Depreciation of classic games on today's consoles, need quotes

[Gamereviewgod]

Hey everyone,

I'm brainstorming an article on the current consoles and classic gaming. I need some general thoughts on this topic, and will likely use some of your quotes in the piece. REPEAT: I MAY USE YOUR COMMENTS IN THE ARTICLE I'M WRITING ON THIS TOPIC. If you don't want to be quoted, then please say so or don't respond. That should take care of the legal part.

Anyway, I've noticed a disturbing trend. Classic games such as Defender, Time Pilot, and Frogger have been released to the Xbox Live Arcade recently. These games come with enhanced (slightly) graphics, online play, and leaderboards.

The cost? $5.

However, you still see comments about how this is too much. This can also apply to the Virtual Console on the Wii, though those games are direct ports which I would assume drops them into a different category.

I don't think anyone could say Super Mario Bros. is a bad game. For some reason, the thought of paying $5 for this title rubs people the wrong way. Why does this industry seem to believe the best of its earlier games aren't worth anything? Even the gaming sites have rated these classics low, and in the case of Time Pilot, handing out a 4 out of 10.

Do the games not hold up? Why would a game that sucked in countless quarters years ago or sold for $50 when it was released not be worth the current $5 price tag? Is it the fault of the companies for putting the games out at there for the lower and lower prices?

To make a somewhat connected example, would you argue if you had to pay $5 for a classic film? The movie industry can charge $20 for the DVD versions of Gone with the Wind, Casablanca, and Citizen Kane, and yet there doesn't seem to be an uproar. Is it the complexity of the work, i.e., the number of people it took to make those movies compared to the one man crew that assembled many of the classics? Is it the way they're presented? Is it generational?

Those aren't direct questions, so feel free to go outside of anything I asked.

[DaBargainHunta]

When you put it that way, grumbling over a $5 charge does seem a bit silly. With that said, I think retro gamers are put off by this trend because they don't like the idea of paying more money for games they already own, no matter how little the cost. However, you aren't being forced to repurchase any of these titles. If you don't like this development, the solution is simple: keep your money in your wallet!

As for whether these older games still hold up today, some do and some don't. That's how it is with any form of entertainment. Luckily, $5 is a cheap enough price that experimenting a bit won't burn anyone too significantly.

[T2KFreeker]

The scary thing here is that people complain paying $5.00 for these games but they were more than happy to pay $20.00 for them a little over two years ago for the Gameboy Advance. I think it also has to do with emulation. Why would you want to pay for it when you can get it for free, right? Sad situation there as I still think that ROM distribution is wrong, personally.

[mario2butts]

I get put off by these prices mainly because there's no physical copy. Call me old fashioned but when I buy a game I want a chunk of plastc to go on my shelf

[cyberfluxor]

I just the worth of a game primarily on its playability, not always on the market value or rarity. If I plan to buy a game for $X then I expect so much entertainment in return. Generally older games have already been played and for some of us have been purchased physically and still lays around someplace ready to be played. The $5 Mario/Duck Hunt seems ubsurd to casual gamers because we know it's sitting in a bin someplace for $1 or less and our systems we still own work and we can get it that cheap. However, to someone that's not much of a gamer or hasn't kept a box of old games in the basement for years they don't mind spending a small $5 on a game and not having to purchase the system all over again, it's just easier with what they have emulated or ported. When they see a collection of 50 or something older games they don't want to spend $250 (or $5 per game) rather the typical $20 of a greatest hits too, so that should be put into perspective.

[Imstarryeyed]

I get put off by these prices mainly because there's no physical copy. Call me old fashioned but when I buy a game I want a chunk of plastc to go on my shelf

I think I agree with this statement, I think there is a level of tangiblity that is present when you actually buy a game versus downloading one from these pay services.

I think if you also look at GameTap and ask some of those folks you might get an interesting perspective. GameTap started as pretty much an emulation site for old games but has since moved on to now include exclusives like the new Sam and Max games and others. I think if they did not take that measure it would have been a much harder journey for GameTap.

I think there is a level of paranoia amoung people who may not download from these services since they never really own the game but are only licensed to play it. I am sure many are thinking of, "what if I sell my console or it breaks down? Do I have to rebuy them? I would hope not, but maybe so?" Cell phone games are notorious for this sort of thing, download and pay games and you are out of luck when you upgrade your phone and need to download them again... of course their will always be exceptions.

In the end many of us just don't want to pay for games that we may already own on our systems and maybe even already paid more than once to play them on other systems.

Of course this is just my opinion.

[Poofta!]

