Lurker > Master_Magnus

Far-Queue posted...

Sounds more like an ill-informed decision bruh

Did you know Super Mario 3D World would get ported to another console back in 2013?

Far-Queue posted...

I made an informed decision but I still got screwed. That's the problem. How can you know which games will be ported and which won't so you never get screwed? You can't.

-Say "that's annoying, I'm not buying that" and move on with your life
-Suck it up and buy the game (ideally after waiting for a reasonable discount)
Oh hey two very easy solutions that don't involve ruined lives. Who knew?

Neither is a solution. Particularly since the port will never have a significant discount. I cannot move on from not playing that game. But if I suck it up my life will still be shit because a game company managed to touch my nerve to rip me off.

Late 2013 was only hen the PS4 and Xbone came out. It really wasn't until 2015 or so that it became apparent that the WiiU definitely wasn't getting back on track (after several high-profile releases that failed to salvage it, including Smash, Mario Kart, SM3DW, and Xenoblade, and with BotW delayed far enough for pushing it forward to be an option). After that point, it was a matter of getting what they could out of it until the Switch came out (which had been announced by then), which is pretty clearly what happened.

By late 2013 Wii U was already a disaster, if they wanted to salvage the Wii U they should have prepared to write off all the losses for all the games developed for that console.

I don't know if you think they should have released the Switch four years sooner or something equally impossible, but the course the WiiU took is very much a reasonable one for a console that underperformed as badly as it did from a company that was still in good enough shape to stick around afterward. They got a successor out relatively quickly so they could move on, but continued to support it until that point so they could maintain as much of a revenue stream as possible.

They should have made the gamepad optional. They should have done a price cut. They should have not ported a single Wii U game to Switch and write off all losses (in fact they did write off all losses by the time Switch launched). And not add old content to ports.

No, it's always a gamble. Exclusives are the only reason to own a specific system (especially one of Nintendo's, which doesn't get the multiplat support others tend to), and it's always a crapshoot whether or not those exclusives will be worth the purchase of the console. Ask Xbone owners which exclusives they bought their system for and see how many of them can't even come up with one off the top of their head. Ask yourself which exclusives you bought your PS5 for.

XBone was a good subsitute for a PC. Wii U had zero redeeming qualities since all of them were ported to Switch.

Again, you seem to think that companies know which consoles will fail on day one. If they knew, they wouldn't launch them. I really don't know why you keep coming back to this "don't promise support for consoles that end up failing 4-5 years later" thing as though Nintendo had the hindsight benefit you currently enjoy back in 2012. it's quite absurd.

Nintendo knew Wii U was a dud back in 2013 and that there was a real possibility it could not be salvaged. They had two options: ditch the Wii U or support it like Gamecube and write off all losses so they could save their reputation. They did neither: instead they released games for Wii U but ported them to other consoles as soon as they could. So the support they gave to Wii U was a sham.

And you got to play SM3DW. Woohoo! Satisfaction! Your purchase was vindicated! Stop acting like you've been horribly wronged because you aren't getting something beyond what you bought the system for. What you got from that purchase hasn't changed. If you were satisfied with it then, you should be satisfied with it now. You're not entitled to anything more than what you chose to pay for. Get over yourself.

My purchase wasn't vindicated because I could play SM3DW on Switch anyway and I missed out on Bowser's Fury and will never get to play it. It doesn't matter that what I got from my purchased wasn't changed. It doesn't matter that I was satisfied then. What matters is I can never buy Bowser's Fury as a reasonable price so I can never play it. If I buy a game I am entitled to never miss out on any content for that game because they refuse to give a discount to those who own it. I can only be satisfied if I never have to pay $60 for any content any game dev adds on any game I already bought. Anything else is a rip off.

They will. As I said, enhancing remakes is an essential part of marketing them. Sometimes, those enhancements are just graphical. Sometimes they take the form of new content, which most people actually prefer because that makes it a meaningful upgrade that's worth playing even if one has played the original. Personally, I automatically dismiss any remake of a game I already have that *doesn't* have new content, then with others, I make a judgement as to whether or not the new content is worth buying the remake for (it usually isn't). Either way, get used to it, because remakes are here to stay. If that's enough to "ruin video games forever" because you're just that much of a drama queen, perhaps you should start looking for a new hobby to save yourself some frustration.

Then the videogame industry is wrong. I cannot look for a new hobby, videogames are my life and will always be my life. The only solution is for the industry to stop ripping me off.

Then any discussion of "paying $60" should automatically be rendered moot. You can always get a better deal by waiting for prices to drop or for cheaper used copies to emerge. Even with how well Nintendo's first-party titles hold their value. If you're *ever* paying $60, then you're already making exceptions to that premise, so relying on it to justify being upset about enhanced ports is fundamentally flawed.

I don't care if I got the game at $60 or $30. When I buy it I want all content that game will ever have without being forced to buy content that I already own.

It generally does, actually. At the very least, it's often counterproductive and results in measurably worse results than being rational does, as is clearly the case here.

No it usually isn't wrong. Otherwise people wouldn't be irrational.

You are not screwed over (because it's bonus content in a video game, not anything actually meaningful) and you don't have to miss out on other content forever. You're just choosing not to accept any of the many solutions you've been offered here. Stop blaming other people for your own issues.

Bowser's Fury is very meaningful content. The only solution is if I can buy Bowser's Fury at a reasonable price. Not more than $20. And to never have to miss out on any content that I want because they lock it behind a port. There are no other solutions.

It had games which you could not get on any other system. That's all "exclusive" has ever meant, and the only value the concept has ever had is to drive console sales. Now that it's dead and console sales have stopped, there's no reason to expect any further exclusivity than that.

Most exclusives on all Nintendo consoles were exclusive for at least two generations. Only Wii U had exclusives that were exclusive only during its lifetime.

You keep saying this like they expected the WiiU to fail and should have marketed it accordingly. Nobody releases a console with the intent of having it fail. That would be stupid. Console failures are mistakes that are only ever really recognized well into their generation when it becomes apparent that efforts to salvage it aren't working.

By late 2013 they should have pulled the plug on the Wii U if they weren't going to support it like Gamecube. Like they did with Virtual Boy and Sony did with the Vita.

Protip: Any time you buy a console, you're taking a gamble on whether or not it'll be worthwhile to own it, based on whether or not it ends up having enough of a library to satisfy you.

It's only a gamble for shit console makers like Nintendo or when you buy a console literally on day one. Good console makers guarantee their consoles aren't failures or at the very least don't promise support for failed consoles beyond day one to make it seem like they will support it then betray you by porting everything.

The best way to handle that is to wait for the console to have enough games for you to be happy with the purchase, then buy it. If it doesn't get any further support than that, that's disappointing, but you're already happy with what you've got. There's a world of difference between "I would have been happier with more support" and "I got ripped off."

That's what I did with Wii U. I bought it because I wanted to play Super Mario 3D World. Now I can't play Bowser's Fury and my life is ruined forever. I can only be happy if I never miss out on any content on a game because they made a port.

It's not enough of a ripoff to get that upset about it.

Maybe not for you. For me it is. I can never justify buying a $60 game or even a $30 game for $10 DLC.

They also never had a console fail that spectacularly after investing as many development resources into it as they did with the WiiU. A lot of talent and effort got wasted on the WiiU due to how few people were able to play its games. Porting them is obviously the best decision, both in terms of finances and in terms of respecting the developers' efforts and entertaining as many people as possible.

Virtual Boy was a failure and all of its games are still exclusive. Gamecube, Saturn and Dreamcast were also failures and they all had more real exclusives than Wii U. The right decision was to keep those games exclusive for at least another generation to give the people who bought the Wii U the exclusives they deserved and to not sully Nintendo's legacy. A console maker must never burn those who bought their console, even if it means they lose money or the casuals don't get the games they want.

Rule of thumb: If it's worth playing now, it'll still be worth playing in 20 years' time, and that means it's worth remaking so contemporary audiences can enjoy it. You can fairly safely assume that any reasonably popular game will eventually be remade, especially if it's a console exclusive (and therefore can't be played outside of its original generation) and/or has a lot of room to be improved on the technical front.

