Quantcast
View Post
errorpwns said:
JazzB1987 said:
oniyide said:
JazzB1987 said:
Teflon02 said:
Nothing wrong with 60 as long as the games worth it, something like CoD is fine at 60, but if NSMBU is $60, then that's a issue, cause anything over $40 for a side scroller is to much, and that was my problem with the wii NSMB, $64.99 everywhere is complete non-sense, i only have it cause it came with the wii when i rebought a wii for the red thinking mario allstar was in the box :p


So 60 for a game with really bad single player which has just 1 thing that makes it worth buying/ being fun or being difficult   which is strangers you meet online and that actually have nothing to do with the game at all  is okay.
But 60 for a game thats fun and which has fun singleplayer is not? (sure nsmb is not the best game and its boring by now but so is COD  but thats not the point people should rate games individualy and not compared to predecessors or competitions games)


Makes no sense to me.  Seriously   you play against other people   that are not part of the game so how is COD worht more money than 2d Mario?

IMHO people who play games online should get paid because they make other people buy the games (with crappy short singleplayer) so the publisher gets money.  I dont see why the publisher/dev combo is the only one that should get money here because they are clearly not the ones offering the fun etc they just built the infrastructure to have fun and  lay back and get money becauce  you might find cool strangers online to play with tell this your friends that will also buy the game and tell their friend other people not related to activision offer fun online. ...


well for one thing you have to consider the cost of keeping those servers online, not saying COD is better than Mario or whatever, but i would imagine one is more expensive to make or produce than the other


True but isn't it their fault if they keep making games without dedicated servers?  Seriously  as If i care wheter i play on a COD server or a good public server that has the same level of "security" and anti cheat software etc.

Forcing you to pay for something they force you to use is double dumb.

Thats a general problem with video games today  they remove the player hosted servers so they can shut down the official servers and you HAVE to buy the next version of the game if you want to keep playing. So server cost is no PRO argument for expensive games.

if they want they can make servers but should charge players for using them and not force anyone to pay for servers.  Give the normal folks dedicated player hosted servers and keep the "pro" servers for those who care and charge them!  Problem solved. 


COD cost more to produce?  Wow.  NSMBU  is using a brand new engine, brand new art assets, brand new everything.  The only thing that's the same is the IP. The Call of Duty engine isn't impressive at all.  It's been the same exact engine since COD4.  2 hour short campaign, and a copy and pasted (literally) multiplayer.  Reused models, and on top of that in MW3 they had a bug for PC that said "Modern Warfare 2 has stopped responding" or something like that.  Yet it surely cost a lot to copy and paste.  Also Mass Effect 3, etc being 60 dollars on the Wii-U is terrible.  It cost the company little to port the games for their expected return.

I was talking about NSMBWII, didnt say anything about U, no idea how much that cost, i still dont think it was expensive though. I agree with everything else, but it still cost money to keep servers online, regardless of the game that is being run. And yes ME3 is stupid expensive