|
Horrorfest said: |
You *do* realise that game quality isn't equal to graphical quality, right? That, when they said that PS1 games didn't age well, they didn't actually mean that they're graphically worse, but that they feel aged. They feel like old games. When you play almost any PS1 game, it feels like it's an old game. When you play Donkey Kong Country for the SNES, it still feels like a great, new game. A lot of SNES games have this property, especially Nintendo first-party games.
And let's be honest, many SNES games are more expensive on ebay.
And it's not just a matter of moving the rom over and testing it for gameplay. The games have to be re-classified by the various classification bodies, they have to be tested for security, they have to reobtain any licenses or permissions that were originally required, and they have to incorporate extra features like appropriate save states and restrictions on such states. And with the Wii U, there's more added functionality, too.
And even if none of that was necessary, the prices aren't set based on a single consumer's preconceived idea of how much such games *should* be worth. The prices are dictated by the market, just like with retail games - if you release a game at $50, and it's only really worth $20, the price will drop pretty quickly as sales falter after launch. The publisher makes the call as to what price will maximise their total profit, factoring in reduction of purchases with increasing price. This is basic economics.
It's only a ripoff if a retailer ups the price of a product for their own profit, despite others nearby selling the same product at the normal price, and prey on consumers not being sufficiently well-informed to shop where it's cheaper. That, or intentionally misrepresenting the value of the product.