Those remakes better not have new content then, because if they do, videogames are ruined forever.

No, you bought Super Mario 3D World because it looked like a fun game, which is presumably the same reason you bought Galaxy 1&2, Sunshine, and 64, despite all four of those coming out within a decade of a Mario port (64 was 3 years after All Stars, Sunshine was 9 years later, Galaxy 1&2 were 3 and 6 years after 64 DS, respectively). You're lying to yourself and to everyone around you if you think it was anything more than that (unless you also didn't buy any of the aforementioned four games, in which case... that's really weird, but carry on).

If I thought there was even the remote possibility Super Mario 3D World would be remade even 7 years later, then I would have not bought it and I would wait for the remake. I never buy games that I think that I can get a better deal later, even if the game is fun.

I got Sunshine and 64 DS when I was a kid. Galaxy 1 and 2 were pirated, and my original Wii broke because of pirating games which is why I went legit with Wii U games.

I know you're desperately looking for some way to rationalize how you feel about Bowser's Fury, but you shouldn't pretend your original motivations for purchasing the original were anything more than what they were. That's just enabling yourself to avoid confronting harmful thoughts and behaviours. How you feel about Bowser's Fury is irrational. I know that you know this, and I know that you don't like it and are looking for anything you can grasp onto to avoid having to accept that. This is what psychologists call ego-dystonic anxiety: you're aware that it's wrong to feel it, but you can't help it. It's tempting to avoid it by making up whatever reasons you can find to convince yourself it's not irrational, but you can't keep up that charade, nor can you expect others to enable it for you. You need to accept that your feelings are irrational and learn to work around that fact, rather than pretending it isn't there.

No, people need to stop being fucking me over for buying the Wii U. If anyone had to be fucked over, it's the casuals, not me. And irrational != wrong. Just because I want to buy a fun game doesn't mean that I should be screwed over and miss out on other content forever. And stop playing armchair psychologist.

For what's it's worth, being frustrated by all of these ports is reasonable. It is annoying to have improved versions of games released so relatively soon after buying the originals, even if it's not going full Street Fighter. I'm not giving you a hard time for being frustrated by them, I'm giving you a hard time for feeling that your life has been ruined, throwing out objective falsehoods like "Nintendo lied to us and didn't make any exclusives for the WiiU," and demanding that the entire game industry reinvent a perfectly reasonable practice for no other reason than to satisfy your compulsions. There's a ton of middle ground between what you're doing and bending over and buying everything a second time, middle ground which I suspect most WiiU owners occupy (I myself have no plans to buy any of these remakes because I'm satisfied with the originals and the extra content isn't worth $60). That's where you should be, because that's a far more reasonable, healthy position to hold than working yourself into a frenzy like this.

I will never be happy if I have to choose between never getting all the content that I want and buying a whole game that I already bought and played just to get DLC, because I can never be happy with either choice. Even the middle ground is unacceptable unless the price of the ports sinks to nothing eventually, and that never happens with Nintendo games. And going Street Fighter is not a perfectly reasonable practice.

And when I say Wii U had no real exclusives I am not saying a falsehood. The only exclusives that make a failed console worth buying are exclusives that are exclusive for decades like Virtual Boy and Gamecube had. If Nintendo wasn't going to give the Wii U real exclusives then Wii U was a ripoff because nobody would buy such a console if they could skip it and get all its games anyway.

The very concepts of "hidden gems" and "cult classics" laugh at how obviously wrong this is.

If any hidden gem or cult classic was as good as a good Nintendo game, I would have heard of it by now.

Any plan will help you when it comes to long-term financial decisions.

It doesn't help to avoid buying the same game twice.

Hence you skip most of the remakes and only buy them occasionally so you can catch up on whatever content you've been missing. If, hypothetically, Nintendo continues to rerelease SM3DW every 7 years (which they won't, because this is obviously a matter of salvaging effort that was wasted on the WiiU and not a long-term remake strategy), adding new content each time, you can pick up whatever remake comes out in 2049 and get 5 remakes worth of content for $60. Do that again in 2084 and you get another 5 remakes worth of content. Maybe buy another one before you die (by 2084, I'm guessing you'll be well into your 80's, and the next ones would be in 2091 and 2098) if you really want to go out having completed everything that will ever be associated with the game, and you've spent a grand total of $240 on the game over the course of your entire life. $150 if you wait until the remakes are down to $30 before buying them (which is pretty sensible). That's really not the end of the world.

Then I will spend $240 on maybe $80 worth of content. It's still a ripoff. I cannot afford videogames if I let every game company rip me off.

But the notion that you can't keep up with new content releases without driving yourself into bankruptcy is obviously nonsense. There's plenty of financially sustainable middle ground between the two extremes of buying every remake immediately and categorically refusing to ever buy any remake.

The middle ground is still a ripoff. I can't enjoy videogames if I get ripped off.

You're just a human. Your abilities and disabilities are nothing special. You can do the same things any other human can do. It just might take a bit more work.

My brain is literally wired different from an average human. Unless you have a psychology degree, you are talking out of your ass.

As I've said, they've already had this inch for literally decades. They've been rereleasing games with added content for almost as long as they've been releasing games, and despite having more of a retro library to exploit than any other publisher by far, they've been pretty reasonable about it. If they haven't taken the mile by now, they probably aren't going to. On the off chance they do take the mile and go full Street Fighter with their rereleases (which, despite your insistence, they clearly have not)? It's very easy to say "that's not worth buying, so I won't buy it" and/or "If they're going to remake this soon anyway, I might as well wait for a few more versions before buying it," solving the actual problem in its entirety very simply.

They have a bigger inch now than decades ago. They had never ported every single game from one console to the next one, but they did exactly that with Wii U. And I can't know when they are going to remake a game and I can't live with missing content on any game that I love. I bought Super Mario 3D World because Nintendo hadn't ported a Mario game in over a decade, they promised they would support the Wii U and they never ported every game from one console to the next one. I still got fucked despite knowing Nintendo better than anyone else. Unless I can buy any game and be 100% certain that I will never miss out on anything and never have to buy the game again, then the problem is not solved.

I can guarantee most of the games you've missed out on have been missed not because you chose to skip them, but because you weren't aware of them. Many more have been missed because you said "maybe I'll get that later" and never did (whether because you forgot or simply missed the window where it was available for sale).

If I'm not aware of a game it's most likely not worth playing. Almost every game worth playing is well known.

You have lived without it, and you will continue to live without it.

No i won't, I will play the game on an emulator if I have to. Problem is, emulators are dying out because game consoles are getting more and more complex, so next time I won't be so lucky

You're not going to end up broke over paying $60 for a port every half decade (or if you are, you shouldn't be paying $60 for games in the first place). If you're really concerned about how much it might cost to yield to your compulsion to own every piece of content for game, put together a concrete plan for which ones to buy and when so you can budget appropriately.

No plan will help when game devs re-release games. It's unacceptable to buy the same game twice ever. If I pay $60 for the base game, I'm not going to buy the base game ever again. Unless you have a crystal ball, no plan is going to help because you can't know when game devs will pull a Street Fighter.

In the hypothetical scenario that you've concocted where publishers just rerelease the same games over and over with marginally more content each time, you don't need to buy every single iteration to get all of it. You just need to buy, say, every 5th one, dramatically reducing the cost and ensuring that you get a more worthwhile amount of extra content for the purchase (plus, on that time scale, you'll probably be looking at different systems, which adds a convenience factor). You won't get to play all the content right away, but you'll get it all eventually.

If game devs re-release the same game forever I'll never get to play all the content ever because I'll always have to buy the same game again to get the new content.

Quite simply, remakes aren't going away, and they're not going to stop adding extra content to be more appealing (note that one of the most common criticisms of Mario 3D All Stars is that they didn't do enough to make the rerelease better than the original: people want improvements from remakes), no matter how much you insist that they should. If you want to stop having a problem with that, that change is going to have to come from you.

I'm never going to change. I cannot accept buying a game that I already own. It's the industry that must change to stop being shit.

