Dei Gratia Raven
(?)Community Member
- Report Post
- Posted: Sun, 01 Apr 2012 16:55:51 +0000
smashbrolink
Raven Prime
smashbrolink
Raven Prime
smashbrolink
Interesting back-and-forth you've got going, but I felt compelled to toss a two-cent towards this for just a sec; The Wii U will be backwards-compatible with the Wiimote Plus and will most likely still incorporate it into many more games in the future, not to mention that the tablet controller has a bit of motion-control functionality built into it, as well, so Nintendo isn't dropping motion controls entirely for the next generation.[Nintendo has also stated that the system is planned to support at least two of the Tablet controllers. No word on pricing for them, that I am aware of, so if you've got a price source quote to share, by all means, please do.^_^]
They're just lowering the reliance on it a bit, to appeal more to the core crowd, which they have stated they would like to focus a bit more on this time around. Strike a balance, as it were, between casual and core, so that they aren't leaving one side stranded.
Personally I liked motion controls for most games. Some were a waste though and were really only made motion controlled because omg motion controls.
Quote:
As for the convo, from before, I do agree that games are a luxury.
I'm already in the situation where I'm forced to skip out on Tales of Graces, in favor of being able to EAT for the month, let alone being able to celebrate the 1 year anniversary of me and my girlfriend.
Just can't afford the game, much as I crave it.
And as for the used game topic, it's my opinion that someone should come up with a way to get some of the profit of used games to go back to the producers, even if said profit is very small.
If major retailers, like Game Stop, refused that deal, then I'm sure there would either be a more minor retailer that WOULD accept it, or one would come into existence, possibly one made BY one of the major game names, that would accept such a thing.
I don't exactly see used game sales as evil, but I do think that if more money gets back to the game's makers, the more likely it is that we will see those profits go into expanded budgets for bigger dev teams and, eventually, bigger and better games.
I'm already in the situation where I'm forced to skip out on Tales of Graces, in favor of being able to EAT for the month, let alone being able to celebrate the 1 year anniversary of me and my girlfriend.
Just can't afford the game, much as I crave it.
And as for the used game topic, it's my opinion that someone should come up with a way to get some of the profit of used games to go back to the producers, even if said profit is very small.
If major retailers, like Game Stop, refused that deal, then I'm sure there would either be a more minor retailer that WOULD accept it, or one would come into existence, possibly one made BY one of the major game names, that would accept such a thing.
I don't exactly see used game sales as evil, but I do think that if more money gets back to the game's makers, the more likely it is that we will see those profits go into expanded budgets for bigger dev teams and, eventually, bigger and better games.
Those that buy used games don't get the code, so they have to spend some money to feed the developers if they want it.
TBH, I think that's the best way to do it. If people really wanna buy used games, fine. But they don't have the same right to the full game as those who actually are supporting the people who gave them the game in the first place.
There's a problem with that, though; years down the road, when a game is no longer being made and no new copies are in distribution, how do collectors who want to experience the full game manage to do so without pirating?
I don't think that day 1 DLC is an end-all solution.
If it's so far in the future that the DLC can't be obtained any more?
Then to be fair, why should the companies care?
They're not going to see a penny from the sale anyways, so why should they worry about somebody who's going to wait several years before buying the game from someone who isn't them?
What if it's not a case of waiting, but of being born too late to take advantage? Or living in a place where the game was not localized and having no way of importing the right system on top of the game, or a myraid of other factors?
I don't think that that opportunity should be taken away from people in later years.
There's got to be a compromise somewhere, and I, for one, firmly believe that a good step might be rooted in retailers giving a portion of the used game sales profits back to the devs that make the products that they have forged their success upon in the first place.
It may sound unfair, but why, honestly, should they care about those people when they won't be getting money from that sale any more?
They're making the games for their livelihood.
If this is what it takes to get some money back, then that's what it takes.
To be honest, I'd prefer the rumoured "New game sales only because they get locked out for used sales".
Why?
Because that might actually lower the cost of new games because they don't have to compete against sales of their own games used.
After all, PC games are (generally) $10+ cheaper than console games. What's the only real difference between them? PC games can't be sold used.