He's a Hedge Fund Manager. Corrupt sociopathic thief is part of the job description.Ldude893 said:
"Pay 99 Cents To Make Mario Jump Higher," Hedge Fund Urges
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
We can argue all we want. I'm nearly 100% certain that "pay for mario to jump higher" would be swallowed by our current "gaming community".
Not that this makes it any less pitiful.
Not that this makes it any less pitiful.
Considering what passes for "innovation" in Nintendo games, it might be defended as "innovative."Yopaz said:
I sort of wonder if you can get rid of those popups by rating through the Play/iTunes store. I've never played a game that did it long enough for it to become a nuisance, in the same way you mentioned.
I'm pretty sure a good chunk of Nintendo fans would defend it with the usual "it's different when the company I like does it" routine, too.Adeptus Aspartem said:
Depends on which kind of gamer:t00bz said:
younger pre-CoD age gamers? absolutely.
Gamers who grew up with franchises like Mario, Zelda and Metroid? Sure.
Casual Gamers? Wii outsold the PS3 and 360, thanks to them (too bad they abandoned the Wii U, but that was partly Nintendo's fault.)
JRPG fans? I hate to admit it, but Nintendo probably has a stronger library for JRPG's than Sony does. Bravely Default, Xenoblade Chronicles, Radiant Historia, Chrono Trigger DS, etc.
I'd say they're very relevant still.
I'm no scientist, but I figure if enough people aren't buying Nintendo's console to play their games they should maybe try seeing if they'll buy the games on other platforms before heading to the one which will tarnish their IPs and piss off gamers.
Nintendo, my little sister asked me a month ago if there was a way to buy a copy of Harvest Moon GBA for her phone. I pointed her towards an emulator that didn't cost her a cent.
I understand you don't want to give up your precious new games for $1 a pop on a smartphone, but come on, there are tons of people who would gladly pay for your older products on their phones.
I understand you don't want to give up your precious new games for $1 a pop on a smartphone, but come on, there are tons of people who would gladly pay for your older products on their phones.
Sorry, tried to address this in an edit.J Tyran said:
It's really not the same thing at all because the exploitative products on mobile are far and away the rule rather than the exception, and the reverse is true on PC/console at the moment. I think it's perfectly fair to judge a platform or group of platforms as inferior or even terrible if 95% of the offerings are designed to exploit psychological triggers in order to pull money out of customers in exchange for what have been, traditionally, basic play mechanics.
If my tone is one of resentment, it's because so much has been made of the mobile platforms for what amounts to very little in terms of genuine gaming. Companies are running towards the space, full speed, because they see the millions being made by Saga games and the like, and these same companies want to bring their former customers (people like me) along for the very unfun, frustrating, expensive ride by wagging popular and time-honored IPs under our noses. Elsewhere, people are propping up various arguments and issues and agendas by pointing to studies that indicate "half of all gamers are X" or "look at the growth of Y" when the truth is more along the lines of "look how many clear gambling addicts are being roped in to these unregulated schemes". The legitimization of mobile gaming has given rise to several lies regarding demographics, and those lies have been used to bludgeon the industry repeatedly. Does the video game industry need solid criticism to evolve? Yes, but that criticism shouldn't be based on faulty premises.
Let's push this idea to its logical conclusion
The princess is in another castle! We hoped you enjoyed the preview levels, if you would like to unlock the next levels and rescue the princess, please buy the prenium add on for 3.99 $
That's called "Shareware": some of the best games ever made were sharewares. A large game company's stockholder proposing to try to implement the shareware model in their business practice would not be outrageous at all. What was proposed was not the implementation of the perfectly respectable shareware model but the implementation of the contemptible Pay-to-Win scam.
The princess is in another castle! We hoped you enjoyed the preview levels, if you would like to unlock the next levels and rescue the princess, please buy the prenium add on for 3.99 $
That's called "Shareware": some of the best games ever made were sharewares. A large game company's stockholder proposing to try to implement the shareware model in their business practice would not be outrageous at all. What was proposed was not the implementation of the perfectly respectable shareware model but the implementation of the contemptible Pay-to-Win scam.
Uh, guys? Scummy business practices aside, there's a pretty obvious reason why this wouldn't work: the ceiling spike. I mean, the reason Mario games work is because the platforms are designed for jumps of a specific height. Increase jump height and the game would be damn near unplayable because of things like flying enemies and stalactites.
I mean, if you're going to corrupt your standards and sell a feature of the game, don't have it be [i/]that[/i] feature. Maybe sell extra time for levels, or playable characters, or I don't know, a floating ability or something (exclusive to Princess Peach). If you're going to throw in microtransactions, at least have the decency to do them some what better than that. This is shameful.
I mean, if you're going to corrupt your standards and sell a feature of the game, don't have it be [i/]that[/i] feature. Maybe sell extra time for levels, or playable characters, or I don't know, a floating ability or something (exclusive to Princess Peach). If you're going to throw in microtransactions, at least have the decency to do them some what better than that. This is shameful.