Sure you can. It'll likely take years of therapy and a constant conscious effort to discourage yourself from falling into self-destructive thought processes, because that's the nature of such compulsions, but it's far from impossible.

You're just a rando on the internet, you have no idea of what I can or can't do.

Gamers can't even be convinced to boycott EA. You're certainly not going to convince them to boycott Nintendo over enhancing a 7-year-old game when porting it to a new system (which is very much not "pulling a Street Fighter"), especially considering that you're the only person who has this much of a problem with it. You'll be very hard-pressed to find anyone else who bought SM3DW near its launch and is anything worse than mildly annoyed by this.

I don't care. If you give an inch to corporations, they will take a mile. I will not give an inch to Nintendo. And I will convince as much people as I can not to give an inch to Nintendo.

They can. And have to. They dont give games away for free. And thats what you want. You have it for Wii U. So, if you want Bowsers Furt for Switch, youd have to get the game for Switch first. Its ridiculous to think they would Just give you a whole game for free...

I don't want it for free. I just want it at a reasonable price for the new levels.

The problem with DLC was when it stuff like Asuras Wrath or whatever. Whens its actually extra stuff, most people are fine. Not to mention, this is buying a full game with extra stuff. Its probably like MK8D. Where it was mostly people who didnt have the game buying it. Youre the only one who selfishly thinks only you and other Wii U owners are the only ones who deserve it...

No, the problem with DLC was that you had to pay for extras, and most people want everything included in a $60 game.

That, I can tell you, is very much not true, and you're kidding yourself to think that it is. Your gaming experience is a tiny fraction of the experience that is available. It always will be, because there simply aren't enough hours in the day to play everything that's worth playing (to say nothing of essential things like eating and sleeping and making the money needed to buy those games). You get by just fine missing out on that content, you'll get by just fine missing out on this.

I am fine missing out on games that I chose not to play at all, but I can never live without Bowser's Fury, because Super Mario 3D World hooked me, and once I'm hooked on a game, I cannot live without playing every single level in that game. Bowser's Fury is literally the one game that I cannot live without. But I cannot buy the game again at $60, because if I let Nintendo take advantage of my addiction I will end up broke like people with a gambling addiction. That is why these ports are bad: they ruin the lives of people who want all the content in their games.

Bowser's Fury is a small amount of bonus content (the full scope of which is yet unknown) added to a single port released on a different system, 7 years after the original game's release. "Full Street Fighter" means releasing multiple ports, each with significant added content, usually on the same system because they've come out 1-2 years apart. The two are not remotely comparable.

Bowser's Fury is significant added content, that is obvious just looking at the trailer. Even 3 hours is significant. The time that it takes for a port to happen doesn't matter. If Street Fighter is bad, so is Bowser's Fury.

The "problem" only exists because you're fixating on it. If you stopped fixating on it, there would be no problem. Your fixation is the problem. Until you stop fixating, the problem will never be solved.

I literally cannot stop fixating. If I buy a game and end up hooked on a game, I must play all of the content in the game (unless that content is trash) without being a whale like those who buy every single port of every game. That is how I play games, and I cannot change that, it is how I am. The problem can only be solved if gamers boycott any game dev that pulls a Street Fighter so that I can go back to playing videogames and never worry about missing out any content on any game I buy.

this could go on forever

It will go on as long as people defend game devs pulling a Street Fighter. Even if you don't agree with me, it's in your best interest if gamers boycott game devs that pull a Street Fighter.

But its not wrong. They want to rerelease it with more stuff. Thats perfectly fine... I don.this see why you think its wrong to make more for a game. Sounds pretty selfish, tbh... More of that entitlement slipping through...

It's not wrong to make more for a game. But if you want to make more of a game, don't charge it $60 to someone who already bought the game when there is 3 hours of new content. And of course I'm selfish, everyone is.

Nope. They arent. Youre actually very different than they are...

There are plenty of people who want the complete definitive edition of a game. Remember when people complained about DLC?

How? Developing it for the original game will take the same amount of resources as developing it for the remake (if it's even possible within the technical limitations of the older system). Offering an upgrade option requires the existence of infrastructure by which they can determine whether or not you own a copy of the original (including some manner of verification system to prevent used copies from spawning infinite copies of the remake), which does not exist. Offering either solution would require a substantial investment that likely will not be recovered because, again, most people aren't that interested in minor DLC for games they finished playing years ago.

They already know who bought a digital copy of the game. If they don't already have serial numbers for game discs, just let people trade in their physical copy to get the port with a discount. Easy.

They really don't. There are tens of thousands of games you have never and will never play in their entirety, many of which you really can't ever play because reasonably accessible options for them don't exist (ironically, because they *haven't* been ported), and that number is only going to grow as the industry does. Your life has not been ruined by not playing any given one of them, and similarly, your life has not been ruined by not playing this one.

Those tens of thousands of games aren't worth playing. I can't live not playing all the levels of a game that I already bought. Either I play all of a game or not play a game at all. I can't live playing only a part of the game unless I know that I don't like it

Perspective, my friend: The problems you're having with this game have been there for your entire life, and they've never been this much of an issue for you. It's only because you're choosing to fixate on this one that it's bothering you so much. Convince yourself to fixate less on it, and the problem's gone.

They've never been an issue because I wasn't screwed. Now I am and I will not stop fixating on this until it is solved.

They really aren't. People that buy remakes of games they already own do so because they feel it will be worthwhile, not because they're compelled to have everything. There are publishers that go full Street Fighter and do everything they can to convince people they should buy a new copy because of everything they're missing out on, but when it comes to remaking games (especially in the case of the WiiU, where games are being remade only because they sold so poorly the first time around), the focus is primarily on attracting new audiences.

Bowser's Fury is definitely going full Street Fighter. No game dev does such amount of work if they aren't doing it to convince people who already have the game to buy a new copy.

You already have enjoyed the game, without the content. By definition, that means the content is not necessary for you to enjoy the game. That you're retroactively sabotaging that enjoyment is entirely your decision, not an inherent property of this content.

It doesn't matter that I enjoyed the game if my life is ruined because there are levels that I will never get to play because I already enjoyed the game. I can only enjoy videogames if I can enjoy all of the content in a game, past present and future. It doesn't matter that I enjoyed the game, I must live knowing that I enjoyed ALL of the game past present and future.

Not really. It means that games that didn't sell very well because of the platform they were on get to have the sales they deserve and more people get to enjoy them. Over 20 million people (and probably pushing 25, in all likelihood) have gotten to play Mario Kart 8 solely because it was ported to the Switch. More people enjoying games is never a problem.

It's a problem that those who bought the Wii U got a shit deal compared to every other Nintendo console. If I buy a Nintendo console, I should get a Nintendo console, not a piece of shit.

No, "extra" implies that it's not necessary. Which it isn't. The game was perfectly enjoyable before this content existed, and that game hasn't changed. It's just as enjoyable now without the new content as it was then because the experience is identical (ignoring changes in personal perception due to evolving standards for gameplay conventions, controls, and other aspects that factor into determining how well a game has aged). That means the new content is something extra added to provide further enjoyment.

To me Bowser's Fury is necessary. I can't enjoy any game if I can't buy all the DLC I want for that game without buying it twice. All DLC that I care about is necessary, and I should never have to miss out on any DLC forever because the devs charge $60 for it.

Not at all. Unless they're particularly high-demand or hard to find used copies of (which, actually often applies to used Nintendo games), it's usually pretty easy to find older games for $10. Heck, without even looking at used copies, most non-Nintendo games routinely drop to ~$10 in Steam sales and the like, even within their own generation (not that generations mean anything on the PC).

Yeah but I play mostly Nintendo games. Or at least I used to before they shafted me. Only Wii U games drop that much. Is this port going to be $10 ever? Not at all

I've demonstrated how false this is. Remakes are becoming more common as the library of remake-eligible games grows (a natural consequence of the passage of time), and the WiiU is certainly seeing an unusual amount of it, but enhanced rereleases of games have been happening for pretty much as long as home gaming has been a thing.

