Do you really think this represents a significant portion of those who've purchased PSPs? I'm no Sony fan by any means, but that's insane. Moders and homebrewers represent a fringe group. To make it out to be otherwise is just silly.
The problem is that you and I are not the majority of the unwashed masses.
Most people want to be able to go to a store and buy a thing. There are a signifigant number of people who won't buy these things if they're only available online. Probably more sagnifigant than the percentage of people that feel like you or I do.
If you're a subscriber, check my post history. I'm a big proponent of online delivery when it's done well, and it works for me. I know a lot of people don't agree, but I love Steam. I've never had any problems with it, and it provides instant gratification the moment I realize a new game has been released.
I just don't see that doing anything but hurting the number of consoles they will sell, unless there is an equally radical change in the way that console sales are handled.
Also, sorry to reply twice but I failed to respond to your second paragraph in my previous post.
1) Home theater shops like Tweeter and Magnolia may be the *LAST* place that would want to carry low margin stuff like this. You can walk into one of these places, drop $4000 on one (1) speaker and be assured that it has 20-40% margin on it. They don't do volume there, they sell complete home theaters that cost their customers tens of thousands of dollars. Tweeter has opened up it's assortment in recent years, but still...
The only reason I can think of that these shops would want to carry game consoles is so that they can offer a one-stop shop for these people. When you're an affluent customer with lots of money who has to have the best and who wants to be catered to, it's best not to tell them (sorry, we don't carry that, go buy it at Circuit City and we'll hook it up for you with these $300 monster cables).
2) I fail to see what your NIC analogy means. It makes no sense what so ever, and has *nothing* to do with this situation.
In this situation, retailers are (possibly) being asked to carry a product they make no money on for no benefit. In your analogy, retailers are carrying marked up high-margin products that also are available cheaper online. The high margin is so you can get it now, or for people who aren't as saavy with finding things online, I guess. Either way, there's no shortage of people buying $20 NIC cards at Best Buy when the same thing can be had online for $5.
It's not naive. I work for a major retailer. And I am privy to our product margins. When the 360 launched (last time I checked) margin on it was something like $0.40 for us. The Gamecube has like a dollar or so. And I think it's the highest margin console we carry (it's had like 10 SKUs through it's life, possibly more, so it's hard to check that one).
We don't lose money on any of the consoles (unless they go clearance at the end of the life cycle, or it's a failed console like the Jaguar for instance, but that's not an ordinary situation). But we also don't make money on consoles. We cary them for a simple reason. We make about $5 on the average new game. Not to mention accessory sales.
That's all well and good and exciting. I like the idea of pure digital delivery in some ways. (though I also long for the day of elaborate packaging and pack-ins like the old Wing Commander games had)
But what's this going to do for retail support? EB, Gamestop, Best Buy, WalMart, etc. They make nothing on consoles, and make their money on the games. Just like the Console manufacturers themselves often do. What's the incentive for retailers to carry a product they make no money on, that gives them no future rev stream either?
A few options come to mind, such as binding each console to a serial number, the retailer that sold that console gets a spiff for each game sold to it via the online service. There will be accessory sales to be sure, but they're a pittance compared to game sales.
It's an interesting idea, but I don't know how well it would work. Seems to have problems to overcome as well.
As has been pointed out by the other replies to your comment, MS is not interested in just selling consoles. They loose money on just he consoles themselves. If thye lose $50 on each console, and make $10 on each game sold, then if they move 1 Million consoles and an average of five games each, they break even.
1M consoles * $-50 ea. = $-50M 1M consoles * 5 games ea. * $10 per game = $50M $-50M +$50M = $0
Now if they sold double the consoles but fewer games per console (let's say an average of four) because of the modability, then the outlook is more bleak.
2M consoles * $-50 ea. = $-100M 2M consoles * 4 games ea. * $10 per game = $80M $-100M +$80M = $-20M
So now they've moved more consoles, and in fact they've moved more games. But the ratio is off, so now they've lost $20 Million. Or play with the figures a bit. The problem is that the console is a loss leader, so unless you get the numbers *just* right, you can wind up loosing more money by going after moders.
