Final Fantasy VII Accidentally Re-released
- Thread starter The Wooster
- Start date
Since all of your other comments hinge on this, I'll just reply to this one.evilneko said:
The basis? It is physically impossible for that product to exist for sale if it does not exist. They had to create a page, upload the data files, and install the DRM. You don't do that if you don't mean to sell it.
I'm not a programmer, but I know a few. They test stuff before it goes live. This looks like a test that wasn't supposed to go public, and accidentally did. Clearly they have kinks to work out, but they just as clearly intend to provide a product in the near future.
If they don't within a reasonable amount of time - two weeks, say - then that's another issue.
A product clearly exists - people downloaded it. It will be released at some point - and when it is, common sense (aka logic) indicates that those who downloaded it early will have working versions (remember, you can always re-download a purchased file, so even if they need to update their files, they will be able to do so for free because they already purchased it).
The PC midi sound files DO sound better than PS1. Or maybe some people have crappy soundcards. But when I was playing FF7PC in 1999, the only part where the sound suffered was the One Winged Angel part which didn't have the vocals mixed in with the music because midi doesn't support vocals. (But that might have been a bug, because there was a .wav of the vocal track by itself.)Rednog said:
But otherwise, maybe I just had a better sound card than everybody. Or a better stereo setup on my PC than on my TV. Because FF7PC sounds and sounded awesome.
... why would they? Common senses indicates that when it works, anyone who bought it will be able to use their copy or download a new copy. That's how digital sales work. Why would this be different?evilneko said:
The fact that you are questioning whether or not they will get a product makes no sense. Am I making an assumption that Square isn't going to do something insanely stupid and illegal for no reason... yes, I am making an assumption that they made a mistake and aren't criminally insane.
I'm also assuming that Square isn't going to build a giant Laser on the Moon. That's just an assumption, mind - Square has released no Press Releases stating that they are expressly not building giant lasers on the moon.
**shakes head**
If you are determined to be upset over this, then fine, don't let me stop you. Better be wary though - Microsoft hasn't released a Press Release saying that they aren't going to release angry Bears into the homes of people who don't upgrade to Windows 8....
Edit:
Oh, wait - Square HAS released a statement (see the e-mail post above). They're offering a refund. How nice of them.
Now Square is no longer in the wrong. Good move Square.
it IS finished. It was finished in 1998FallenTraveler said:
They aren't making a new game, they are adding DRM and tripcodes to an ancient one.
Sony has a long history of screwing over their customers, in ALL divisions: i wouldn't be surprised if they accuse these people of piracy and make them buy it when the "official" release happens
But it's still the same as if you were to buy it for the PC today. So right now, it's just a matter of if you're a PC gamer or if you're willing to buy the PS1 copy. The only difference between the two is the price and accessibility. Personally, if I had to choose, I'd go for the PS1 copy because my computer sucks and I still got my PS1/2. But again, that's my personal choice.Buretsu said:
So there's just a price gap between the two, more than anything. Nothing more.
But again, it's just a matter of opinion.Buretsu said:
PC = $30. Alright, good deal. If you're a PC gamer. I wish I was one but I'm not for many economical reasons.
PS1 = $???. To some people who already own a PS1 or 2, it might be the best choice. Who cares if the PS1 and 2 look physically outdated? It's not like people will point and judge me and steal my firstborn because of my clunky PS. And the game itself? Well, from that I hear, it looks the same on the PC than on the PS.
So yeah, it's just whatever fits you better. Again, if it was a HD release, I'd be pale with envy or something and I'd probably consider getting it, along with a good PC, in the future. But it seems I'm not missing that much...
It is not "nice of them" to offer a refund on a defective product that they sold. It is their responsibility to compensate customers who were lead to believe they were buying a fully functioning product. It's the absolute least they can do. Any reputable retailer is absolutely expected to stand by their products and to refund a customer's money if the product they sell is defective.Bara_no_Hime said:
Is it weird I came on this just to see what you would come up with?DVS BSTrD said:
OT: I really don't know what to say about this. Can't they just get a refund and let them delete whatever it is off their computer? If it's practically the same thing, they should just be able to play this already through the computer.
Yeah, but think how they would react to a home console sequel.ThatJoelGuy said:
Honestly, I liked 12, didn't bother with spin offs though unless FFTA2 counts?
They could do that but I can't help but see them making them 3 seperate games if they did and still walk to the bank. What those games needs as a fix, at least for me, is some kind of in game notepad that reminds you what you did last so that when I inevitably take 6 months off halfway through I can actually figure out what I'm supposed to do, tis why I've never beaten 9 tbh.
Not too fussed about 10 remake, I replayed it recently and it looks fine to me, perfectly playable but I'd buy it anyway.