Remakes used to be rare and they used to have few if any new content, with few exceptions. It was ridiculous back then for someone to buy the same game twice. Now it's becoming expected to buy the same game at full price multiple times. And the very fact that there are an unusual number of Wii U ports is a problem.

That's not how the word extra works. If it has extra, it's usually has more than usual. Meaning it complete, and has more to boot... And the $60 isn't for just the extras. It's for the game, too... Which is for a different system. And that's not how it had ever work... Ever... Just because I got the game for one system doesn't mean I get it and the extras for all the systems. It just doesn't work like that. You want the game again, you gotta pay again. So, if you wanna pretend you life is ruined, have fun!

Then they shouldn't make extras for any re-release if I have to buy the same game again at full price to get them. That's wrong.

Sure it does. There are many reasons why it might not be practical to deliver those upgrades to older versions or offer a special purchase option for existing owners, not least of which is the fact that existing owners generally don't care that much and it's therefore rarely worthwhile to put in any work to get the content to them.

It is practical, game devs are just greedy.

You never *have* to. You either choose to because you feel it'll be worth the extra cost, or you choose not to because you don't. Those are the only two possibilities, neither of which amount to forcing you to buy the game any number of times.

Both choices ruin my life. I need a third option: I buy the game at $60, DLC at a reasonable price and never have to buy the game at $60 ever again. And I will fight until I get that third option.

Therapy can always help, provided you actually want to improve and stick with it for long enough. Seriously, look into it. Your self-destructive fixation on this issue is suggesting to me you've either got OCD or some manner of ASD (I'm not a medical professional and this is not a proper diagnostic setting, so do not under any circumstances treat this rough guess as being more credible than a diagnosis from an actual doctor), both of which can pretty easily be treated well enough to improve your quality of life. You don't have to resign yourself to being unhealthy and unhappy.

So far it didn't help. At least not with videogame problems.

That's never going to happen, particularly where they don't really care about your particular obsession.

They should care because most gamers are like that. Gamers want everything and it's an abusive practice to lock content behind ports to make people spend more money than they should.

Quite simply, the money is not in convincing WiiU owners to buy their games a second time. That's a nice bonus when they can get it, but the real money is in the fact that 5 times more people own a Switch than ever owned a WiiU, and that figure just keeps climbing. That's who they're selling this to; don't delude yourself into thinking they care that much about double dipping into your wallet.

If Nintendo just wanted to sell the game to a new audience then they wouldn't spend money on extras. They make the extras because they also expect people who already bought the game to buy it a second time as well.

No, "extra" implies that it's not necessary. Which it isn't. The game was perfectly enjoyable before this content existed, and that game hasn't changed. It's just as enjoyable now without the new content as it was then because the experience is identical (ignoring changes in personal perception due to evolving standards for gameplay conventions, controls, and other aspects that factor into determining how well a game has aged). That means the new content is something extra added to provide further enjoyment.

To me Bowser's Fury is necessary. I can't enjoy any game if I can't buy all the DLC I want for that game without buying it twice. All DLC that I care about is necessary, and I should never have to miss out on any DLC forever because the devs charge $60 for it.

No, You life is ruin because of your own self. You can spend the $60. You don't want to spend the $60. If this is really what would make you happy, you'd spend the $60. Normal people would pay $60 to keep themselves happy...

Spending $60 to get maybe 3 hours of new content doesn't make me happy. I can only be happy if I can get it for $20 or less.

Nope. That's not how it works. It's complete when you bought it, and never stops being complete. Then they release a new version that has more stuff. The Wii U version is still complete as nothing new was added to it. Just like Xenoblade Chronicles is a complete game, and Torna is extra.

It's not complete to me if I don't have all the "extras". I want all the extras buying the base game only once. I can't enjoy videogames if I have to buy $60 just to get "extras". And as long as game devs can just re-release games with "extras" as much as they want, I can never have what I want and my life is ruined forever.

Again, you should tell this to a therapist, and maybe they can help you. And if you never play it, the only person to blame is yourself. You can always buy the game. Not buying it is a choice YOU made... And if you can't be happy, maybe you need to find a new vice. Again, a therapist can help. Maybe even a hypnotist... And again, you're life is only ruined by yourself... Go get a therapist to fix you or something...

I can't find a new vice. It's too late for that.

You can call it an excuse, but it's worked for many people over the years. And it seems you are about to do that by not buying the game again. And are you even listening to yourself. You just said how Nintendo probably didn't even know they were going to re-release it. Meaning they made a complete game. And then made more later when they thought about re-releasing it. Meaning you got a full game.

The game stops being complete as soon as they add more levels to it. If I can't get DLC for a game without buying it again, then what I bought isn't a full game. A game is only full if I don't have to buy it ever again.

And that's also false. Many people buy a game when they want it. many gamers probably knew Horizon Zero Dawn would get a definitive edition. Same with Monster Hunter, or Hyrule Warriors. Same with pretty much every game. If people want a game, they'll buy it to play it. Not to mention, not everyone will decide to wait a few years to play a game. If you want to wait up to 10 years before buying a game ever again to make sure more won't be released, be my guess. Maybe that works for you. Many could care less, though... I know Zeus waits for sales, and wwinterj25 waits for definitive editions for many/most games. So, do what they do. Though, for you, you should probably wait longer since you never know when a game will get re-released. Also, stop being so melodramatic. Not playing the all the levels won't kill you. You might try to take your own life, but that's about it... So, hopefully, you'll drop this melodramatic troll persona and do something more fun... Be a fun troll or something... make us laugh or whatever... And if you really think you're life is ruined, yo did it yourself with your own personality. Fix that, and maybe you can live a healthy, normal, happy life. First thing to do, stop being melodramatic. And then go from there...

I cannot live knowing that there are levels for a game that I love and that I will never be able to play. And if game devs keep re-releasing games forever, then I can never be happy buying any game because at any point the devs might add a new version of the game with new content that I have to buy again. There is literally no way to get a complete and definitive game like I used to if game devs can just re-release a game and ask for another $60 whenever I want. My life is ruined thanks to all those gamers who buy the same game multiple times.

Significant and extra are not mutually exclusive

To me it is. Extra implies that it's not significant. If it's significant then it's not extra or bonus, it's something big the devs added to make you buy the game again

Not remotely. When you buy a product, you buy that product. You do not - unless otherwise specified - buy a lifelong commitment to provide you with any enhancements that may subsequently be developed for that product. That wouldn't make any sense at all.

It doesn't make any sense for me to have to buy the same game again to get any upgrades. It's wrong that I have to buy the same game twice ever. For my entire life I bought a videogame and got a complete definitive game and that was it. Now game devs are being shitty and I can't get a complete definitive game ever.

You'll probably be able to find a used copy for $10 in a decade or so. If you aren't patient enough for that, it will almost certainly see periodic discounts down to $30 in eShop sales by the end of the Switch's lifetime, or potentially even lower if they offer a digital port of it on their next system (which is how I got MP Trilogy so cheaply).

LOL only Wii U games sink to $10 used.

That's very much a you problem, one which you should perhaps be seeking therapy to help with because that kind of obsession is very much not conducive to living a mentally healthy life.

Too late to be healthy. Now all I can hope for is for the game industry to stop exploiting my obsession for infinite money.

They didn't set out to make it a failure. That's just how it went (helped along by some questionable marketing decisions, starting with the name). Once it became apparent that it wasn't salvageable, they did axe it pretty much as soon as they had another revenue stream lined up to fill the void it left, but until that point, they continued to try to make it the best console they could manage. I really don't know what else you want from them than that, other than apparently to never let anyone that didn't buy a WiiU play those games because reasons.

All I wanted them for that was not port Wii U games until those games were retro and not lock DLC behind ports.

Also, you do know complete and definitive are different when talking about video games, right? Because it not, there's your problem... You you can keep on living. Not having video games won't kill you. If you don't believe, you should go to a real doctor so they can tell you... As for Bowser Fury, you'll have to pay $60 to play it unless you wait for a sale or get a used copy or something. If you don't want to wait for a sale, then you'll either pay full price like everybody else, or not play it. It's that simple... And Nintendo is a s*** company. You're just entitled and mad that they are giving you games for free... How about you stop reaching for s***ty arguments and admit how much of a troll you are...

