Poll of the Day > Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury trailer

Topic List
Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4
Master_Magnus
01/20/21 2:35:34 PM
#51:


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.
... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza
01/20/21 2:41:28 PM
#52:


Master_Magnus posted...
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.

They do have Xenoblade X... And they do have the remake of WW, which was good and makes the original feel unfinished... And while I do think they are other exclusives, they may not be as big...
---
Official King of Kings
Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Zeus
01/20/21 2:59:56 PM
#53:


Master_Magnus posted...
Wii U didn't have exclusives like other Nintendo consoles, everything was ported to Switch.

...things not becoming exclusive after the fact isn't the same thing as them never being exclusive. And most of the N64's top titles have been ported multiple times now, as is true of most Nintendo consoles.

Master_Magnus posted...
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.

...again, that's all post-hoc, not shit during its run. And the N64 ports have generally had a lot of new features. Just look at SM64DS (although that kinda sucked for the run controls)

---
(\/)(\/)|-|
There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist.
... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl
01/20/21 3:09:38 PM
#54:


Master_Magnus posted...
Wii U didn't have exclusives like other Nintendo consoles, everything was ported to Switch.

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.

Master_Magnus posted...
Also the Switch ports have so much new stuff that makes the Wii U version feel like an unfinished beta

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).

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.

---
This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.
... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl
01/20/21 3:13:54 PM
#55:


LinkPizza posted...
And they do have the remake of WW, which was good and makes the original feel unfinished...

Even then, I wouldn't say it made the original feel unfinished. It was just better, thanks to a few excellent additions and tweaks. A slice of cake with ice cream and strawberries on it may be better than one without, but that doesn't mean I'm going to feel like the slice of cake is unfinished if served on its own.

Zeus posted...
Just look at SM64DS (although that kinda sucked for the run controls)

Honestly, as weird and awkward as it was due to being so different from prior control schemes, I found that using the thumb pad for running actually worked pretty well. I'm not at all surprised that no other games (that I know of) did the same, but after getting used to it, I thought it was fine.

---
This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.
... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza
01/20/21 3:18:54 PM
#56:


adjl posted...
Even then, I wouldn't say it made the original feel unfinished. It was just better, thanks to a few excellent additions and tweaks. A slice of cake with ice cream and strawberries on it may be better than one without, but that doesn't mean I'm going to feel like the slice of cake is unfinished if served on its own.

I guess I didnt really mean unfinished. But it is better...
---
Official King of Kings
Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around.
... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl
01/20/21 3:27:28 PM
#57:


LinkPizza posted...
I guess I didnt really mean unfinished. But it is better...

It's a distinction that comes up a lot in talking about DLC. There are a lot of people that feel that the mere existence of DLC means that the base game is unfinished, or otherwise not a complete game, and that the only way to have a complete game is to buy all of the content. I've never liked that attitude. There are plenty of games out there with DLC that are perfectly satisfactory experiences on their own, without buying the DLC, and lumping them in with games that have actually been carved up for the sake of selling the rest of the game back to us (which there are also plenty of examples of) is extremely unfair to those that are doing DLC right. As a concept, DLC is great. It gives people the option to buy more content for games they like well enough to want more of, and I think it's important to keep the focus on the studios that do it wrong instead of blaming the concept as a whole and damaging those that do it right.

Basically:
Good DLC: 1+0.2=1.2
Bad DLC: 0.8+0.2=1

---
This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.
... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza
01/20/21 3:42:47 PM
#58:


adjl posted...
It's a distinction that comes up a lot in talking about DLC. There are a lot of people that feel that the mere existence of DLC means that the base game is unfinished, or otherwise not a complete game, and that the only way to have a complete game is to buy all of the content.

I disagree with that statement, tbh. People always said that on a lot of game boards, but its actually a dumb argument. Without the DLC, the games were still finished, and a complete game... Like how Hyrule Warriors was a complete game, and the DLC just gave more game...
---
Official King of Kings
Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around.
... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl
01/20/21 3:55:37 PM
#59:


LinkPizza posted...
I disagree with that statement, tbh. People always said that on a lot of game boards, but its actually a dumb argument. Without the DLC, the games were still finished, and a complete game... Like how Hyrule Warriors was a complete game, and the DLC just gave more game...

There are cases where not having the DLC does result in an incomplete experience, though, particularly when the DLC is available right at launch (often with multiple purchase tiers for the game, some of which use terms like "Definitive," "Ultimate," or "Complete" despite not actually having all the content in them). Hyrule Warriors was good DLC: If you didn't buy it, you still had a very solid game to play. If you did buy it, you got even more solid game to play (at an incredible price point, no less).

