By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Why gamers don't buy a game because it is for another console?

Tagged games:

 

Would you buy a game you're a fan of if it's not on your favorite console?

Yes 108 63.16%
 
No 50 29.24%
 
See results 13 7.60%
 
Total:171
Chark on 01 July 2012

Hmm, well the sole reason of it being on a different console is a little shallow minded. But let's take a look at the implications. My guess is that those people were PSP owners and they have come to like the style of handheld that Sony makes. They are probably dedicated to getting a Vita, a similarly styled vast improvement of that type of handheld. They probably had the expectation that Monster Hunter 4 would be on the Vita. With no word of one appearing on the Vita, you could understand if there is some agitation from the fans. Some will opt to buy a 3DS for it, others won't. They have already dedicated a good some of money for the entry price of one console that getting a second one could easily be out of the question. That and the 3DS has a vastly different style than the Vita, one that a person could not like. The systems are very different and some might find the lack of hardware power in the 3DS disappointing coming from the PSP, even though the 3DS is an improvement. People buy consoles and their replacements often because of games that will be on those system. Transferring exclusivity is not a popular move and just purchasing the console that title goes to is not an ideal solution since that probably is not the only game they are looking forward to. For instance, if you are a big Mario, Zelda, and Metroid fan and Zelda moves to a Sony console and you could only afford one console, you wouldn't forgo the Nintendo console that still had Mario and Metroid right? It's probably the same situation for plenty of these gamers. Going multiplatform or producing spin offs of a series is one thing, transferring exclusivity throws all the fans for a loop.



Before the PS3 everyone was nice to me :(

Around the Network
happydolphin on 01 July 2012
MDMAlliance said:
Cobretti2 said:

funny how specs didn't amtter when ps1 or ps2 where leasding the generations. As soon as roles are reversed and sony is on the back foot. SPECS is all that matters.


Their excuse would be that gaming has changed since then.  However, that excuse is a bit lame because I don't think prioritizing graphics really makes a better game.  The graphical difference between the PSV and 3DS aren't even worlds apart like everyone keeps saying it is.  Resident Evil: Revelations is a testament to that.

What kind of lame excuse is that? No, Cobretti's post was enough on its own.



Dark_Oliver5 on 01 July 2012

I don't like to buy consoles for just one game. I don't have a lot of money so I have to spend wisely. That is why every time there is a new console I wait a while until a price drop or until there is three or four games I'm really interested in.



What's up?

happydolphin on 01 July 2012
logic56 said:
happydolphin said:

One would have to be an absolute moron to be unable to argue that.

1) the 3DS has features the vita will never have, from a hardware standpoint. We've discussed these in detail here: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4658649

oh I'm not saying it doesn't have features, I'm saying non of them mean shit if you have a Vita instead or owning a Vita renders them all worthless by comparison

Your arguments were discussed in the link I provided. The rest is opinion. I suggest you go back and read it.

2) Whatever time a company loses in graphical capabilities, it wins in being able to spend time focusing on other aspects of the game. We all know HD console games development require more business resources in general than SD games. With an HD budget, more creativity can be injected into an SD game given the extra time left over.

Vita games are more than graphics home skillet, see with Sony's consoles your the best of both worlds, games that not only play great with the massive amount of input methods, and competent online infrastructure, they also look great to and with the advantage of great hardware the games themselves are bigger than ever now providing experiences not possible before.

Does Monster Hunter need those? Absolutely not. Would they help? Yes. But it goes back to my original point. The time Capcom spends on those features, the less they spend on others. You basically strengtehn my point. This does add to the first point for your side however, I'll concede at least that. ;)

3) Working with Nintendo's financial and business backing, depending on the title, is another advantage to consider. As Sony was able to inject some of their creative strengths to games like Final Fantasy VII, the same can be said about injecting Nintendo's strengths when it comes to exclusives.

Nintendos help is the equivalent to piss and shit compared to the lengths Sony goes in helping developers, not even comparable

And how exactly would you know?

4) Some amazing games are launching on Wiiware, PSN and XBLA with much less graphical capabilities than a 3DS. Some of these are better than full console games, and graphics are not the be all end all.

again with this stupid excuse

I don't remember ever saying this before, and it's not an excuse, it's an argument. You're denying it.