I can't enjoy life without videogames. I will literally kill myself without videogames.

I can't buy Bowser's Fury at $60. I can't wait for a sale because Bowser's Fury will never be at $10 or even $20 because only Wii U games drop that much. And I can't ever be happy if I can't play Bowser's Fury. Thanks to assholes like you my life is ruined.

Incorrect. A game can be complete and have extra stuff added. That's why it's called extra...

Most of the content in Wii U ports is too significant to be extra.

You can buy a game at $60 for $10 worth of content. For you, it might not be a good buy. But it's physically possible. People do it all the time. People also buy games they have on other systems. Either newer systems, or just different ones. I don't see why you "can't". The word you're looking for is "won't".

Stop using this bullshit argument. I can't afford to play videogame if I can't just buy the game once and get access to all DLC that game will ever have, because otherwise game companies can just demand infinite amount of money to get a complete game just like they do with lootboxes in mobile games. And without COMPLETE AND DEFINITIVE videogames, I can't keep living. So you tell me how can I play Bowser's Fury without spending $60 or and stop defending shit companies by blaming me for not bending over to shit business practices that are only there to ruin people's lives.

Also, the game isn't incomplete. They complete game was sold. The just made more of it. If they didn't make anymore, you wouldn't be calling the game incomplete. That's because it's not imcomplete.

A game is only complete when they stop adding stuff to it. Specially when the new stuff is only in a port.

You also aren't getting screwed. You got exactly what you paid for, which is a full game. Also, the other companies already do that. They release the same games over, but with better graphics, or new mechanics, or something else. Not to mention the games that will release for a different system years later. A lot of indie Devs do that. If you feel like you're getting screwed, then don't buy it. But others will for many reasons.

And then there are the "you got what you paid for" and "if you don't like it don't buy it" excuses. I bought the game because nobody, probably not even Nintendo, imagined that the game would get more content later, because Nintendo had stopped re-releasing Mario games for a decade. I only buy complete games that you buy only once, like most people with a brain. In fact, that's the problem with re-releases: they can only exist if people are screwed because nobody would buy the game when it comes out if they definitely knew a better version of the same game would come out later. I can't live without playing all the levels in Super Mario 3D World, including the new ones, and I can't live buying the same game twice because that would mean in the future I would be missing out forever from content in future games because game devs will start re-releasing the same game infinite times. So no matter what I do, my life is ruined, thanks to people like you who eat all the shit game devs throw at them

That would be wrong again. It had exclusives. And after the console was done, the exclusives got released somewhere else.

All other Nintendo consoles, even Virtual Boy had exclusives that remained exclusive for decades. And Microsoft and Sony never made a crap console. Even Vita was better than Wii U.

You don't get free bonus just because you bought the game unless that's what Nintendo wants to do. They are a company selling you a products. You either pay the price they set, or don't get it. It's as simple as that.

And I will rally gamers to boycott them until I can play get all the content on all the games I buy at a reasonable price. I will not let people like you and ruin my life.

That's just not how the world works, nor will it ever be.

That's wrong then.

I effectively missed out on the opportunity to save $40 ($60 for 3 games=$20 per game), plus it made it that much harder to justify buying the upgraded versions of 1 and 2 (hence I didn't buy the trilogy until it was discounted to $10 in the WiiU rerelease).

Yeah but you got the discount. This port will never be discounted to $10, because Nintendo is super greedy now.

The content isn't that important. It's certainly not $40 worth of important, which is the comparison I'm making there.

To me it's super important. Important enough that I can't live without it. But I can't bend over and pay what Nintendo asks or else I can't play videogames anymore and my life is ruined.

So why not wait until those future games come out to buy it?

I bought it now to play PS4 games.

Then you have some really weird priorities that you should really examine before letting them influence any further $300+ purchasing decisions. Game systems are purchased to play games, not to stroke your ego with the idea that you're part of some special club with exclusive experiences. Again, you really need to get over yourself and stop being so melodramatic.

If Nintendo wasn't going to make the Wii U a special club they should have axed it just like Virtual Boy instead of selling it for years.

No. Youre not. You refusing to buy it is not locked out. Youre not using the correct words. You can literally buy it, but it cost kore than youre willing to spend. Youre literally not locked out of it. I have the game, too. And if I buy this version, I can play it. You can, too. If you buy the game, you can literally play it. So, youre not locked out...

I can't buy a game at $60 for $10 of content. If I let game companies screw me and buy a game that I already own at $60, then it means that I am perfectly happy with incomplete games, because game devs will never stop re-releasing the same game an infinite amount of times to fuck over the people who want everything. If Nintendo gets away with this then it is only a time before everyone else does the same and make you buy the same game an infinite amount of times to get all the content and ruin my life. So yes, it is locked out for me because I don't eat shit unlike other people who will gladly spend all their savings on videogames because they think it is perfectly fine for game devs to sell the same game an infinite amount of times for people who want a complete product. Not being able to play Bowser's Fury isn't the problem, it's gamers defending this and making sure you can never buy a game and own it that is the problem.

As for their fault, the only thing theyre at fault for is giving many players who didnt get the game or a Wii U a chance to play this game with some bonus stuff, as well. They would rather make a ton of fans happy rather than make only you happy. And its make sense not only financially, but makes them a good game company, as well. Since more people can experience the game... Buy releasing the game on a more popular system, they are giving the customers what they want. No re-releasing it would be considered screwing over the customers to some people, tbh... You are literally the only person Ive seen complain about them releasing remakes or remasters. Most people are usually happy. You just seem salty for no real reason...

A good game company always delivers and is consistent with the quality of their products. Wii U was a shit console with no exclusives so that makes Nintendo a trash company. And if I buy a $60 game, I should get all the bonus without buying it again, ever. I'm not letting any game dev fuck with me to make casuals happy.

An entire game (or more) is a whole lot more content than you're pissing yourself over here. I'm far more bothered by MP Trilogy releasing a mere two years after I paid the same price for MP3 alone than I am by SM3DW releasing with a few extra levels 7 years later.

If you bought MP3 at launch, you were screwed, but you didn't miss out on anything. If you bought Super Mario 3D World at launch, you are missing important content that you can only get if you bend down and let Nintendo know that you're happy with the Deluxe port scam where you have to buy a game a possibly infinite amount of times to get all the content.

Sonic Adventure 2 was ported to the GC (with extra content) 8 months after it came out on the Dreamcast. PSO was ported to GC 13 months after the release of v2, with all of Episode 2 added to it (plus some pretty substantial balance tweaks, including increasing some drop rates from literally millionths of a percent to merely 1/50,000), then again to Xbox 6 months after that. You had a hard enough sell for the "Nintendo standards" part, given how many examples I've already given to show precedent for remake windows like this, but bringing in "Sega standards" is just laughable.

Dreamcast had more exclusives by the time its generation ended than Wii U. That makes Wii U not even up to Dreamcast standards.

The WiiU's exclusives were exclusive for the system's lifetime. That's all you can reasonably expect of exclusives, given that the whole point of their exclusivity is to sell the system. Once the system is no longer selling, exclusivity stops mattering. There is nothing to be gained - for anyone - by keeping games tied down to systems that people can only find on Ebay and Craigslist.

Sure there is something to be gained by keeping games tied down to old systems: it is a reward for people who bought that console and protects the legacy of the console maker. If you make a failed console, then you must make sure it has enough exclusives to stand up to Dreamcast and Gamecube or otherwise you are a shit console maker.

So the PS5 version offers nothing the much-cheaper PS3 version doesn't. Sounds like a great reason to buy a whole console.

People buy the PS5 because of future games. Sony will guarantee that the console will be worth the investment, unlike Nintendo.

You bought them to play them and enjoy them. Which you did. I don't know why you're expecting more than that, and I especially don't know why you're acting like you got nothing when you got exactly what you intended to get.

I bought a Wii U because Nintendo exclusives were never exclusive just for the system's lifetime. That was the only reason I bought one. And Nintendo failed to even do the bare minimum I expected of them. Even with Virtual Boy, all of its games are still exclusive.