Let's aproach this from annother angle. Who was the last major console to have a completly open architecture? Where anyone could write a game for it, no restrictions what so ever?
X-Box? Nope PS2? Nope Gamecube? No DS / GBA / GBC / Gameboy and related? None of those. Dreamcast? Sort of. It wasn't open, but it was easy to copy games. They failed in about a year. I'm not saying the two are related, but we can't ignore the posibility. PS1? No. And considering that they were trying desperatly to get a foothold in the market, this should tell you something. N64? Nope. Saturn? No. SNES? No chance. Genesis / Megadrive? Nope. Turbografix 16 / PC Engine? Nope. NES? No, though a few companies did reverse engineer NES cart specs and self publish. That never accounted for a big portion of the market. Sega Master System? Not that I'm aware of. Atari? I'm only real familiar with the 2600 line. I know there wewre others, but the 2600 was by far the most popular. It's also the most recent major console to have no form of restriction as to what kind of code it would run. It had a retardedly low bar to entry, and so everyone and their mother published games for it. The market was flooded with garbage games. The industry itself crashed as a result. I'm not willing to go so far as to say that thet's what would happen today, but the most recent most similar example to what you propose does not encourage one to seek it out.
Many people incorrectly assume that Pro is "better" than home. There are if I remember correctly three differences. Encrypted file system, the ability to host a remote desktop session, and the ability to join a windows domain controller.
I sell PCs to consumers, and I get people almost daily who want pro because it's "better". I ask them what they're using their PC for, explain what they get with Pro over Home, then tell them the pricing difference. Most people stick with Home unless a school or business requires it. But occasionally, I get some fool with his money who wants pro even after being told the differences, when it's just going to be an MS Office box or an internet surfing box.
People do not understand. That's why the distinctions that MS is making this generation are a good thing.
Calling it "Business" instead of "Pro" is a good thing. Calling it "Home Basic" and "Home Premium" instead of just "Home" and "Media Center" will go a long way to alleviate some confusion.
Also, I suspect the fact that Business will be *missing* some of the entertainment features present in the home line will go a long way toward showing people that Business / Pro isn't "better" it's just aimed at a diffrent segment that has diffrent needs than the home user.
I still would have prefered something akin to "Vista Standard" and "Vista Corperate" but this is a good step none the less.
Atually, you're simply reinforcing the grandparent post's point. Dr. Mario is an excellent game. One of the greatest Tetris-style games of all time. I'd say only the origional Tetris, and Tetris Attacks come close. Nintendo did well in that Mario has rarely been in bad games. *That's* where Sega missteps. They churn out rubbish, and hope that it will sell because it's got the recognition of Sonic.
Does Nintendo include Mario in the hopes that it will sell more games? Of course, but they also don't make the mistake of putting their mascot in *bad* games. I can walk into a store a year from now, pick up a new Mario game that I'd never heard of before, and be reasonably certain that it's a good game, just because Nintendo thought highly enough of it to make it a Mario game. That doesn't nessisarily mean that I'll like the game, (Personally, I dislike the Mario Party games, for instance.) But I can be reasonably sure that it's a high quality game.
In short, Nintendo built a reputation for the Mario "Brand". Sega tarnished the Sonic "Brand".
How nice of Sony to think of us. To keep us from the pain and suffering of having to swap two or even *gasp* FOUR plastic discs over the course of a game. And it only added what? $100 - $300 to the final cost of the console. A small price to pay for that little bit of convenience!
Seriously, though. The point is valid. A Blu-Ray drive adds what, exactly? HD movies which there's a VERY small market for, and more space for games, which hardly justifies the added expense.
I fail to see the value. Consoles like Neo Geo and 3DO, while technicaly advanced for their respective eras, failed because game consoles NEED to be priced at a certain level or attainability.
There is no doubt that 99.9% of Americans, Canadians, Western Europeans, and Japanese households *could* afford the PS3 if they really wanted / needed it. People are somehow able to afford cars and computers and jewlery, and TVs, etc. $600 is not that much in the grand scheme of the average household income. Some people can blow it right away, others would have to save, but just about *anyone* *could* afford it.