5) If people bought MH on the PSP while much better graphics were available on the Wii and on the PS3, then they are not there for the top-end graphics. The 3DS will provide a graphical leap above the PSP, BY FAR, and so jumping to Vita graphics is not a priority, according to their buying habits. Complaints about graphical performance seems to be a cover up to a real issue: the game not releasing on their console/manufacturer of choice.

yes again with this stupid excuse, ok one more time: you CAN'T put your ps3 in your pocket, that is all, Jesus Christ, they didn't buy it becasue of graphics they brought it becasue it was portable and no the 3DS will NOT provide a graphical leap by far...at best it will be similar (as opposed to VERY similar)

True, you can't put the PS3 in your pocket, yet Capcom released Monster Hunter Tri on the Wii (which was supposed to be a PS3 game) and also released the HD version of MH Portable 3rd for the PS3, yet suddenly it has to be in your pocket. I understand portability is a consideration for the game, but that didn't stop the main series from A) Starting on home consoles and B) Continuing on home consoles alongside the next portable version.

I'm not sure if you're aware but MH4 is not even considered part of the Freedom (portable) series. It's considered part of the main series and goes in line with being a sequel to MH Tri on the Wii, since the 3DS has similar graphics properties to the Wii.

Rather, it would be insane not to be able to counter it.

ummm counter failed, mission aborted......lol
Mission engaged :P





NintendoPie on 01 July 2012
okr said:
Ajescent said:
I'm not buying a brand new console just to play one game, no thank you.

No? I do it all the time. I bought a

Gamecube for Wave Race: Blue Storm
Xbox for Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic
DS for The Legend of Zelda: Phantom Hourglass
Wii for The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess
PS3 for Flower
X360 for Tales of Vesperia
PSP for Jeanne D'Arc

I'll buy a 3DSXL for Paper Mario: Sticker Star.
Not a console, but 20 years ago I bought my first PC just for Sid Meier's Civilization (and claimed to use it for seminar papers even though I already knew I''d never finish university).

Eventually I bought more than one game for each of those systems but initially I bought all my systems for just one game. The first game on a system often was the only one I owned for months (or even more than a year like in Wave Race's and Old Republic's case). I'm aware though that not everybody wants to spend or is able to spend this much money for theoretically just one game.

You must make a lot of money if you can buy a console for just one game!



Around the Network
osed125 on 01 July 2012
Chark said:
Hmm, well the sole reason of it being on a different console is a little shallow minded. But let's take a look at the implications. My guess is that those people were PSP owners and they have come to like the style of handheld that Sony makes. They are probably dedicated to getting a Vita, a similarly styled vast improvement of that type of handheld. They probably had the expectation that Monster Hunter 4 would be on the Vita. With no word of one appearing on the Vita, you could understand if there is some agitation from the fans. Some will opt to buy a 3DS for it, others won't. They have already dedicated a good some of money for the entry price of one console that getting a second one could easily be out of the question. That and the 3DS has a vastly different style than the Vita, one that a person could not like. The systems are very different and some might find the lack of hardware power in the 3DS disappointing coming from the PSP, even though the 3DS is an improvement. People buy consoles and their replacements often because of games that will be on those system. Transferring exclusivity is not a popular move and just purchasing the console that title goes to is not an ideal solution since that probably is not the only game they are looking forward to. For instance, if you are a big Mario, Zelda, and Metroid fan and Zelda moves to a Sony console and you could only afford one console, you wouldn't forgo the Nintendo console that still had Mario and Metroid right? It's probably the same situation for plenty of these gamers. Going multiplatform or producing spin offs of a series is one thing, transferring exclusivity throws all the fans for a loop.

If that happens I will go first for the Nintendo console since it have more games I like, then when I have the money I'll go for the Sony console. But the point is I will not start hating Zelda because it change platforms which is the main reason I made this thread. 



Nintendo and PC gamer

Chandler on 01 July 2012
AndrewWK said:
Chandler said:
AndrewWK said:
I bought the Wii just because of Skyword Sword. What a big mistake but at least Xenoblade redeemed it a bit. And considered to buy the Box for Gears of War, then I played and was terribly dissapointed

There are a lot of awesome games that would make the wii purchase worth it. It's not the consoles fault that you stopped looking.


I never said that that. After I finish Dragon Age 2 and Deus Ex Human revolution I will purchase Pikmin to see how it is. But imo the Wii is just like every other Nintendo better suited for then for a 22 years old person

First off, I have to apologize if my comment sounded a little harsh, It wasn't ment that way. I guess you ment the Wii is better suited for kids than for a 22y old person. Well, I'm 28y old and I don't feel that the system is not for me. But I guess it's a matter of personal taste. I get my bloody games fix through my PC so I'm very happy with playing the wii for colorful and childish games you can't get anywhere else.

