安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
讨论规则及指引
0 
举报此帖
sure hope they use this money for a new katamari game
is it bad that I want to see Alexander Rybak voice Chopin in an Eternal Sonata rerelease?
You really didn't know that?
You really didn't know that if everyone buys a game, the publisher funds more of that game? Conversely, you did't know that if nobody buys a game, the publisher doesn't fund more?
I mean, this is a gaming forum so it's possible you're 11 years old, but something tells me that even a 11 year old is less ignorant than that
Also, there's different economical theories. The classic Adam Smith theory that everyone always goes for the cheapest product has been disproven. Several times in fact. An individual may purchase in the area that is most convenient to them, i.e. time is another resource that's valuable to everyone. Another thing is that an individual may purchase a more expensive product due to it having better qualities or having a higher social value. But of course I'm 11 years old and wouldn't be able to understand such things. It's as clear as night and day.
I personally want Bandai Namco to produce more ports so the more people purchase this the better. Because there is no other game like Katamari on PC. Period.
Nobody can force you to see your own low standards, nor can we prevent you from forcing your low standards upon us with your purchasing decisions.
All we can do is use logic and hope you will see the error of your ways. And unfortunately not everyone here has played enough games (or even earn their own income for that matter) so there will be a lot of people who have a lower standard because they've only experienced the low standards forced upon them by other consumers.
We used to only pay $50 for PC games because that $10 cut was going towards Sony or Microsoft or Nintendo. Now who do you think that cut goes to? And why?
It's not a revolutionary fight. It's basic economics. Some people take gaming seriously.
To you, it might be McDonalds fast-food easy escapism to feed your consumer tendencies.
That's fine. To some of us, it means just a little more than that. The only reason so much low quality crap floods Steam, along with a gaming economy full of microtransactions and stuff that people love to complain about - is because you pay for it.
If people practiced the principles I'm preaching here, we wouldn't have any of that. But instead nerdy white people who got picked on too much in school and developed a weird Japanese fetish feel the need to fund this crap just because it signals their geek culture and inner robot.
Here's the thing: taste is subjective. I bought the game, loved it, thought it was worth every cent. There is no "error of my ways." If you think it's not worth it, fine. Don't buy it. If I suggest to people that the game is awesome and they don't buy it, fine, that's their choice. I don't see why you're getting your panties in a bunch because a whole bunch of people are buying what you don't like, or you think isn't worth it. Just move on and buy games you think are worth it, and let other people buy and enjoy things.
I'll say this again, objectively there are no issues with the game. The 2 small issues in this port is 1 song being cut out due to copyright reasons and the English audio also being removed. There's no loot boxes, no microtransactions. What you see is what you get.
No it doesn't, it involves precedent. Everyone sitting here mounting their advocacy for quiet acceptance of all price models on the "I'll buy it if it's worth it" premise are failing to understand that that blase attitude is responsible for all manner of creeping hidden costs and piecemeal delivery of products, as well as simply grossly overpriced ones. If you don't care, just say that. Trying to pass off your personal value judgment of a single product as the bar for what is and is not acceptable pricing of a game is a cheap way of avoiding the topic while still acting like you have something to say about it.
While Katamari does not present a microtransaction or other gross pay scheme, it does represent the first time I've ever seen a game go on sale 15 years later with no enhancements (and even missing features) for 50% more than its original cost back when it was on a physical release only. Games with budgets in the realm of $50 million are fully remastered and their publishers still don't have the nerve to try to charge people beyond its original cost. With the exception of Resident Evil 2, which wa completely remade from the ground-up, I can't even think of a single one of these AAA/huge-budget games that sold for even its original price that long later. The old-as-the-industry status quo, and with good reason, is to sell these old products that cost small fractions of what they cost to remaster (vs what they cost to develop) for a fraction of its original price.
