godslabrat

Ob: All clones suck in some way or another.

That aside, I have an FC Mobile II, and have been very happy with its compatibility and performance. It's fun to have a portable NES. I've never tried to use the wireless controllers, I hear they're crap.

If I were buying a clone for use on a TV, I'd probably get the RetroN3... but honestly, I'd probably ditch that idea and refurb an NES.

Well, it does mean that the Vita is compatible, on a software level, with the original PSP. This means that playing rips of existing UMD discs could, theoretically, be done.

It'll be done without Sony's help, and without their getting any money from it. Observe how I cry myself to sleep tonight thinking of that fact.

Nuclear Pacman, on Tue Feb 7, 2012 5:33 PM, said:

There is no license agreement with classic games, period. The ones that would appear in manuals were just scare tactics. Bottom line is, you didn't agree to never resell the game when you bought it, so you aren't bound by what's written in the back of a manual. The Click-Through "I Agree" notifications in newer games aren't much better, since you've already completed the sale long before you ever see one. Just because it's in an EULA doesn't mean it's enforcable.

The one area where this carries some weight is in PC games, and the newer console games that really do have a serial key and stuff. That actually gives the publisher the power to shut off your disc if they want. Even still, it's just a matter of finally being able to put some teeth into an EULA, it doesn't legitimize the agreement in the first place. From what I can tell, EULAs have had a very schizophrenic record in the court system.

Starscream, on Tue Feb 7, 2012 4:07 PM, said:

I wouldn't say the industry is shot, but to say it's "booming" is something of an overstatement. Nintendo and Sony are posting losses, Microsoft is only profitable if you pretty much forget everything that happened before last year. There *are* problems in the industry.

Starscream, on Tue Feb 7, 2012 4:07 PM, said:

Because money is money, and what's the harm in working a deal with Gamestop, even if you ultimately want them to die?

Starscream, on Tue Feb 7, 2012 4:07 PM, said:

Bottom line is that the prices shouldn't have increased at all! The prices should have gone down when games got cheaper to make in the move to discs, and cheaper still with the move to downloads. Yet $60 price tags are the norm, and $70 price tags aren't unheard of. Even factoring in inflation, the prices should have stayed at about the same level throughout the last two decades.

In addition, you now have to factor in DLC into the total cost of ownership, which wasn't an issue before. Also, the price of a console now starts over $500 (except Nintendo) and gradually trickles down to maybe $200. It wasn't that long ago that $200 was the upper end of the hardware pricing tier.

Being a gamer has gotten more expensive, especially in the last 10 years.

Starscream, on Tue Feb 7, 2012 4:07 PM, said:

It's cool. :-) I might take objection to what you're saying, but I'm glad you're asking for better arguments.

Starscream, on Tue Feb 7, 2012 4:07 PM, said:

I don't have a problem with devs trying to get more money off an existing title, but I think their methods are off-base. If they want to start their own resale program, I'm cool with that. If they want to start a budget-label program, I'm cool with that too. But trying to say that used games are bad because the only place you should EVER be able to buy a game is from the publisher... screw that.

Starscream, on Tue Feb 7, 2012 4:07 PM, said:

This is debatable, but the introduction of the first Playstation is generally thought to be when games were expected to have Hollywood movie-class effects, marketing campaigns, and budgets. It's simply been a steady growth since then, and the rate is unsustainable.

Starscream, on Tue Feb 7, 2012 4:07 PM, said:

I'm "paying too much" because I'm paying for things I don't really want. I don't want a megamarketing blitzkrieg... some of the best games I've found completely by accident. I don't want tons of swag and widgets.

There are also games which remain high in price, despite NOT selling, due to the manufacturer's ego. Witness the lack of budget-line Nintendo Wii games. Lots of games go OOP before Nintendo will mark them down by so much as $5.

Starscream, on Tue Feb 7, 2012 4:07 PM, said:

No. I'm ready to walk.

Starscream, on Tue Feb 7, 2012 4:07 PM, said:

HTH =)

Starscream, on Tue Feb 7, 2012 1:29 PM, said:

FWIW, I disagree completely with everything you just said. I don't have a problem with ANYONE in the gaming industry making money, but as their customer, that money comes from me, and as me, I have the right to decide how I'm going to part with it. The issue in the past few years hasn't been "entitlement from the gamers, thinking the industry owes them games for no money", rather, it's been "entitlement from the producers, thinking the gamers owe them profits, for no effort." Time and time again, we've been hearing execs and other company mouthpieces say "this is they way it is, and they'll have to get used to it" every time they raise prices, or remove features, or in other ways take away from us the choices we've had for decades.

Yes, they have a right to try and do it... but NO, we don't have to take it, and deciding that we reject their new business model doesn't make us misers.

Sure, in a business, you don't want to leave money on the table... but in a SMART business, you know what money will cost you more to gain than it'd be worth. Could the game companies shut down used game stores? Sure... but I'd suggest that the cost of shutting them down, combined with the damage from the bad PR, would end up showing them a very negative return. The money they spent shutting down Gamestop could be better spent... oh, I dunno, MAKING BETTER GAMES!

Finally, if you think the video game industry is lacking in ways to make new money on the same old product... I might ask where you've been lately, and have you heard of this awesome new game called "Pac-Man"?