But the question is justification, not affordability. Or more accuratly justifiable affordability. If the product in question isn't *worth* $600, (And worth $600 to the person making the buying decision, not Sony or you, or HD enthusiasts, or anyone else.) then why would anyone buy it? What motivation do the 80% (I'm being generous to HD penetration here) of people who do not have HDTVs, or care for them have to spend the extra money. Even on the $500 model? It seems to me that Sony could have used a traditional DVD drive and it would have been a better decision. Unless this is to be a niche console like the Neo Geo, which I seriously doubt Sony would be satisfied with.
Here's the thing, at least the way I see it. Maybe you'll agree, maybe not.
Half-Life and Half-Life 2 are not FPSes. Well, they are first person games, and they do involve shooting, but primarily I think of them as story driven games which happen to be in first person for greater immersion.
If you're looking for a "pure" shooter, Doom or Far Cry are probably better suited. Ravenholm stands out as a high point because it shows what Half-Life does best. It immersed you in a creepy, very atmospheric world. It scared you (or at least me). Father Gregori popping up to save your ass and making some creepy narratoresque quip from some ledge or roof well beyond reach.
Yes, there are several areas of Half-Life 2 that just scream "THIS IS A PHYSICS BASED GAME HERE IS A CLEVER PUZZLE THAT YOU NEED TO USE OUR PHYSICS TO SOLVE SO YOU DON'T FORGET THAT". And I'll agree that Ravenholm has a bit of that. But I think that's a minor mark against an otherwise near perfect game. Lots of people seem to agree.
You posted this on the last Wii story. It wasn't funny then either. And posting to articles on your own personal Onion ripoff site is lame to begin with.
There are some niche titles there that might find an audience in the US - Harvest Moon, maybe even something like Pangya! Golf - but these won't move systems.
Why? Because it's not to your tastes, and you represent gaming's "core"?
Nintendogs moved systems. It's hardly something that "core gamers" clammored for. It's hardly a game at all. This is Nintendo's stradegy. Games for everyone. Not "E" for everyone. Games that appeal to non-gamers and casual gamers and the hardcore alike. There will be titles for everyone.
Personally I'm excited about that Pilotwings looking game, Mario Galaxy, Bob Ross Painting, Super Monkeyball, Animal Crossing, Disaster, Bomberman Land, Zelda, of course, Warioware, Wii Sports, and Traums Center.
I could see myself buying as many of these games on launch day as are available and I can realisticly afford.
It's looking like it'll be a good launch. Half the titles I listed there could move systems. Mario games have before. Zelda has. And many of the others are the kitchey type of games that have sold so many DSes so far.
Tell me, do you believe in supporting developers, or would you rather game publishers and developers only target demographics who are less likley to pirate their products, like the Madden set?
My Xbox can play more NES, SNES, TG16, Master System, Genesis, Game Boy, and N64 games than the Wii will ever be able to play. I find it funny that Nintendo fanboys are literally creaming themselves over a feature that Xbox had years ago.
No it can't. It's not the same thing at all.
You're using a clumsy hack to download illegal ROMs from unknown sources.
That's not what I'm excited about at all. I could do this for the past 10 years or more on my PC.
I'm excited that I can obtain legal copies of games that compensate the people who brought the game to me, and that I know it's from people who know how both the origional was programed, and how to emulate it on the new hardware. Without guesswork or clumsy hacks.
I log on, select a game, buy it legally, and play it. Simple. "Just works".
This is the same reason I don't purchase used games if I Can help it. New game sales tells the publisher that people like their game. I'm more likley to see more games like them in the future. This is a way for me to continue to tell publishers and developers that I liked their classic titles. This is what I've been waiting for for a long time.
