30th August 2006, 6:47 PM
I already have Chrono Trigger (twice over to get FFIV). I'm not paying for it just because it's on a different system. Expansion packs? If the game is good enough and the new content is worth the price (as I judge it), yeah. I get those packs all the time, like Frozen Throne.
MS has a fee, but what that fee amounts to is that MS actually owns the servers for ALL the games you get access to with Live and there's a significant cost associated with keeping them all running. The advantage is communication. Since they share the same servers, they can communicate with each other. Some people pay for a year's subscription (and there are one month itterations these days, but I don't get that) and only use it during parties. Others like myself will use it for weeks at a time and then not for a while and then weeks at a time again. Besides that I pay in advance, not after, and it's a one time thing so I don't even get a bill. The service just shuts off, as I've told it to in settings.
But, is the ability to see that someone else is playing some other game really worth that sort of overhead? Eh, probably not. I'm fine with each company managing their own server fleet and mere communication between all those games. That makes things cheaper on each company involved and often they can allow online play for free, for example Battle.net or Nintendo Wifi. Mind you, Nintendo's own online service can catch up with all the OTHER features just fine, and should.
And yeah, you've willingly and cheerfully bought Nintendo's add-ons before lazy. A hard disk isn't a slap in the face. Companies don't make games that support them because they want your money. It's a technical REQUIREMENT sometimes. If they really want your money, they go without support for it. Look at how slowly unpopular technology is adapted. If no one buys the accessory, they only bother offering at most token support for the add-on, but making it a requirement cuts sales, so they only do it when needed. I didn't see you complaining about the link cable deal with Crystal Chronicles (I did a bit, and I still think there was a work around but I've seen a lot worse things).
Look at the PS2. That hard disk did terribly. The only game that actually requires it requires it for a REALLY GOOD reason. FFXI is an MMO and those games get so massively updated that the original code is sometimes completely replaced. It HAD to have the entire game on a changable format.
If Nintendo makes their own MMO lazy (not... impossible), you can count on them either requiring a hard drive or very high speed memory card. Hard drive is cheaper for the space, they'll likely go that way. If they do that, well MMOs require constant addition of fresh content every few months to maintain interest, and that means programmers, so there will be a fee.
You say you will lose faith if they toss a hard drive at you? I really doubt that's all that big a deal. If a game absolutely requires it, then it requires it, and I can see a number of situations where a good game could require it outright.
Anyway, in the case of the REOutbreak games on PS2, they only utilized it for faster caching. No extra content was needed, so it wasn't required, but it wasn't the most optimized game in the world so there were some killer load times if you didn't have a hard disk.
As a general rule, game designers only require hardware that is actually required.
The exceptions, well, Nintendo started the horrible trend of completely stupid "requirements" to get certain content, but hopefully they'll be stopping that pretty soon. I hate it every time they say "and if you link up this game you unlock hidden content" because that content is already IN said game and your little sales trick is a waste of my time and an insult.
And by the way, where were your complaints about how bad the 64DD was? They never released it here, but they did release a number of games exclusively on the device, and it was basically nothing more than a glorified ZIP drive. At the same time, I really liked the idea of having that sort of writable space to work with.
MS has a fee, but what that fee amounts to is that MS actually owns the servers for ALL the games you get access to with Live and there's a significant cost associated with keeping them all running. The advantage is communication. Since they share the same servers, they can communicate with each other. Some people pay for a year's subscription (and there are one month itterations these days, but I don't get that) and only use it during parties. Others like myself will use it for weeks at a time and then not for a while and then weeks at a time again. Besides that I pay in advance, not after, and it's a one time thing so I don't even get a bill. The service just shuts off, as I've told it to in settings.
But, is the ability to see that someone else is playing some other game really worth that sort of overhead? Eh, probably not. I'm fine with each company managing their own server fleet and mere communication between all those games. That makes things cheaper on each company involved and often they can allow online play for free, for example Battle.net or Nintendo Wifi. Mind you, Nintendo's own online service can catch up with all the OTHER features just fine, and should.
And yeah, you've willingly and cheerfully bought Nintendo's add-ons before lazy. A hard disk isn't a slap in the face. Companies don't make games that support them because they want your money. It's a technical REQUIREMENT sometimes. If they really want your money, they go without support for it. Look at how slowly unpopular technology is adapted. If no one buys the accessory, they only bother offering at most token support for the add-on, but making it a requirement cuts sales, so they only do it when needed. I didn't see you complaining about the link cable deal with Crystal Chronicles (I did a bit, and I still think there was a work around but I've seen a lot worse things).
Look at the PS2. That hard disk did terribly. The only game that actually requires it requires it for a REALLY GOOD reason. FFXI is an MMO and those games get so massively updated that the original code is sometimes completely replaced. It HAD to have the entire game on a changable format.
If Nintendo makes their own MMO lazy (not... impossible), you can count on them either requiring a hard drive or very high speed memory card. Hard drive is cheaper for the space, they'll likely go that way. If they do that, well MMOs require constant addition of fresh content every few months to maintain interest, and that means programmers, so there will be a fee.
You say you will lose faith if they toss a hard drive at you? I really doubt that's all that big a deal. If a game absolutely requires it, then it requires it, and I can see a number of situations where a good game could require it outright.
Anyway, in the case of the REOutbreak games on PS2, they only utilized it for faster caching. No extra content was needed, so it wasn't required, but it wasn't the most optimized game in the world so there were some killer load times if you didn't have a hard disk.
As a general rule, game designers only require hardware that is actually required.
The exceptions, well, Nintendo started the horrible trend of completely stupid "requirements" to get certain content, but hopefully they'll be stopping that pretty soon. I hate it every time they say "and if you link up this game you unlock hidden content" because that content is already IN said game and your little sales trick is a waste of my time and an insult.
And by the way, where were your complaints about how bad the 64DD was? They never released it here, but they did release a number of games exclusively on the device, and it was basically nothing more than a glorified ZIP drive. At the same time, I really liked the idea of having that sort of writable space to work with.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)