LogFAQs > #949910224

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.