I get put off by these prices mainly because there's no physical copy. Call me old fashioned but when I buy a game I want a chunk of plastc to go on my shelf

i agree. while i had no problem buying classic mario and zelda on the gba for 20, i do have a problem paying 5 for a digital distribution. especially since i already have about 3 iterations of each game across 3 different consoles. im not even getting any cool packaging, just seems companies as squeezing every last penny out of our fond memories of childhood and that also rubs me the wrong way.

emulation is too a big reason for the lack of interest in some of these. games like frogger and pacman have been ported in some variation to so many platforms its ridiculous. and with the psp, high quality emulation is easy, beautiful and portable.

another reason ties back to what you said. of course these games sucked out countless quarters and hours from us before -- and thats just it, we already paid and played these games through and through. if you already bought, and beat a certain game numurous times, why pay for it again unless its absurdly cheap so you can drain a few hours into it and leave it alone again.

i believe these pay to download services on the new gen consoles most benefit gamers who have no had the pleasure of playing these games, or who played them so long ago, and no longer own a copy, that even 10 dollars (for a quality game such as mario 64) is a done deal.

[Anthony1]

For some reason, the thought of paying $5 for this title rubs people the wrong way.

When I first heard about the whole "Virtual Console" thing for the Nintendo Wii, I was extremely excited about it. But I have to admit that I was expecting things to be quite a bit different than how it actually turned out. I was expecting these old games either to....


A: Cost $1.99 each or so, kinda like an iTunes approach, where you sell the download very cheaply and make your money with sheer volume.

or

B: Maybe actually cost $5, but if they do cost $5, there better be some damn enhancements brought to the table. The No.1 enhancement that I was interested in, was online multiplayer in some form. Offering 2 versions, one with the original graphics and sound, and one with ehanced graphics and sound, is also a good idea. (doesn't always work to well, but still it can't hurt). Or at the very least, ape Microsoft's Achievement system, and give me some kind of incentive to run through these games for the umpteenth time. I mean, where the heck are the online leaderboards and crap?



of course, neither scenario happened. We got $5 games (and up), no online play, no enhancements, no achievements, not even any freaking free demo's of the first level for crying out loud! I think that's why alot of people are rubbed the wrong way by this. I mean, really, do you want to pay $5 or $8 or whatever for a freaking rom? Cause that is what people are doing, and it absolutely boggles my mind that people are actually willing to pay 5 snaps or more for a freaking ROM with no enhancements whatsoever. The fact that you don't get a tangible, physical item that can be resold later on down the line, is a very huge factor as well.

[Fuyukaze]

I think it's more the mentality in the majority of people who frequent message boards. A good number of DPers (as well as other gaming boards) grew up playing these games when they first were released. As such, we've seen the original retail price, we've seen the same games at garage sales fetch prices much less then original price, and then think to ourselves, this cant be that valuable of a game if I can find it for a quarter.

Another thing to take into consideration is compilation releases. How many of us would pay 20$ for a copy of Phantasy Star 1? How about 2? 3 and 4 as well? I'm sure even a cart only would be picked up rather quick and yet here we have a PS2 game released with not just those 4 titles, but many more as well. It's a bit hard to swallow a 5$ per game price when the same game can be had on an actual disc along with 20 or more other games for 4x the price of that lone download.

Gamers are stupid sometimes. Gamers bitch sometimes. Sometimes, we are a mixed bag, but even we dont enjoy having to pay twice for the same item or paying more for an individualy released title we'd have had if we bought a compilation disc. Adding stuff like a ranking board, online multi-play, or even achivments or such is all nice, but if those are the only real difference between the download release and the original, are we truely getting our moneys worth?

[swlovinist]

the games on the virtual console cost too much. If I found smb in the wild for $5.00, I would laugh. Why would I buy it on the virtual console for that? I love old games, but I agree with the above statement. I am a collector and a player both. Virtual console games make me sad. I will pay more to have the item on a shelf. Nintendo is out 0 dollars making a straight port. If they are gonna charge what they do, they better be competitive with Microsoft(which is adding leaderboards and online play to thier games for the same price) Hell even a online scoreboard would be incentive.

[Lady Jaye]

The thing is, the $5 downloadable games aren't targeted at hardcore retrogamers, but rather at the adult casual gamer who hasn't played those games for years and might not even be aware of emulation.

Under that perspective, $5 isn't a lot to pay for a game like SMB even if for us, it's an easily found game in the wild.

As for the whole physical vs virtual argument, well, most people nowadays don't mind using MP3s without ever having the physical CD. Same thing here.

[kaedesdisciple]

How can the movie industry get away with charging people $20+ for classic movies? Well, there are a few reasons I can see:
1: A LOT more work went into the preservation and restoration of these films than have been put into the preservation of these digital works. Just google up the national film registry.
2: Film is considered art in the mainstream. Video games are not (yet) considered art in the same way, so people wouldn't pay as much for a reproduction of what is, in the eyes of some, simply a nostalgic toy. Tack onto that the fact that the $5 only covers one licensed download and you'll get many an educated consumer to balk.
3: The presentation should certainly be taken into account. Some of these classic films get released in beautifully designed boxes with artbooks and special features up the wazoo. Whether or not those are worth the extra price tag is up to the consumer, but the fact is the effort was put into the product and the price reflects that.

Just my $0.02, for whatever it's worth. Hope that helps!

[veronica_marsfan]

The cost? $5.

Why does this industry seem to believe the best of its earlier games aren't worth anything? Even the gaming sites have rated these classics low, and in the case of Time Pilot, handing out a 4 out of 10.

