Ronnie

Do people really play the local multiplayer part of Splatoon ??

Nintendo would never make an online-only multiplayer team-based shooter. And certainly not two of them. [/Jk]

Turns out it actually sold 56% more at launch than the Wii U version

If Sony felt their remasters would sell at full price they would release them at full price. They’re not doing their fan base a favour by selling them cheap, they’re doing it for business reasons. Nintendo are too of course, but they also talk about maintaining the value of video gaming and not joining this race to the bottom mentality that started with mobile. It’s a tricky balance to strike but when you’re talking about a 6 or 4 year old game from the same generation, fair enough charge full price. The majority of people won’t have played it on Wii U. I won’t drag out the conversation any more, like you suggested.

I completely agree with you. Nintendo did release ports of actual old games, Mario Galaxy 1 and 2 on the Wii U, for $20. But when they release updated versions or DLC included games from the same generation, people complain.

And I don't want to get drawn into this with you either. It just surprises me that someone who felt the need to buy Captain Toad three times at full price, complains about full price games.

Four things: - Why is it a slap in the face? If you've already played the game, then just don't buy it a second time? They're certainly not forcing anyone to, especially with barely anything new to add to it. I already played it on Wii U so I didn't buy it a second time. - I wouldn't say I "supported Nintendo during the Wii U era", I bought their games, and I enjoyed their games. I didn't feel like I was doing them a favour by having fun with their games. They don't owe us anything. - The fact that a game is 'only' 4 years old is even more justification for it being priced at the same RRP. Just because Sony and Microsoft are going cheap cheap cheap, doesn't mean Nintendo has to. Is the game the same quality experience it was 4 years ago? Yes. And then some. Why should it be cheaper, just because a bit of time has passed. It's pretty much a same-gen game. - Sony sell remasters for cheap because they probably wouldn't sell at full price. If they thought they could sell the same amount of copies at a higher price, they would do.

I had no idea you disliked AAA gaming so much. The actual reality is, a couple of games are predatory like Battlefront II, but the vast, vast majority of titles, be they AAA, AA or the better indies are packed full of enough quality content to warrant the price tag. There's nothing "lazy" about the majority of the biggest releases this generation. And calling devs "lazy" is frankly incredibly immature.

The devaluing of the industry that's been sadly and steadily getting worse this past decade or so.

BB-8 has been one of the (many IMO) standout highlights of the sequels so far, fantastic design, personality, character. I could see something like that. The Force Awakens would have actually made a good title for Last Jedi, or at least, the last scene of the Last Jedi. Something that describes Ep IX but also hints at the state of the galaxy post-Skywalker saga maybe.

Well obviously games from 20+ years ago will be cheaper now. My point wasn’t about old games, but games from this generation being not only cheaper at RRP than before but also heavily discounted very soon after release. You could even argue that your PS1 games proves my point even more. We have access to new games at rock bottom prices soon after release AND PS1 games at dirt cheap. Like I said “gaming in 2019” is cheaper than it’s ever been.

Monster Hunter World, one of the 2018 contenders for game of the year. Packed full of content and things to do, universally loved... £18 on Amazon. And people still try and argue that gaming isn't cheaper than it's ever been.

Just as YouTubers like Jim Sterling rely on people like you. Crusading entitled gamers who say things like "fuck this game". Let's be clear. You're not explaining anything to me. You're sharing and arguing your opinion with me. You know full well that openworld games fill their maps with busywork and tasks and that all of that is a rung below Main Missions and Side Missions, which are tailor made and provide the meat of the experience. As games have gotten bigger in size, gameplay needs to scale to meet that. Strip away all of that "copied and pasted" content and you're still left with more game than what we had generations ago. The crisp packet has gotten bigger, there's much, much more crisps in it, it's a cheaper packet... (and in some cases there's a few burnt tasting ones at the very bottom, ie. copied and pasted content like you say)

If you think there's fewer crisps in Castevania for NES or Goldeneye on N64 than God of War or COD of PS4 then there's no point arguing. There are more games, a broader range of games, cheaper RRP, bargain bin prices shortly after release and a huge selection of amazing indie games for cheap. You can talk about quality, that's subjective, but price wise, cheaper than it's ever been.

Fear not! Today's £40 Nintendo game is cheaper than a £40 Nintendo game from 1990. If you want a big AAA game from less than 12 months ago, Far Cry 5 is £25 on Amazon and Detroit Become Human is £22

We can start a separate conversation about how lazy non-Nintendo AAA gaming has become if you'd like. I'd be all for it. My point is, that isn't what the discussion is about. No one cared about the microtransactions in Far Cry 5, because they weren't a big deal. For once gamers didn't grab their pitchforks from under their pillow. Gaming in 2019 is cheaper than it's ever been. Fact. *Maybe I'll order Uncharted 4 off Amazon for £14... or Wolfenstein 2 for £22*

Sorry, what's done? What does that pic prove exactly? That openworld games are packed full of things to do. Ok. What you personally think about AAA gaming doesn't really have anything to do with it. These games sell tremendous amounts so they're obviously valued by a lot of people. Can we get back to the actual discussion? That gaming has never been cheaper than it is today? You seem to be missing the point. We're not talking about the quality of AAA gaming, we're talking about "the majority of games" supposedly nickel and diming gamers. DOOM, Resident Evil 7, Resident Evil 2, Far Cry 5, Wolfentein New Collosus, Red Dead Redemption 2, Mass Effect Andromeda, Titanfall 2, Tomb Raider 1, 2, 3, Fallout 4, Just Cause, The Division, Final Fantasy 15, Just Cause 4, Metro Exodus, Dishonoured, Until Dawn, Witcher 3, Ace Combat 7, Mortal Kombat X, Dark Souls. The biggest AAA games this generation. Those are not "rare" exceptions. None of them force you to pay a penny more than the RRP, they're all feature complete games. And that's not even mentioning ANY of the exclusives because Sheikah suggested they shouldn't count.