Before you answer that you can legally rip any ROMs you own the carts for, it's not so. It's a common fallacy in the emmulation world. In most piracy circles, people get "legal advice" where they find some "loop hole" they like, and they are convinced it's valid. Whether it's based in reality or not (24 hour rule, for instance.) The common myth in the US stems from USC 117 Section 17. It allows for owners of software to make a single backup copy. The purpose of this dates back to the 70s or 80s when software was distributed mostly on volatile magnetic storage mediums. People like to pretend that it extends to ROMs too, but in fact, not only is it not true, but case law (See Atari vs JS&A or google it) contradicts it.
Obviously this will vary from country to country, but the most vocal "advocated" of this kind of thing come from the U.S.
Long story short, what the x-box has nothing like this at all. There's a series of hacks that try to aproximate it, but give almost none of the benefit I'm looking for, and none of the legality. Not the elegance or ease of use. It's like comparing building a car yourself to buying one off the lot. Good luck with that.
In 2005, Ninteodo published 38 games in North America.
Of those, from what I can tell, six were brand new games not based on prior franchises at all (Nintendogs, Trace Memory, Battalion Wars, Geist, Meteos, and Polarium).
Of the rest, from what I can tell only three or four are ports of existing titles (Final Fantasy IV, Dr. Mario / Puzzle League, Donkey Kong Country 3, and possibly Fire Emblem: The Sacred Stones, which I'm not sure of).
So last year, they had 34 never before seen games, and 4 ports. What's the problem? It's true many of the games were based on existing franchises, such ad DDR Mario Mix or Metroid pinball. But there never has been a Metroid Pinball before. It's not a port, it's a new game.
You should try Ocarina of Time - Master Quest. Because it's exactly as you describe. Ocarina of time, just with "remixed" dungeons. Makes the game more fresh again.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you really think this represents a significant portion of those who've purchased PSPs? I'm no Sony fan by any means, but that's insane. Moders and homebrewers represent a fringe group. To make it out to be otherwise is just silly.
The problem is that you and I are not the majority of the unwashed masses.
Most people want to be able to go to a store and buy a thing. There are a signifigant number of people who won't buy these things if they're only available online. Probably more sagnifigant than the percentage of people that feel like you or I do.
If you're a subscriber, check my post history. I'm a big proponent of online delivery when it's done well, and it works for me. I know a lot of people don't agree, but I love Steam. I've never had any problems with it, and it provides instant gratification the moment I realize a new game has been released.
I just don't see that doing anything but hurting the number of consoles they will sell, unless there is an equally radical change in the way that console sales are handled.
Also, sorry to reply twice but I failed to respond to your second paragraph in my previous post.
1) Home theater shops like Tweeter and Magnolia may be the *LAST* place that would want to carry low margin stuff like this. You can walk into one of these places, drop $4000 on one (1) speaker and be assured that it has 20-40% margin on it. They don't do volume there, they sell complete home theaters that cost their customers tens of thousands of dollars. Tweeter has opened up it's assortment in recent years, but still...
The only reason I can think of that these shops would want to carry game consoles is so that they can offer a one-stop shop for these people. When you're an affluent customer with lots of money who has to have the best and who wants to be catered to, it's best not to tell them (sorry, we don't carry that, go buy it at Circuit City and we'll hook it up for you with these $300 monster cables).
2) I fail to see what your NIC analogy means. It makes no sense what so ever, and has *nothing* to do with this situation.
In this situation, retailers are (possibly) being asked to carry a product they make no money on for no benefit.
In your analogy, retailers are carrying marked up high-margin products that also are available cheaper online. The high margin is so you can get it now, or for people who aren't as saavy with finding things online, I guess. Either way, there's no shortage of people buying $20 NIC cards at Best Buy when the same thing can be had online for $5.
It's not naive. I work for a major retailer. And I am privy to our product margins. When the 360 launched (last time I checked) margin on it was something like $0.40 for us. The Gamecube has like a dollar or so. And I think it's the highest margin console we carry (it's had like 10 SKUs through it's life, possibly more, so it's hard to check that one).
We don't lose money on any of the consoles (unless they go clearance at the end of the life cycle, or it's a failed console like the Jaguar for instance, but that's not an ordinary situation). But we also don't make money on consoles. We cary them for a simple reason. We make about $5 on the average new game. Not to mention accessory sales.