---
This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.
... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza
01/20/21 4:02:40 PM
#60:


adjl posted...
There are cases where not having the DLC does result in an incomplete experience, though, particularly when the DLC is available right at launch (often with multiple purchase tiers for the game, some of which use terms like "Definitive," "Ultimate," or "Complete" despite not actually having all the content in them). Hyrule Warriors was good DLC: If you didn't buy it, you still had a very solid game to play. If you did buy it, you got even more solid game to play (at an incredible price point, no less).

Yeah. In my experience, Nintendo normally does good with DLC. Like Hyrule Warriors. Or Mario Kart for Wii U, which has a lot of game and was complete. Then they sold DLC, which added like 50% more game. Not to mention all the little free things here and there...
---
Official King of Kings
Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Far-Queue
01/20/21 4:11:38 PM
#61:


One game that jumps to mind when this argument comes up is Asura's Wrath. Literally had to pay for episodes just to see the "true" ending.

To be fair, I believe Capcom was hoping the title would sell well enough to warrant a trilogy, and when that didn't happen they gave the developers a chance to tie up the story. This is all speculation on my part, though.

I did enjoy Asura's Wrath. Shame it didn't perform better. At least we got an ending *ahem* Too Human *ahem*

---
https://imgur.com/ZwO4qO2
"Far-Queue is probably one of the least troll-like of the posters here." - LinkPizza
... Copied to Clipboard!
Master_Magnus
01/20/21 4:53:35 PM
#62:




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.
... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl
01/20/21 7:06:44 PM
#63:


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

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.

Master_Magnus posted...
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.

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.

Master_Magnus posted...
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.

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.

Master_Magnus posted...
Most Nintendo remakes come 10-15 years after the original.

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).

Master_Magnus posted...
If I buy a Nintendo console I expect a console that will remembered until the end of time because of great exclusives

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.

---
This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Master_Magnus
01/20/21 8:40:43 PM
#64:




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.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Zeus
01/20/21 9:01:57 PM
#65:


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

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)


---
(\/)(\/)|-|
There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Master_Magnus
01/20/21 9:48:03 PM
#66:


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.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Entity13
01/20/21 10:28:02 PM
#67:


Yeah, it was mainly the 3DS that picked up ports from the N64, not the GC.

---
... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl
01/21/21 8:11:34 AM
#68:


Master_Magnus posted...
The Wii games on Wii U eshop technically weren't ports, they are just digital downloads.

They meant the games were no longer Wii exclusives, by the logic you're using here.

Master_Magnus posted...
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.

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.

Master_Magnus posted...
And no, this isn't bonus content, it's an entire game (albeit a really short one)

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.

Master_Magnus posted...
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.

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.

Master_Magnus posted...
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.

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.

Get over yourself.

Master_Magnus posted...
Those were only a handful of games.

I mean, I could keep going pretty easily. It's just not particularly worthwhile to go digging for release dates like that.

Master_Magnus posted...
Saturn and Dreamcast sold less than Wii U

And, subsequently, most of their notable games have been ported many times since then, including ports within their respective generations (mostly in the case of Dreamcast, which saw flagship titles like Sonic Adventure 1/2 ported to GC). Has that stopped the systems from being remembered for their exclusives? Not remotely, because that's not how people work.

Master_Magnus posted...
And I do care if Wii U is remembered as a s*** console because that makes Nintendo a s*** console maker no better than Atari.

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.

Master_Magnus posted...
Sega went out of the console biz for far less.

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).

---
This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Master_Magnus
01/21/21 12:44:41 PM
#69:


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.
... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl
01/21/21 1:31:09 PM
#70:


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.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Master_Magnus
01/21/21 3:01:31 PM
#71:


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.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Master_Magnus
01/21/21 3:01:37 PM
#72:


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.

... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl
01/21/21 3:28:59 PM
#73:


Master_Magnus posted...
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.

That remains your choice. It's a pretty sensible choice, generally speaking, but if it causes you this much distress, perhaps not.

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

If a game doesn't feel like it's missing anything, then it's complete. Any further content is merely a bonus.

Master_Magnus posted...
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 make it natural for people to double dip on games so you spend $120 on a $60 game. They are unreasonable ones.

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?

Master_Magnus posted...
For decades I bought games once, only once and never missed any DLC.

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.

Master_Magnus posted...
It's absurd that I can't get DLC for any game I already own.

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.

Master_Magnus posted...
Nintendo sold the Wii U with the promise of great exclusives

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.

Master_Magnus posted...
Console makers that make a failed system shouldn't be able to remain in the console biz.

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.