That precedent and the preservation of it means something to every consumer in this market and there should be a very good reason if it's ever disturbed. "Some dude thinks it's worth it" doesn't qualify. Kids who don't spend their own money will find any game worth any cost. Someone who is stinking rich might think $200 for a taxi from Manhattan to Brooklyn is worth it. It is worth it to them. Who cares about $200? These are among the reasons why personal value judgments aren't especially compelling when we talk about what price is justifiable. As much as we may love the developers of a particular game, the dynamic of consumer/producer is typically that of a tug-of-war in which we ideally achieve a comfortable balance. If one side lets go though (because I don't see Bandai-Namco, Square-Enix, Activision, EA, Ubisoft letting go of their ends of the rope in a sudden fit of sympathy), they give up their leverage and we head further down a slope where practices that used to be unheard of become standard.
I consider looking at each game individually rather than a broader perspective to be more productive. If you treat every game the same due to an ideology (and I do mean that this acts more like an ideology), you're not guaranteed to get a better product. A positive reaction here means that if Bandai ports again, people can then say if they wanted more from a future port. The very idea that a Playstation exclusive game could come to other platforms was preposterous years ago yet here we are now.
The missing features of this port are minimal and I simply want to see more of this series come onto PC. If we hold our foot down perhaps we could get more ports. The other likelihood is that it's not worth the cost to port more due to one reason or another. We're the ones giving signals to developers of what we want.
The reason why I said that a game can only be judged objectively based on whether its design detracts from the experience it tries to give or if it has bugs that prevent the player from experiencing the game proper. These can be objectively analyzed.
And I feel like the price is a non issue as well. If the company in question is active, it will put up the game on sale. Usually after a year or two there's a sale of at least 33% so to me the price is a non-issue. Though that's just an opinion here.
So? Do you believe they will stop at the same time if the consumer does? Carry your argument into another area. Prosecuting crimes will make criminals work harder to commit them without being caught. Increasing law enforcement methods of combating them will make them more innovative. Will removing all disincentives for crime make them stop though? Absolutely not. There are some fights that you don't ever win, but engage in in perpetuity. Similarly, "the companies will keep trying shady stuff" is not a compelling argument to give up making a stink about it when it happens. It's an argument for the opposite.
This doesn't mean anything. There are conversations that pertain to the business at large and there are single games we can talk about in that context. I did both in my last post. Was it not productive or did I just not reach a conclusion that you want to hear?
I'll humor you and do it again though, even though you artfully ignored it the first time:
15-year-old game with zero enhancements and even a couple of missing features, that made its profits on its original release, is republished with no physical distribution goes on sale for 50% greater than its original price because............ a guy in Steam is willing to pay it. There is literally no other justification.
The game was cheaper than others when it released for a reason. It was very cheap to make. With the assets involved in $50 games at the time, Bandai still made a killing for their investment. Resident Evil 2 cost more money to port over to the N64 than the entire development budget of Katamari Damacy. Final Fantasy X cost almost $50 million to develop. The re-release price of that never went above that of the original cost.
Seriously though, whether you choose to label ir productive or not, conversations like this need to be pulled back if we want to understand their broader potential implications, as well as to understand how that single product fits into a larger framework. As such, it's reasonable to compare this game to other games just as it's reasonable to bring up other examples of practices that aren't consumer-friendly and that have become commonplace on the basis of people exactly like you who will come up with every excuse under the sun to avoid condemning them. Case and point:
I've rarely seen someone argue so hard against their own interest. So it's ok to pay more for a product that is missing features because it isn't missing that many features, if we want more of those poorly-cooked revivals we should buy the overpriced releases, and we should just be grateful whenever these cross-platform releases happen at all because: wow!
You act like they're doing us a favor. Bandai didn't port this because they love their fans and know that they want to play this game on PC. They're making money. We're paying it. There is no gratitude we owe them. We can be as happy as we want, as I was when I saw this release.
I'll agree that a positive reaction here could mean more ports. I'll also say that a negative reaction to the price could mean that future ports will be priced more reasonably. If they see people complaining about it, however, and see that those people are met by a brigade of users that advocate for everyone else swallowing whatever game publishers throw at us like a bunch of guppies, they might release We <3 Katamari for $40.
Like I said, this is about precedent. That is the precedent you choose to set. If yours wins the day, we can look forward to games that cost more and more because, hell, if we wait a year or two, it'll go on sale for a normal price. You'll pardon me if I choose to try to steer us away from that.