 

But since you already own the Wii I recommend you look into the galaxy games, pikmin 1+2 new play control, the prime series, donkey kong country returns and monster hunter tri. I think it will definitely pay off.



Ongoing bet with think-man: He wins if MH4 releases in any shape or form on PSV in 2013, I win if it doesn't.

logic56 on 01 July 2012

1. not an opinion, if you can't see how vastly superior the Vita is to the 3DS then I don't know what to tell you

2. and there you go with that Nintendo fan ultimatum, everything is black and white with you guys becasue you don't know the joys of the other side of the fence, blind loyalty and nostalgia gives you a very narrow view on things and that just sad, NO, they Don't have to focus on one OR the other, on PlayStation platforms they can focus on both equally, giving no more attention to either or, games can not only look great but they can play great as well

3.wii vs ps3, that kinda answers itself

4. and that makes it worse don't you get it, that's the point of the outrage, this is suppose to the next main entry into the series and this is what they come up with...... this shit:

fucking really???

shame..... shame on you Capcom smfh

 



AndrewWK on 01 July 2012
Chandler said:
AndrewWK said:
Chandler said:
AndrewWK said:
I bought the Wii just because of Skyword Sword. What a big mistake but at least Xenoblade redeemed it a bit. And considered to buy the Box for Gears of War, then I played and was terribly dissapointed

There are a lot of awesome games that would make the wii purchase worth it. It's not the consoles fault that you stopped looking.


I never said that that. After I finish Dragon Age 2 and Deus Ex Human revolution I will purchase Pikmin to see how it is. But imo the Wii is just like every other Nintendo better suited for then for a 22 years old person

First off, I have to apologize if my comment sounded a little harsh, It wasn't ment that way. I guess you ment the Wii is better suited for kids than for a 22y old person. Well, I'm 28y old and I don't feel that the system is not for me. But I guess it's a matter of personal taste. I get my bloody games fix through my PC so I'm very happy with playing the wii for colorful and childish games you can't get anywhere else.

 

But since you already own the Wii I recommend you look into the galaxy games, pikmin 1+2 new play control, the prime series, donkey kong country returns and monster hunter tri. I think it will definitely pay off.

I don´t like platformers, and never liked Super Mario anyway. Pikmin I will try it looks like a new Concept of Gameplay.



happydolphin on 01 July 2012
logic56 said:

4. and that makes it worse don't you get it, that's the point of the outrage, this is suppose to the next main entry into the series and this is what they come up with...... this shit:

fucking really???

shame..... shame on you Capcom smfh

Okay, you don't even need to go any further. You clearly aren't a Monster Hunter fan, and it's super obvious.

For the little I've played of Monster Hunter Tri G, and the little I've seen of Freedom, I can already tell you that this looks 100 times better than those in terms of action and gameplay, and I'm not even a MH fan. If graphics are all you care about, then you're obviously not a true fan. And plus, even with graphics on par with the Wii version, it still looks fantastic, and will much more so on the portable screen.

When Squaresoft released Final Fantasy IV the after years, did I complain that it was in 2D? Certainly not. As a staunch fan of FF IV, I would have bought the game had it come out on a fricking Wonderswan for all I care.

Now that we've cleared out that nonesense, let me tackle your excuses:

1. not an opinion, if you can't see how vastly superior the Vita is to the 3DS then I don't know what to tell you

You're shifting goalposts from overall hardware design to simply graphics and online. Fail.

2. and there you go with that Nintendo fan ultimatum, everything is black and white with you guys becasue you don't know the joys of the other side of the fence, blind loyalty and nostalgia gives you a very narrow view on things and that just sad, NO, they Don't have to focus on one OR the other, on PlayStation platforms they can focus on both equally, giving no more attention to either or, games can not only look great but they can play great as well

I don't disagree that games can look good and play great. Problem is, the one that isn't seeing the other side of the coin is you, since you still don't concede that time spent on graphics is less time spent on depth. The accusations should now be placed back on the one truly with the narrow view.

3.wii vs ps3, that kinda answers itself

It sure does, it answers that you're shifting the goalposts once again and fail to read what people tell you, hence throwing fire to a war that need not exist. The point wasn't Wii vs PS3, it was (Wii or PS3) vs PSP, both being vastly superior to the portable counterpart from a graphics PoV (the point of that subtopic).