Youre not locked out of it. You just refuse to buy it because its Too much. Thats not really their fault. They dont have to sell things separately if they dont want to. Nor should they have to be forced to release more content for a past system because they want to release a newer console. Would it be nice? Sure. But they dont have to, nor would many people think they would...

If I have to buy an entire game I don't want to get 3 hours worth of content then yes I am locked out of it.
It's their fault for making DLC just to make people buy the same game twice instead of making new games. It's their fault for trying to normalize buying the same old game multiple times just to get DLC just like they normalized DLC and lootboxes in the first place. Gamers should boycott companies that screw their customers like this.

I mean, thats kind of your fault. Most people wont retroactively hate a game because stuff was release for it later. In that case, you should hate more remakes/remasters. They usually have something extra. Even if not a lot... Plus, you did enjoy it while you played it. I feel youre forcing yourself to forget the joy you had. I mean, at the time, it was fun...

Most remakes/remasters don't have something new. I hate missing out of content because I bought a game at the wrong time. That ruins videogames for me.

It won't surprise me if they do, but that'll likely depend on just how much content it is. It may not actually be that much, in which case it'd be silly to do a standalone release (and, in turn, to be this butthurt over it).

It's probably enough to sell it at $10.

SMB+Duck Hunt gave you two games for the price of one. Mario All Stars gave you four games for the price of one. OoT Master Quest completely overhauled every dungeon, and wasn't even available for sale (literally not available, not your version of "it costs too much so it's impossible to buy") until the 3DS port a decade later. Metroid Prime 3 was rereleased a mere two years later with two whole other games bundled in with it (each of which were also rereleased with control overhauls in such a bundle). Rereleases with major additional content are nothing new, even relatively soon after the original comes out.

Most of those ports were just bundles of existing games, so if you bought those games at launch you didn't have to buy the ports. OoT Master Quest literally just changed the locations of items and enemies, it had zero new content. It was a lazy rom hack which is why it was a preorder bonus in the first place.

Which still doesn't mean they weren't exclusives. Heck, every game offers better value if you buy them later, given that their prices inevitably drop (by relatively little in the case of Nintendo games), far more so than the value of any of these games is affected by the additional content.

Exclusives on Wii U weren't exclusive for long enough for the Wii U to be up to Nintendo standards or even Sega standards.

The PS5's entire noteworthy launch lineup consists of a port of a PS3 game and glorified DLC for the PS4 Spiderman game sold as a standalone game, both of which are sold for $70. Not exactly the best example you could use there.

Demon's Souls doesn't have any new content that I know. Spiderman Miles Morales is sold at $50, it is only $70 if you buy the Ultimate edition with the Spiderman remaster and it is much longer than Bowser's Fury, that's for sure. Like I've said, they don't lock DLC behind ports.

Nobody's been screwed here. You're being melodramatic.

I'm not being melodramatic. I bought a Wii U and several Wii U games for nothing, because I could get the complete version of everything if I skipped it. A Nintendo home console should have been a safe bet, and instead they shit the bed.

Do you think adding new content to the original version is a free process? It takes roughly as much work as adding it to the port, but with a tiny fraction of the return. You really want to say that it's unreasonable not to do that?

No, but it is reasonable for them to sell the Switch port at a discount to those who have the Wii U version. Or in the case of Super Mario 3D World, to sell Bowser's Fury separately.

If you want to ignore multiple examples of that happening in every decade since home gaming has been a significant thing, sure. Ignoring empirical reality for the sake of pissing yourself off more is rarely a very healthy idea, though.

There are far more examples of Wii U ports than of other Nintendo ports having significant content added. Super Mario 64 was the only 3D Mario that had something like a Deluxe port and even then the new content was mostly a rehash of existing powerups.

Not remotely. If the copy you own is on a platform that no longer sees active support, there's absolutely no reason to expect developers to put work into developing content for that version. That's just not a sensible use of resources.

Then they should allow people who own the original version to buy a port at a discount. But buying the same game for DLC at full price isn't sensible.

Which they delivered. The WiiU had plenty of great games that weren't available on any other system - exclusives. Then it died, and some of those old exclusives have been ported to the Switch so a wider audience can enjoy them. I don't know why you seem to think that more people enjoying games is a bad thing, especially when it means that the studios that produced said games are more capable of continuing to produce the games you enjoyed playing.

They didn't deliver because you could skip the Wii U and get all of its games just a few years later with more content to boot. That didn't happen with any other Nintendo console, not even Gamecube, because they waited a long time to port games from any of those consoles.

Says who? Again, this is not a matter of pride or honour or following "rules" or any nonsense like that. Anyone that is able to afford to make and sell consoles can make and sell consoles. The bottom line is the only thing that dictates that, not some arbitrary notion of who "deserves" to sell stuff.

Gamers shouldn't give money to companies that don't take their consoles seriously and screws people who buy their consoles.

save up your $$$ and buy a new console there magnus

I already did, I bought a PS5. Sony doesn't lock DLC behind ports.

This has never been the case. Again, SMB was bundled with Duck Hunt in 1988, three years after its initial release, and 32 years ago. Heck, many NES games were enhanced ports of arcade games, even going back as far as '85. Such practices have become more common in recent years (largely due to the ever-expanding library of old content to remake), and again, the WiiU's gotten a lot of it more of it than most systems because it had so many quality exclusives that few people got to play because of how poorly the system sold, but there has never been a time when you could be completely confident that you could buy a game when it launched and never end up regretting that purchase because a better deal came along later.

For decades I have been buying lots of games only once and never missed any DLC. It's only in recent years that game devs are going full Street Fighter, because people are getting stupid and pissing money on content that they have already played.

Again, that suggests that you fundamentally misunderstand the process. Teams that are porting games often have enough downtime to make slapping together some new content pretty easy, and (more importantly) being able to advertise ports with even just a token amount of bonus content makes them much more appealing to people who didn't buy the game in the first place. It's just sensible marketing. Expecting them not to market their products sensibly just to appease you is utterly absurd.

It's absurd that I can't get DLC for any game I already own. If I buy a $60 game then I should get access to all DLC that game will ever have unless they say otherwise or it's completely obvious. I shouldn't ever buy a game that the devs give no indication will be ported later, then 10 years later I can't get DLC for that game because they are locking it behind a $60. Games are meant to be bought once, and only once, and the industry must absolutely market their games so that people who aren't insane enough to buy the same game multiple times never miss out on any content.

And the WiiU was axed 5 years after release. They were 100% honest that they wouldn't support it after that point. Prior to that point, they produced a reasonable number of exclusive games that ended up not being enough to attract people to the console (though that was more a marketing issue than anything else). After that point, they were under no obligation to continue supporting it. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make or what you believe happened.

Nintendo sold the Wii U with the promise of great exclusives instead of sweeping it under the rug like Virtual Boy. They knew some people would buy it because for 30 years, there was no Nintendo console that had all of its exclusives ported to the next console. So they said they would support their console, release a few AAA games that appeared to be Wii U exclusive, but then they ported everything to Switch so in the end Wii U had no exclusives. Nintendo made it seem like Wii U would have support, but in reality it had the same support as Virtual Boy, and in the process shafted millions of people who bought the Wii U to get exclusives that didn't exist.

You seem to think this is a matter of pride or honour or something similarly silly. It's not. It's a matter of money. Companies don't leave the console business because they're embarrassed by failed systems, they leave because those failures mean they can't continue to operate a sustainable business. Conversely, companies that are able to operate a sustainable business in spite of failed systems (as Nintendo has done following the Virtual Boy and WiiU) can be expected to remain in the console business because there's still money to be made.

Console makers that make a failed system shouldn't be able to remain in the console biz. Virtual Boy could be forgiven because it was always meant to be a stopgap but Wii U cannot be forgiven. The fact that Nintendo is still in the console biz after the shitshow that Wii U proves that videogames are now shit.

You are able to play it. You choose not to. That's self-created.

If I have to buy the same game at full price, then I'm not able to play it. It is insane to buy the same game multiple times. Specially since I don't usually replay content.