That's all well and good and exciting. I like the idea of pure digital delivery in some ways. (though I also long for the day of elaborate packaging and pack-ins like the old Wing Commander games had)
But what's this going to do for retail support? EB, Gamestop, Best Buy, WalMart, etc. They make nothing on consoles, and make their money on the games. Just like the Console manufacturers themselves often do. What's the incentive for retailers to carry a product they make no money on, that gives them no future rev stream either?
A few options come to mind, such as binding each console to a serial number, the retailer that sold that console gets a spiff for each game sold to it via the online service. There will be accessory sales to be sure, but they're a pittance compared to game sales.
It's an interesting idea, but I don't know how well it would work. Seems to have problems to overcome as well.
"Good on toner" and "good graphics" are relativly subjective terms. Can you be more specific?
As for networkable mono laser, most of the first page of this link qualifies.
As has been pointed out by the other replies to your comment, MS is not interested in just selling consoles. They loose money on just he consoles themselves. If thye lose $50 on each console, and make $10 on each game sold, then if they move 1 Million consoles and an average of five games each, they break even.
1M consoles * $-50 ea. = $-50M
1M consoles * 5 games ea. * $10 per game = $50M
$-50M +$50M = $0
Now if they sold double the consoles but fewer games per console (let's say an average of four) because of the modability, then the outlook is more bleak.
2M consoles * $-50 ea. = $-100M
2M consoles * 4 games ea. * $10 per game = $80M
$-100M +$80M = $-20M
So now they've moved more consoles, and in fact they've moved more games. But the ratio is off, so now they've lost $20 Million. Or play with the figures a bit. The problem is that the console is a loss leader, so unless you get the numbers *just* right, you can wind up loosing more money by going after moders.
Let's aproach this from annother angle. Who was the last major console to have a completly open architecture? Where anyone could write a game for it, no restrictions what so ever?
X-Box? Nope
PS2? Nope
Gamecube? No
DS / GBA / GBC / Gameboy and related? None of those.
Dreamcast? Sort of. It wasn't open, but it was easy to copy games. They failed in about a year. I'm not saying the two are related, but we can't ignore the posibility.
PS1? No. And considering that they were trying desperatly to get a foothold in the market, this should tell you something.
N64? Nope.
Saturn? No.
SNES? No chance.
Genesis / Megadrive? Nope.
Turbografix 16 / PC Engine? Nope.
NES? No, though a few companies did reverse engineer NES cart specs and self publish. That never accounted for a big portion of the market.
Sega Master System? Not that I'm aware of.
Atari? I'm only real familiar with the 2600 line. I know there wewre others, but the 2600 was by far the most popular. It's also the most recent major console to have no form of restriction as to what kind of code it would run. It had a retardedly low bar to entry, and so everyone and their mother published games for it. The market was flooded with garbage games. The industry itself crashed as a result. I'm not willing to go so far as to say that thet's what would happen today, but the most recent most similar example to what you propose does not encourage one to seek it out.
No. Incorrect.
Many people incorrectly assume that Pro is "better" than home. There are if I remember correctly three differences. Encrypted file system, the ability to host a remote desktop session, and the ability to join a windows domain controller.
I sell PCs to consumers, and I get people almost daily who want pro because it's "better". I ask them what they're using their PC for, explain what they get with Pro over Home, then tell them the pricing difference. Most people stick with Home unless a school or business requires it. But occasionally, I get some fool with his money who wants pro even after being told the differences, when it's just going to be an MS Office box or an internet surfing box.
People do not understand. That's why the distinctions that MS is making this generation are a good thing.
Calling it "Business" instead of "Pro" is a good thing. Calling it "Home Basic" and "Home Premium" instead of just "Home" and "Media Center" will go a long way to alleviate some confusion.
Also, I suspect the fact that Business will be *missing* some of the entertainment features present in the home line will go a long way toward showing people that Business / Pro isn't "better" it's just aimed at a diffrent segment that has diffrent needs than the home user.
I still would have prefered something akin to "Vista Standard" and "Vista Corperate" but this is a good step none the less.