For some dumb reason, people measure a game's "value" by how many hours it take to beat it. They believe since a typical SMB or Defender game only last 30 minutes, tops, it has less value than a game that last 40 hours.

It's stupid but that's how today's (young) gamers think.

Me, I'd rather have a solid 30-minute game than a 40-hour game that moves like a snail stuck in molasses. QUALITY not quantity.



Also, there's the graphics elitism factor. Some people refuse to watch old movies cause they're black-n-white, or silent. Ditto for games. Age-ism.

[Captain Wrong]

How can the movie industry get away with charging people $20+ for classic movies? Well, there are a few reasons I can see:
1: A LOT more work went into the preservation and restoration of these films than have been put into the preservation of these digital works. Just google up the national film registry.
2: Film is considered art in the mainstream. Video games are not (yet) considered art in the same way, so people wouldn't pay as much for a reproduction of what is, in the eyes of some, simply a nostalgic toy. Tack onto that the fact that the $5 only covers one licensed download and you'll get many an educated consumer to balk.
3: The presentation should certainly be taken into account. Some of these classic films get released in beautifully designed boxes with artbooks and special features up the wazoo. Whether or not those are worth the extra price tag is up to the consumer, but the fact is the effort was put into the product and the price reflects that.

Just my $0.02, for whatever it's worth. Hope that helps!

That's a really good response.

To piggyback, if they release a new super duper DVD of Citizen Kane, I can still watch my old one on my new DVD player, but I can't play my old NES version of Pac-Man on my PS3.

The main reason I think people bitch about the pricing is that people get tired of paying for the same content over and over again. I mean, how many ports of Pac-Man are there!?!

Also, it amazes me that people are surprised at the way Nintendo is handling the VC stuff. I mean, it's completely in line with the way they have handled their back catalog historically, as far as the cost and rather straightforward ports go.

I think it's also worth pointing out that I see most of the complaining addressed to the Nintendo VC. I think people are comfortable with the Xbox Arcade pricing because they've added things to the games to make them worth the $5 even when free (and illegal) alternatives are available. Just something like a leaderboard and on-line play would probably make people feel more like they're getting their money's worth. It just seems to me like the VC stuff was about as lazy as could be and even though I totally expected it, I held out hope I'd be wrong.

[evil_genius]

I got Casablanca on DVD for 5.99. Just thought I'd like ot throw that out there. Woth every penny too.

[Gamereviewgod]

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/02/01/083049.php

There's the article. Thanks for all of the replies, and feel free to keep the conversation going, though your name won't be up in lights... or in an article filled with generic black text.

[Bronty-2]

I have no problem with a $5 price point for downloads. If its for a game that I don't feel is worth $5, I won't buy it. Sure, I could get the ROM for free but I'd rather play through a tv as opposed to a PC any day.

If it was much more than $5 I'd start to get perturbed though. I don't mind paying a bit of a premium for the convenience of the virtual console (I don't have to have three different systems plugged in with wires all over the place to play three different platforms) but there's definitely a limit to what I would pay for that convenience.

[alec]

So far I've only bought 2 VC games, and I bought them for 2 different reasons.

1: Soldier Blade- I've heard a lot of great things about this game, and I've been looking for it for a while but have not seen one for less than the usual $50 or so. I figured $6 for the DL was well worth it. I was right, I love the game. Plus by buying it I'm letting Hudson know that people are still interested in their old shooter games. Another pleasant surprise was that the Wii saves the high scores, something that the PC Engine would never do. I'm contemplating buying Alien Crush although I have the card, just to keep a record of my scores. BTW, I'm no longer very interested in buying a Soldier Blade card anymore.

2: Super Mario 64- I already have the original cart of this game of course, but I bought it again on VC anyways. The reason, I absolutely love this game, but I hate the N64 system. Now when I want to play a little Mario 64, I won't have to go into the bin and pull out the N64, hook it up and find the cart and controller, and then put it all away when I'm done. Many times just thinking of the trouble involved in setting up Mario 64 was enough to make me play something else. Now I just turn the Wii on and play it. I'll probably pick it up and play it more often now.

[staxx]

I agree with the part about having a physical copy of the game vs downloading the VC copy for $5. There is something to enjoy when you actually see a copy of the cart/CD sitting in your collection. I don't like having a $5 price tag for a game that is VERY common. SMB is very easy to find and has had many iterations of the same game on various platforms. Now if we start putting on games that gamers are really after i.e. Castlevania Rondo of the Blood, Radiant Silvergun (I wish), Sapphire (PC Engine) and the more rarer/pricey games (Chronotrigger, Final Fantasy III, Metal Warriors, Harvest Moon etc etc) then there may be a much better response. For those games that I listed and many games that I didn't, I am willing to spend $5.

[segagamer4life]

My problem with this whole process is, when you look at most compilations out there, you get in some cases, 20+ games for 20 bucks, now thats a ball park average of a buck a game, to me, thats more reasonable/practical, now 10 bucks for SMB64... when I can get the cart cheaper at EB and the DS version used for roughly the same price with added features. I guess 5-10 bucks for retro games to me is tough to chew, but sadly we can't change it.