Compared to the rest of the content in those games? It really is. It's enough that the enhanced version of the game is clearly the better one, given a choice where all other factors are equal, but it's not enough to make the game unenjoyable without it (unless, again, you throw a tantrum because Billy has more toys than you and sabotage your own ability to enjoy what you've got).

A game that is incomplete but you can't complete because they don't make DLC for that version is not enjoyable.

They don't refuse to sell them to you. You refuse to buy them. What they refuse to do is put in the rather sizable amount of work that would be needed to create an option for you to purchase them exactly the way you want to, work which would generally not be worthwhile because most people aren't particularly interested in buying DLC for games they finished several years ago. Heck, I fully expect that even you wouldn't buy said DLC because all you seem to need to be happy is to have the option (that, or you'd demand that it be free or otherwise insist that whatever price they chose was unreasonable). That's a pretty reasonable thing to refuse to do.

It's them who lock DLC behind a port. It's them who charge me $60 for 3 hours of content. It's them who are unreasonable and want to make people like me who want complete games to waste a fortune on stuff that you don't want to get stuff that you want. They want to normalize people double dipping on games so you spend $120 on a $60 game, just like they normalized DLC and are trying to normalize lootboxes.

I'll say it again: You need to get over yourself. This melodrama is so utterly ridiculous that I struggle to believe there's a real human churning it out.

That will never happen. It's the game industry that needs to get over itself and stop being shit.

You're gonna have to get over that. Remakes are a simple fact of life in the game industry, now that there's a significant amount of history to draw on and large demographics of gamers that have never played many of the games that are being remade.

For decades I bought games once, only once and never missed any DLC. It's only now that locking DLC behind ports is normal. It used to be rare.

There's a very substantial difference between "I can't play this" and "I won't play this because it costs more than I'm willing to pay." The former is somebody else's fault, the latter is entirely a self-created problem. Regardless, being this bothered by it is ridiculous. It's mildly annoying at worst, not the deeply insulting slap in the face you seem to think it is.

It isn't a self-created problem because it's completely insane to spend $60 to get $10 worth of content. And not being able to play content ever because I bought the Wii U version is a slap in the face.

In the vast majority of cases, it is just bonus content. Bowser's Fury is actually looking to be a bit more substantial, such that it may yet see a standalone release (much like NSLU or the Xenoblade 2 Torna campaign did), but every other example is pretty trivial stuff. As I said, it's generally enough to make the remake the preferred version of the game, but very much not enough to act like you're playing a defective product for not having it.

More characters in a fighting game or a fixed battle mode in Mario Kart is never trivial.

Again, that's roughly akin to a spoiled toddler throwing a tantrum because he realizes another kid is playing with a toy he doesn't have. You're going to have a really rough time being a gamer moving forward if enhanced rereleases make you regret buying games you were perfectly happy to play at the time. I encourage you to get over yourself to avoid that.

I will never tolerate missing out on content on any videogame because the devs lock out content behind ports. I am only perfectly happy when I get all the content I care about in every game just buying it once. I need all the content, just like it used to be for decades that I bought all the games just once and got all the content those games would ever have. I need to only spend $60 on every game I ever buy only once and never miss on any DLC ever. I need all the content I want for all the games I want and at a reasonable price. A kid can live without a toy, I can't live without my games.

Suggesting that they should just "make new games instead" completely misunderstands how much work goes into new games compared to ports. The two are not remotely comparable, let alone equivalent. So yes, you'd rather the games not be ported at all, meaning nobody gets the new content and millions of Switch owners that skipped the WiiU never get to experience the games you enjoyed, all because you don't want to feel like you're missing out on an extra character.

If they want to port those games then they must not add any new content. Period. And if ports take less work than new games they shouldn't be charging me $60 for a game that I already own.

One commercial failure and Nintendo's just as bad as Atari? Overdramatic much? Have you forgotten that Nintendo also made the Virtual Boy, which failed a whole lot harder than the WiiU (~95% fewer units sold) and hasn't even been able to maintain a legacy of having great games because its games weren't able to be played by anyone other than the handful of people that bought one? Nobody cares. Failed consoles happen, people move on. You should too.

Virtual Boy was axed just a year after release. They were 100% honest that they wouldn't support the Virtual Boy. With Wii U they decieved people promising support and later porting everything to another console. Also, Virtual Boy was always meant as some weird shit they got out of the door to make up for the N64 delays. Wii U on their other hand was serious business and it HAD to be good.

Only shit console makers don't care about their legacy. The day there is a shit XBox, Microsoft will leave the console biz. The day there is a shit numbered Playstation, Sony will leave the console biz. These companies are serious and will never let any of their consoles fail unless they intend to leave the market. I will move on when Nintendo leaves the console biz.

Sega went out of the console business not because of one bad console (or even any truly bad consoles), but because of a long series of bad business decisions that meant their console business was unsustainable and they would have gone bankrupt if they tried to keep it going. Nintendo's not going to go bankrupt any time soon, and certainly won't over one bad console (especially not if they can port that console's games to their newest system to recover the money they didn't make due to the WiiU's poor sales, which they can despite how personally insulted you seem to be by it).

The bad business decisions were basically the 32X and Saturn. For an add-on the 32X was good and Saturn was much better than Wii U.

Zeus posted...

That's completely untrue. The GC followed the N64 and picked up some of its exclusives, not to mention some titles from the N64 went to the DS. Not to mention you had SMB All-Stars which ported *three* NES games to the SNES (and a fourth that wasn't released in the region)

GC didn't get a lot of N64 exclusives. Some games moved from N64 to GC during development but almost all N64 exclusives remained exclusive. DS only had one N64 title and that was two generations after N64. SMB All-Stars is the exception that proves the rule.

Several Wii games were available for download on the WiiU, including Mario Galaxy, Metroid Prime Trilogy, and Xenoblade Chronicles. Twilight Princess was remade on the WiiU (arguably a GC game and not a Wii one, but given that the GC version came out after the Wii launched, I don't think you can call that a 2-generation gap). Pikmin 1 and 2 were given enhanced ports with Wii controls, as were Metroid Prime 1 and 2 (the aforementioned trilogy) and Resident Evil 4 (which had already lost its exclusive status to the PS2, but I feel it can still count). Ocarina of Time was ported to the GC with exclusive content (Master Quest) that you could only get if you preordered Wind Waker, then again alongside Majora's Mask (and LoZ and AoL) for the Collector's Edition disc that was only available through Club Nintendo's predecessor.
And that's just off the top of my head, without getting into the technicality that "at least two generations" means that systems with only one generation between them could also count (i.e. WWHD, the GBA port of ALttP...). This really isn't anything new. It's unusual for it to happen to such an extent, certainly, but as I've said, it's unusual for a console to sell as poorly as the WiiU did. It's both expected and reasonable that Nintendo and their studios would step up that porting in an effort to actually turn a profit on those games.

The Wii games on Wii U eshop technically weren't ports, they are just digital downloads. Nintendo only ported a small fraction of Gamecube games to Wii. Nintendo promised to support the Wii U, part of support means proper exclusives.

Your experience with games you played 4-5 years ago is retroactively ruined by new content coming out that costs more than you're willing to pay? As in, you enjoyed it, but now that you realize you could enjoy it even more but won't because it's too expensive, you no longer like the games? That's just plain silly.

If the games were complete when you bought them, then they're still complete. It's the same game you enjoyed back then. Anything else that's been added since is just a bonus, and it's thoroughly unreasonable to be this bothered by not getting that bonus content on your terms

I am bothered because I will NEVER be able to play this content because they will NEVER sell it to me at a reasonable price because they are locking it behind a port. And no, this isn't bonus content, it's an entire game (albeit a really short one) that I can never play because they will never sell it separately. Even if it was a bonus content, I still shouldn't be locked out of it forever because they are asking $60 for it which is the same as not selling it, because no bonus is worth $60.
If I buy a game, that shouldn't mean that I have to give up on any "bonus" content that comes later forever. I should have the option to buy anything I want period. Having to give up on content forever each time I buy a game ruins videogames for me, and therefore ruins my life.