Words sometimes have more than one meaning.
Crazy!
Atually, you're simply reinforcing the grandparent post's point. Dr. Mario is an excellent game. One of the greatest Tetris-style games of all time. I'd say only the origional Tetris, and Tetris Attacks come close. Nintendo did well in that Mario has rarely been in bad games. *That's* where Sega missteps. They churn out rubbish, and hope that it will sell because it's got the recognition of Sonic.
Does Nintendo include Mario in the hopes that it will sell more games? Of course, but they also don't make the mistake of putting their mascot in *bad* games. I can walk into a store a year from now, pick up a new Mario game that I'd never heard of before, and be reasonably certain that it's a good game, just because Nintendo thought highly enough of it to make it a Mario game. That doesn't nessisarily mean that I'll like the game, (Personally, I dislike the Mario Party games, for instance.) But I can be reasonably sure that it's a high quality game.
In short, Nintendo built a reputation for the Mario "Brand". Sega tarnished the Sonic "Brand".
How nice of Sony to think of us. To keep us from the pain and suffering of having to swap two or even *gasp* FOUR plastic discs over the course of a game. And it only added what? $100 - $300 to the final cost of the console. A small price to pay for that little bit of convenience!
Seriously, though. The point is valid. A Blu-Ray drive adds what, exactly? HD movies which there's a VERY small market for, and more space for games, which hardly justifies the added expense.
I fail to see the value. Consoles like Neo Geo and 3DO, while technicaly advanced for their respective eras, failed because game consoles NEED to be priced at a certain level or attainability.
There is no doubt that 99.9% of Americans, Canadians, Western Europeans, and Japanese households *could* afford the PS3 if they really wanted / needed it. People are somehow able to afford cars and computers and jewlery, and TVs, etc. $600 is not that much in the grand scheme of the average household income. Some people can blow it right away, others would have to save, but just about *anyone* *could* afford it.
But the question is justification, not affordability. Or more accuratly justifiable affordability. If the product in question isn't *worth* $600, (And worth $600 to the person making the buying decision, not Sony or you, or HD enthusiasts, or anyone else.) then why would anyone buy it? What motivation do the 80% (I'm being generous to HD penetration here) of people who do not have HDTVs, or care for them have to spend the extra money. Even on the $500 model? It seems to me that Sony could have used a traditional DVD drive and it would have been a better decision. Unless this is to be a niche console like the Neo Geo, which I seriously doubt Sony would be satisfied with.
Here's the thing, at least the way I see it. Maybe you'll agree, maybe not.
Half-Life and Half-Life 2 are not FPSes. Well, they are first person games, and they do involve shooting, but primarily I think of them as story driven games which happen to be in first person for greater immersion.
If you're looking for a "pure" shooter, Doom or Far Cry are probably better suited. Ravenholm stands out as a high point because it shows what Half-Life does best. It immersed you in a creepy, very atmospheric world. It scared you (or at least me). Father Gregori popping up to save your ass and making some creepy narratoresque quip from some ledge or roof well beyond reach.
Yes, there are several areas of Half-Life 2 that just scream "THIS IS A PHYSICS BASED GAME HERE IS A CLEVER PUZZLE THAT YOU NEED TO USE OUR PHYSICS TO SOLVE SO YOU DON'T FORGET THAT". And I'll agree that Ravenholm has a bit of that. But I think that's a minor mark against an otherwise near perfect game. Lots of people seem to agree.
You posted this on the last Wii story. It wasn't funny then either. And posting to articles on your own personal Onion ripoff site is lame to begin with.
There are some niche titles there that might find an audience in the US - Harvest Moon, maybe even something like Pangya! Golf - but these won't move systems.
Why? Because it's not to your tastes, and you represent gaming's "core"?
Nintendogs moved systems. It's hardly something that "core gamers" clammored for. It's hardly a game at all. This is Nintendo's stradegy. Games for everyone. Not "E" for everyone. Games that appeal to non-gamers and casual gamers and the hardcore alike. There will be titles for everyone.
