. Demanding novelty as an end in itself would be a poor way to judge the finished work.

But commissioning decisions require a different test from reviews. A player asks whether a game deserves their time. A publisher must also ask whether making it was the best use of its teams and money.

The opportunity cost is the work those resources might otherwise have supported. Rebuilding an established game commits effort to an experience whose central identity has already been chosen. Creating something unfamiliar leaves more of those decisions open. That uncertainty is part of the value, even when it makes the project harder to justify.

This does not mean cancelling a remake would automatically produce an original game. Teams have different skills, projects have different needs and resources are not interchangeable on command. The argument is about the choices Nintendo rewards over time, rather than a one-for-one exchange.

Nintendo can make room for both. Its listed Switch 2 releases show that it currently does. ^[3] The concern is what happens when the next difficult decision arrives: whether the company gives an unfamiliar idea enough room to compete with a familiar success.

Judge the next choices

Nintendo should be judged by the balance of its commissions, rather than by the mere existence of remakes. Two major revivals in a year are evidence of a commitment to rebuilding older work. They are not evidence that the rest of the company has stopped inventing. ^[1][3]

Still, "equal importance" deserves more scrutiny than a comforting promise that everyone will get something they like. Creative priorities become real through budgets, teams and release slots. Respect for both categories says little about how Nintendo will settle a conflict between them.

Our view is that remakes earn their place when they bring a worthwhile experience to an audience that can enjoy it afresh. They should not gain an automatic advantage because the earlier game has already done the hard work of becoming beloved.

Ocarina of Time now begins its commercial run on Switch 2. ^[3] The next revealing decisions will be Nintendo's subsequent commissions: which old worlds it chooses to rebuild, and which new ones it is willing to fund.