And if I miss out on any content I want from any game because the devs are locking it behind a port, that retroactively ruins any enjoyment I ever had. I only enjoy playing a game if I don't regret buying it ever.

So you would rather they not port the game, meaning you still don't get the new content, plus nobody else gets to enjoy the game and the publishers don't get to make the money they deserve for producing such quality games? Because that's really the only other option here. Developing the added content as DLC for the original versions wouldn't be impossible, but it would almost certainly not be commercially viable given how low the install base is on those original versions and the fact that most people that own them have already played their fill and aren't exactly eager to buy new DLC for them. That really just leaves not porting them as the only alternative. That, or porting them with no added content, but that's also not exactly a commercially savvy move.

If they can't sell me the new content at a reasonable price they should not be adding content to these ports and make new games instead.

Pikmin 1: 8 years
Pikmin 2: 8 years
Metroid Prime: 7 years
Metroid Prime 2: 5 years
Metroid Prime 3: 2 years (it was rereleased as part of the Trilogy, not even the next generation)
OoT: 4 years
Super Mario Bros: 3 years (packaged with Duck Hunt)
SMB 2: 5 years (All Stars)
SMB3: 3 years (All Stars)

Again, this is nothing new. SMB got bundled with Duck Hunt 32 years ago, then rereleased on an entirely different system 5 years later (along with 2 and 3).

Those were only a handful of games. Most exclusives on NES and Gamecube were never ported.

The WiiU sold so poorly that if the exclusives weren't ported, they generally wouldn't be remembered either way. Having great exclusives doesn't mean much if hardly anybody gets to play them. As it stands, most people do know them as WiiU games (at least to as much of an extent as matters at all) despite them being ported, much like nobody thinks of OoT as a GC, Wii, or 3DS game. It was an exclusive in its time, and that's all anyone pays attention to.

And if they do forget? I genuinely struggle to think of anything that matters less than that. It certainly doesn't matter to enough of an extent to demand that Nintendo not rerelease the games on the Switch for the sake of preserving that legacy, and it certainly doesn't matter to enough of an extent to be angered by such ports.

Saturn and Dreamcast sold less than Wii U and were far better consoles and will be remembered much more than Wii U. And I do care if Wii U is remembered as a shit console because that makes Nintendo a shit console maker no better than Atari. Microsoft will never make a shit XBox. Sony will never make a shit numbered Playstation. That is how they care about the console biz. Nintendo made a shit console after 30 years of great consoles. That is the ultimate console maker sin. Sega went out of the console biz for far less.

As a concept, "exclusive" generally only looks at a single generation. It's silly to say "the NES didn't have any decent exclusives" because virtually all of its noteworthy games have been rereleased in some capacity or another. When the NES was contemporary, you had to buy it in order to access those games. That's all "exclusive" has ever meant, especially as we move into an era where digital distribution makes it easy to port older games to every new system. Again, surely you're not going to suggest that rereleasing any game shafts the early adopters.

Nintendo games were almost always exclusive for at least two generations. Wii U is the sole exception.

They really don't. For one thing, "there's new content the original version doesn't have that means the original is unfinished" is just a silly attitude to have. Unfinished games feel unfinished when you play them, and that wasn't the case for any WiiU exclusives I can think of (not the decent ones that are seeing ports, anyway). Retroactively deciding after you've already been satisfied by them that they were actually unfinished just because some new content later is roughly akin to a spoiled toddler throwing a tantrum when he realizes one of his peers is playing with a toy he doesn't have.
For another, the new content is rarely that significant. It's enough to make choosing the remake over the original easy (presuming such a choice is actually available and there isn't a massive price difference confounding the issue, which may not be a reasonable assumption), but by and large, I wouldn't even bother spending $10 on a hypothetical upgrade option if it existed (and the cases where I would, that option's already been made available in the form of DLC for the original game, like the MK8 track packs, NSLU, or the Hyrule Warriors expansion pass, and I already have purchased it).

If I buy a $60 game I shouldn't be locked out of any content forever because greedy publishers demand to purchase the game again just to get $10 DLC. I want all DLC without having to waste money on content that I already own and have already played. Not being able to play DLC that I want because developers want you to buy the same game again ruins videogames for me, because it means that I will always get games with missing content that I will never get to play, because locking $10 DLC behind a $60 port is the same as them refusing to sell that DLC to me.
And new levels in a Mario game or new characters in Pokken or a battle mode that's not completely broken in Mario Kart is pretty significant content.

Is it unfortunate that these remakes are coming out so relatively soon after their originals? Kind of, though even then it's not actually that soon in many cases (Mario 3D World came out in November 2013, over 7 years before this port is being released). Some of them were really close (Pokken Tournament DX came out a year and a half after the original's NA launch), particularly the ones that were used to flesh out the Switch's launch window lineup, but most of them did wait at least 3-4 years. That's actually a pretty reasonable gap. But even with some of them being relatively close, feeling "shafted" and bitter over having jumped on the bandwagon earlier isn't particularly reasonable. I'd much rather see the studios that created these excellent games get the revenue and recognition they deserve for doing so than see them take a loss for the sake of making me feel like my "loyalty" has been rewarded.

Most Nintendo remakes come 10-15 years after the original. If I buy a Nintendo console I expect a console that will remembered until the end of time because of great exclusives, not shit like Amiibo Festival or Devil's Third.

adjl posted...

How have you been shafted? They supported the WiiU for almost as long as their usual generations (5 years instead of 6), producing plenty of quality games that you were able to enjoy to their full potential. That doesn't change because those games get ported a few years after their initial release. Having the original does make it hard to justify buying the game a second time for whatever token improvements they add to the port to make it more attractive to new customers, but that's true of every remake/port, and surely you're not going to suggest that rereleasing any game shafts the early adopters.

Wii U didn't have exclusives like other Nintendo consoles, everything was ported to Switch. Also the Switch ports have so much new stuff that makes the Wii U version feel like an unfinished beta, I didn't buy the Wii U to get betas, I bought it to get proper exclusives that are 100% complete and definitive.

adjl posted...

At some level, I agree, but even the Gamecube sold twice as well as the WiiU did. The WiiU sold *very* poorly, which is really a shame because it had some fantastic titles. For the sake of allowing more people to experience those games without having to buy a system that they generally don't consider worthwhile (as well as some easy extra revenue for studios that had trouble recovering development costs due to the system's low install base), I'm fine with seeing most of those titles ported and the system rendered obsolete (particularly where I didn't really expect to get more games for it once the Switch launched anyway). It kind of sucks to be "stuck" with the inferior versions because I don't really want to buy enhanced ports so soon after buying the original games, but really, I'm okay with missing out on the bit of extra content.

If I buy a Nintendo home console that Nintendo chose not to dump within the first year then I should get a console that is up to Nintendo standards no matter how poorly it sold. Wii U selling terribly isn't a valid reason for Nintendo to shaft those who bought it when Nintendo chose to support their console for four years. Nintendo should respect themselves instead of making easy money.

adjl posted...

The New Super Luigi stuff? That was originally released as pseudo-DLC for NSMBU (you could buy it as a standalone game, or download it for a reduced price as DLC if you owned NSMBU already). I think the only stuff they added specifically for the port was the ability to play as Toadette and Nabbit, though I could be wrong.

Honestly, given how many of its notable games have already been ported, there really isn't much reason to buy a WiiU now. The only ones left that I can think of are Xenoblade X (which was a system-seller for me, but YMMV) and Wind Waker HD (which is just a remake, albeit one that I feel elevated WW from relative mediocrity to being a serious contender for Best Zelda), and it wouldn't surprise me if they end up ported as well (though both will suffer for not having the gamepad map handy, since both put that to excellent use). The WiiU and its versions of the ported games will be cheaper than the Switch, but that's about all it's got going for it. Nintendo's very much accepted that the WiiU was a failure and is cutting their losses by rereleasing all of its games that hardly anyone played.

I hate how Nintendo made the Wii U completely worthless just a few years after being discontinued. Other Nintendo consoles were worth buying for decades. On top of that they add new content that only people who skipped the Wii U can play, because buying the same game again at full price to get $10 DLC is a ripoff.