---
This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.
... Copied to Clipboard!
ReturnOfFa
01/21/21 3:31:42 PM
#74:


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

---
girls like my fa
... Copied to Clipboard!
ReturnOfFa
01/21/21 3:32:22 PM
#75:


I like my Wii U and my Switch.

who cares

---
girls like my fa
... Copied to Clipboard!
ReturnOfFa
01/21/21 3:51:18 PM
#76:


oh and my PC

---
girls like my fa
... Copied to Clipboard!
Master_Magnus
01/21/21 3:56:21 PM
#77:




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.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Metalsonic66
01/21/21 4:03:40 PM
#78:


Master_Magnus posted...
A kid can live without a toy, I can't live without my games
XD

---
PSN/Steam ID: Metalsonic_69
Big bombs go kabang.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Far-Queue
01/21/21 4:20:37 PM
#79:


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

Master_Magnus posted...
A kid can live without a toy, I can't live without my games.

You sound like an angsty 12 year-old lmao


---
https://imgur.com/ZwO4qO2
"Far-Queue is probably one of the least troll-like of the posters here." - LinkPizza
... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl
01/21/21 4:28:18 PM
#80:


Master_Magnus posted...
No, but it is reasonable for them to sell the Switch port at a discount to those who have the Wii U version.

That may or may not be technically feasible. There's precedent for it, with improved WiiU versions of VC games being available to people that already owned them on the Wii for a small upgrade fee, but that relied on doing a Wii-->WiiU system transfer so the WiiU shop could confirm that you owned the Wii version. Where there's no such system transfer option between the WiiU and Switch, that's less simple to set up. The fact that the same Nintendo account can be used across systems would facilitate it, but the WiiU end of that may not be set up to allow that. It'd be nice, but I also understand them not putting in the effort to enable it (especially where we're talking about Nintendo and an online system).

Master_Magnus posted...
Or in the case of Super Mario 3D World, to sell Bowser's Fury separately.

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).

Master_Magnus posted...
There are far more examples of Wii U ports than of other Nintendo ports having significant content added.

There are, but again, that's largely owing to how poorly the WiiU performed.

Master_Magnus posted...
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.

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.

Master_Magnus posted...
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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

---
This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.
... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza
01/21/21 4:33:09 PM
#81:


Master_Magnus posted...
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.

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...

Master_Magnus posted...
that retroactively ruins any enjoyment I ever had. I only enjoy playing a game if I don't regret buying it ever.

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...
---
Official King of Kings
Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Master_Magnus
01/21/21 5:44:40 PM
#82:


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.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Master_Magnus
01/21/21 5:51:37 PM
#83:


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.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Metalsonic66
01/21/21 5:57:29 PM
#84:


Master_Magnus posted...
I'm not being melodramatic
Master_Magnus posted...
That ruins videogames for me.
lol

---
PSN/Steam ID: Metalsonic_69
Big bombs go kabang.
... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza
01/21/21 6:24:20 PM
#85:


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

Whats up to standards? And whos standards? Yours? Because I dont think theyll care about one persons opinion, tbh... How long do games need to be exclusive to be counted as exclusive? And even then, that means a ton of games arent actually exclusive since many games (for like a ton of consoles) have be re-released...

Master_Magnus posted...
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.

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...

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...

Master_Magnus posted...
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.

Most do, AFAIK. Even if its just something small or unnoticed. Not all, but most have something. Or changes to make the game better. Sometimes, it doesnt even affect the game. At least, thats how its been for some years now, IIRC...
---
Official King of Kings
Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around.
... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl
01/21/21 6:47:28 PM
#86:


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

Both times that I know of Nintendo doing the standalone DLC thing (NSLU and Torna), the price point has been $30. If it were only going to be enough content to be able to sell it for $10, they probably wouldn't bother developing it to function independently.

Master_Magnus posted...
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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Master_Magnus posted...
Demon's Souls doesn't have any new content that I know.

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

Master_Magnus posted...
Spiderman Miles Morales is sold at $50

Oh, my mistake. The point still stands, though.

Master_Magnus posted...
I'm not being melodramatic.

You very unarguably are.

Master_Magnus posted...
I bought a Wii U and several Wii U games for nothing

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.

---
This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.
... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl
01/21/21 6:51:02 PM
#87:


LinkPizza posted...
kore

She prefers the name "Persephone," now.

---
This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.
... Copied to Clipboard!
SilentSeph
01/21/21 6:52:23 PM
#88:


Just chiming in to say that the Captain Toad levels are now multiplayer and that the Blue Toad with glasses is adorable

---
Delicious and vicious, while maliciously nutritious.
... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza
01/21/21 6:53:01 PM
#89:


adjl posted...
She prefers the name "Persephone," now.

Yeah. Shell get mad if I keep using that name... thanks!
---
Official King of Kings
Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around.
... Copied to Clipboard!
ReturnOfFa
01/21/21 7:32:51 PM
#90:




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.


---
girls like my fa
... Copied to Clipboard!
ReturnOfFa
01/21/21 7:33:53 PM
#91:


You can afford a PS5 and are bitching about Wii U support?