I have no idea what we're discussing any more. My original point was that gaming has never been cheaper than it is today. You can try and argue about quality, but the truth is that's highly subjective, everyone has different tastes. So I'm trying to rely on facts. Games are packed full of content, with optional extras tacked on. You may decide you don't like that content, but that's a different matter. You know full well that critical path story missions in these sort of openworld games are just as finely crafted as Ocarina of Time. Yes there's copy and pasted stuff in terms of the optional tasks (a rung lower than Sidequests in most AAA games) but that's not really of much importance. Strip all of that out and you're still left with tons of high quality content, and why shouldn't you be when hundreds or thousands of people work on some of these games. Switch games are more expensive than Wii U games? That's news to me. Gamecube games used to retail at $50, which is about the same now if adjusted for inflation.PS3 games were $60 back then too. And since we started talking about "gaming", point me to some indie games on Gamecube. Oh wait. So let me get this straight, you're saying that games shouldn't be the same RRP as they were thirty years ago (regardless of inflation)... you're saying they should be even less? Come on. It is. - Same RRP, with inflation, even cheaper than back in the day - Game prices sink to crazy low prices very quickly. Wolfenstein 2 was £20 after a a month. - Indies make up a huge segment of the industry and are usually £10-£15 games. I know we're in the midst of a gamer revolution, where everyone grabs their pitchforks in their war against publishers, but the reality is, gaming has never been broader, and we're still paying the same retail prices we used to pay on the NES, at best.

When one of your examples is Far Cry being a game that supposedly forces microtransactions on people, then yeah... you haven't a leg to stand on. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to order DOOM on PS4 for £8 from Amazon...

All of this is me responding to someone calling me a liar for saying that gaming is cheaper than it's ever been these days. Because it quite clearly is. - 1. RRP is cheaper when adjusted for inflation - 2. DLC and microtransactions are supplementary. The vast majority of times the base game has more than enough value for the cost. - 3. The indie scene is thriving and giving us amazing games at £10, £15. And most importantly that I haven't even brought up till now... - 4. AAA games are more often than not sold at bargain basement prices a few months after release!! You can get Far Cry 5 for £25 on Amazon right now. Or Assassin's Creed Origins for £15. Dito Resident Evil 7. So yeah, gaming is cheaper than it's ever been.

I never said it was.

I never said they were? But that makes no difference. We're getting far more bang for the same buck these days. I never said length was a key factor in quality. Of course it isn't. Hell I'd RATHER play a 10 hour game than a 40 hour game. My point was just as above Again, I never said the games I mentioned don't have some form of DLC or microtransactions. All I'm saying is the CORE content, the base game you pay £40 for is the vast majority of times, a quality, lengthy, feature packed experience. The same price as we paid for SNES games. I never once felt compelled to spend a penny more in any of the games I mentioned. If you love the game so much and you want more of it, then pay a bit extra. That helps fund these giant games with budgets 100x more than SNES games. I adored Mario + Rabbids and had such a great time I was fully willing to pay extra for the DLC. Was it a scam? No. Did the base game not have enough content for £40? Definitely not. All of this to illustrate my point that gaming is cheaper than it's ever been. 1) because games have more to them these days 2) because they're literally cheaper, when you adjust for inflation and 3) because: indies and smaller scale experiences

I mean... I've named 12 multiplatforms (because exclusives don't count apparently) games off the top of my head. You've managed to name... COD, FIFA and Battlefront. The base AC game has tons of content, likewise Far Cry. COD and FIFA are a completely different type of game, they rely on the casual market similar to how mobile gaming does. So not really "very easily. Very easily".

1 in 5. Are you sure? I'm not finding the exceptions, I'm finding the major AAA games this generation. Ok we'll say multiplats only: Red Dead, Mass Effect, Titanfall 2, Tomb Raider(s), Resident Evil(s), Far Cry 5, Fallout 4, Just Cause, The Division, Final Fantasy 15 etc etc etc - none of those were a chore to play, all of those had lengthy campaigns were you didn't have to pay a penny to get great value out of them. Sure casual games like COD, Battlefield, FIFA try and nickel and dime you but those are in a category of their own. "Fuck that game" ? Why? Because you didn't enjoy it? Because the facial animations were a bit shit? Why "fuck that game"? Why does the gaming community always have to get their pitchforks out at the slightest thing?

I didn't feel my time being wasted for one second playing God of War, or Red Dead, or Detroit, Spider Man, Shadow of the Collosus, Horizon, Rise of the Tomb Raider, Mass Effect Andromeda. None of those games "wasted my time", made me spent a penny more than the base game or felt like a "chore". I payed £40 (at most) for all of them, and had a great time. If you want even more content, pay for it, if you don't, then don't. There's a ton more gameplay Spider Man (£40), than Metal Gear SNES (£40).