Classic games on PSN!

[Kwaad]

RolStoppable said:

The problem with this value adding (mostly online features) on the PSN and Xbox live arcade (on live adding those features is a must) is that it is adding a significant increase in costs for the respective companies, that's why most studios hesitate to bring more classic games to psn/live.

Putting games on the virtual console costs next to nothing, that's why we see so many new games per week at a steady flow. It might be less value for the same or more money for some people, but I guess most people prefer to have the option to choose from a wide range of games instead of a few good ones or games that have extra features they didn't have when they were first released.

Kind of reminds me why the N64 and gamecube failed to take a bigger marketshare: most people prefer to have the option to choose from a wide range of games (even if most of them are mediocre) instead of a few good ones. Quantity matters more than quality.

From a developers stand-point. Your right. From a buyers stand-point. Your WRONG.

Cheaper+more = better. 100% of the time.

Chances are a good value like that will sell MANY more games than... more expensive+broke = less.
The improved game will sell tens of thousands. Think of it this way, a network programmer on the payroll with no projects to work on. Put him on that for 2 months. About 10,000$. Now that you have that added feature 2x more people want it, and now they sell 50,000 copies instead of 25,000 copies. Now you look at the numbers there. That is a big number. That is 250,000$ total, and if you cound what sony takes, that is still a good 125,000$.

EDIT: Northstar - That is one of my big things about games. 'value' Was it a great game? Was it worth 20$/hour? 2$/hour. For the actual gameplay you get out of the game. A great game is worth more for hour for hour than a horrible game. However as a rule of thumb, a great game will get more bang-for-buck as well as more entertainment for time. As a horrible game wont be played as much. A prime example.

WarioWare: Smooth Moves - 50$ I beat it in about 2 hours, and I felt like it was a 20$ game. That put each hour to 25$... on a game that felt very B-. I wouldnt have (meant) to pay more than 1$/hour for that game.

Motorstorm - 60$. I beat it in about 10-20 hours, and have spent about 10 hours online. That gives me about 25hours total. That is about 2.50$/hour for gameplay. I think motorstorm is an amazing game and I enjoy it muchly.

I find if a game is worth the money or not by a simple thing.

Great games are worth more... hour for hour than a horrible game. Total game play-time determines how much time I spent with it. Overall giveing me a "goal money per hour for quality" and "actual money per hour."

If the actual money per hour is higher than "goal money per hour" say crap game, and never buy another game with that name on it.

If it is like WarioWare, I go on a vacation from the entire console. (I was that mad)

Zelda is the only game worth it's meat for value I feel. (so far)