...........

---
girls like my fa
... Copied to Clipboard!
Master_Magnus
01/21/21 7:34:00 PM
#92:




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.
... Copied to Clipboard!
ReturnOfFa
01/21/21 7:34:48 PM
#93:


sell it and stop talking about it

---
girls like my fa
... Copied to Clipboard!
Soup_or_Science
01/21/21 7:38:17 PM
#94:


Mario is so materialistic. Running around grabbing as many gold coins and whatever else he can get his gloves on as he can.

Ok anyway, this actually kind of makes me want to try them out + Switch. Are these two different games or what?

---
Official President of the World of the United States of America of PotD
(on golf break)
... Copied to Clipboard!
ReturnOfFa
01/21/21 7:39:24 PM
#95:


Is Samsung supposed to jerk me off if I purchase a TV they released 8 years ago and its features aren't supported on par with a 2020 model?

---
girls like my fa
... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl
01/21/21 7:47:31 PM
#96:


Master_Magnus posted...
And if I buy a $60 game, I should get all the bonus without buying it again, ever.

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

Master_Magnus posted...
If you bought MP3 at launch, you were screwed, but you didn't miss out on anything.

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).

Master_Magnus posted...
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.

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

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

That has nothing to do with anything you or I said leading up to it.

Master_Magnus posted...
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.

As I said, "legacy" means nothing except what can be leveraged for PR purposes, and the Switch's success shows that Nintendo's reputation wasn't that badly damaged by the WiiU. People who bought the console were already rewarded for doing so by being able to play the games they bought. I have no reason to expect more of a reward than that for conducting a simple business transaction.

Master_Magnus posted...
People buy the PS5 because of future games.

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

Master_Magnus posted...
I bought a Wii U because Nintendo exclusives were never exclusive just for the system's lifetime.

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.

---
This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.
... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl
01/21/21 7:53:43 PM
#97:


Soup_or_Science posted...
Ok anyway, this actually kind of makes me want to try them out + Switch. Are these two different games or what?

Far as I can tell, it's a port of Mario 3D World from the WiiU, with an extra subgame added a la New Super Luigi U. I don't believe we have any details about the scope of Bowser's Fury yet. Based on the similar addition to the remake of Mario & Luigi:Superstar Saga, it may not actually be all that much, but the trailer does make it look more promising than that one (which was barely more than a minor sidequest).

If you haven't played SM3DW yet, I'd recommend picking up this version because it is an excellent game (personally one of my least favourite 3D Marios, but many others consider it one of their favourites) and this will likely be the definitive version of it. If you do already own it on WiiU, I'd hold off and see whether or not the extra content is worth repurchasing the game.

---
This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.
... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza
01/21/21 8:16:35 PM
#98:


Master_Magnus posted...
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.

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". 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. That's like saying Hyrule Warriors was an incomplete game because it had DLC. But it had a full story mode, and an adventure map. They just release DLC that you didn't need. And HWL had a full story (4, in fact), and multiple side maps. But they sold DLC. By you're logic, those games would have been incomplete. Which is false. And if you think they were, they you must not know what the word incomplete means... 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. Maybe they couldn't afford the other system at the time. Or missed out on it. Or want the game for this system. Just because you're salty that the Wii U isn't getting anything new doesn't mean you should want the game company to never release the same game. It helps the company and the customers. If you don't like the company practices, then stop buying from them. It's pretty simple. So again, you're not locked out. You just don't want to buy it. And that's fine. But locked out is something different... Also, other people don't spend their savings on video games. You really are being melodramatic. What's funny is you talk about other people spending their savings on video games, but also talking about how you need video games to live. Most people just save up for a game they want. Also, I'd probably say most of the people buying it are probably buying it for the first time, since many might not have even had a Wii U... Unless you think only Wii U owners are buying this game... Also, learn what a complete product is. Based on your posts, you don't seem to actually know...

Master_Magnus posted...
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.

That would be wrong again. It had exclusives. And after the console was done, the exclusives got released somewhere else. Just like many other exclusives for all the games companies... And one bad system doesn't make a trash company. If that were the case, many would say the same thing about Sony or Microsoft. As many people think some of their systems are trash systems. And by you standards, Nintendo would have been a trash company in 1995 or so when they released the Virtual boy... Also, that's not how it works. 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. You sound like those kids from the Entitled Kids stories on Reddit...
---
Official King of Kings
Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Master_Magnus
01/21/21 8:28:16 PM
#99:


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.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Metalsonic66
01/21/21 8:34:27 PM
#100:


Master_Magnus posted...
because Nintendo is super greedy now.
Hahahaha

---
PSN/Steam ID: Metalsonic_69
Big bombs go kabang.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List
Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4