LogFAQs > #949754944

Master_Magnus posted...

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.

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

Master_Magnus posted...

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

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).

Master_Magnus posted...

I am not throwing a tantrum because another kid is playing with a toy that I don't have. I am here because I CANNOT buy the toys that I want because greedy devs refuse to sell them to me because they want me to buy a toy that I already have first. I need to buy the toys I want without buying anything I don't want.

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.

Master_Magnus posted...

And games, are a necessity to me, just like food and water.

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.

Master_Magnus posted...

I will never tolerate missing out on content on any videogame because the devs lock out content behind ports. I pay the game, I get all the content I want and never miss out on anything because devs demand me to buy the game again. I am only perfectly happy when I get all the content I care about in every game just buying it once.

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.

Master_Magnus posted...

I need all the toys, 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.

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.

Master_Magnus posted...

If they want to port those games then they must not add any new content. Period.

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.

Master_Magnus posted...
Virtual Boy was axed just a year after release. They were 100% honest that they wouldn't support the Virtual Boy.

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.

Master_Magnus posted...
Only s*** console makers don't care about their legacy. The day there is a s*** XBox, Microsoft will leave the console biz. The day there is a s*** 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.

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.

"Legacy" has value only insofar as it can be leveraged for PR purposes. Anything beyond that is just you taking video games way too seriously.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.