Personally I'm excited about that Pilotwings looking game, Mario Galaxy, Bob Ross Painting, Super Monkeyball, Animal Crossing, Disaster, Bomberman Land, Zelda, of course, Warioware, Wii Sports, and Traums Center.
I could see myself buying as many of these games on launch day as are available and I can realisticly afford.
It's looking like it'll be a good launch. Half the titles I listed there could move systems. Mario games have before. Zelda has. And many of the others are the kitchey type of games that have sold so many DSes so far.
I think they'll do okay.
Tell me, do you believe in supporting developers, or would you rather game publishers and developers only target demographics who are less likley to pirate their products, like the Madden set?
My Xbox can play more NES, SNES, TG16, Master System, Genesis, Game Boy, and N64 games than the Wii will ever be able to play. I find it funny that Nintendo fanboys are literally creaming themselves over a feature that Xbox had years ago.
No it can't. It's not the same thing at all.
You're using a clumsy hack to download illegal ROMs from unknown sources.
That's not what I'm excited about at all. I could do this for the past 10 years or more on my PC.
I'm excited that I can obtain legal copies of games that compensate the people who brought the game to me, and that I know it's from people who know how both the origional was programed, and how to emulate it on the new hardware. Without guesswork or clumsy hacks.
I log on, select a game, buy it legally, and play it. Simple. "Just works".
This is the same reason I don't purchase used games if I Can help it. New game sales tells the publisher that people like their game. I'm more likley to see more games like them in the future. This is a way for me to continue to tell publishers and developers that I liked their classic titles. This is what I've been waiting for for a long time.
Before you answer that you can legally rip any ROMs you own the carts for, it's not so. It's a common fallacy in the emmulation world. In most piracy circles, people get "legal advice" where they find some "loop hole" they like, and they are convinced it's valid. Whether it's based in reality or not (24 hour rule, for instance.) The common myth in the US stems from USC 117 Section 17. It allows for owners of software to make a single backup copy. The purpose of this dates back to the 70s or 80s when software was distributed mostly on volatile magnetic storage mediums. People like to pretend that it extends to ROMs too, but in fact, not only is it not true, but case law (See Atari vs JS&A or google it) contradicts it.
Obviously this will vary from country to country, but the most vocal "advocated" of this kind of thing come from the U.S.
Long story short, what the x-box has nothing like this at all. There's a series of hacks that try to aproximate it, but give almost none of the benefit I'm looking for, and none of the legality. Not the elegance or ease of use. It's like comparing building a car yourself to buying one off the lot. Good luck with that.
Actually, in the beginning there was the Nintendo Fun Club.
Well, before Nintendo Power at least. Maybe not *THE* begining.
You *sound* like you know so much! And in fact you're so close, but so far!
Try again, but thanks for playing.
I see what you did there!
You had me until "acts of god".
LOL
You're rather smug. What is it you do again?
The SNES launched with Super Mario World, Pilotwings, F-Zero, Castlevania IV, Actraiser, and that's just off the top of my head.
If we're talking "launch window" then I believe Sim City, Populus, Lemmings, Contra, and several other high profile games qualify as well.
The controler was a closely gaurded secret for quite a while.
I believe the back catalog of games was as well, and that's still something for which little is known about.
In 2005, Ninteodo published 38 games in North America.
Of those, from what I can tell, six were brand new games not based on prior franchises at all (Nintendogs, Trace Memory, Battalion Wars, Geist, Meteos, and Polarium).
Of the rest, from what I can tell only three or four are ports of existing titles (Final Fantasy IV, Dr. Mario / Puzzle League, Donkey Kong Country 3, and possibly Fire Emblem: The Sacred Stones, which I'm not sure of).
So last year, they had 34 never before seen games, and 4 ports. What's the problem? It's true many of the games were based on existing franchises, such ad DDR Mario Mix or Metroid pinball. But there never has been a Metroid Pinball before. It's not a port, it's a new game.
I'm affraid I don't see why you're complaining.
You should try Ocarina of Time - Master Quest. Because it's exactly as you describe. Ocarina of time, just with "remixed" dungeons. Makes the game more fresh again.