The VC fee is BS

#451TechniMyokoPosted 1/25/2013 1:39:09 AM
darkjedilink posted...
Baha05 posted...
Crimson10Blades posted...
I don't see why it's a big issue to people. You're still capable of playing the game without paying an extra dollar. Just launch it in Wii mode.


Because it's pointless to transfer them. Again if I wanted to play them on the Wii I would gave kept them on the Wii


If you didn't keep them on the Wii, you BY DEFINITION aren't playing on the Wii.

Stop lying.


You know what he meant. Stop being rude.
#452diggyfreshPosted 1/25/2013 1:43:25 AM
Demon_Kiwi posted...
If you buy a physical copy of a game and then something like a game of the year edition with all the paid dlc comes out for the same price as the version you bought without the dlc are you entitled to that dlc for free? No. Maybe it's because I grew up when digital distribution did not exist but it seems to me I bought a VC game for the Wii and when I bought it I wasn't paying for Wii U functionality or save States or anything like that. Now I can continue to play the game I purchased or I can pay a dollar or a buck and a half to have a "new" version of the game with those features. I fail to see the issue. I still have what I paid for and I even get a discount on those new features. I am not entitled to them and personally would not have cared if they charged full price though I likely wouldn't have bought any titles I already owned. Just like physical distribution if you want the new version buy the new version. I had to pay full price to get The Legend of Zelda on the GBA despite owning it on the Nes. I don't see why I should be entitled to a free version on the Wii u or 3ds just because I bought it on the Wii. Remember that backward functionality is not a right and you are lucky it has it at all.


I would agree with this except that nowadays these companies are getting really sneaky about nickel and diming you for the experience. Like releasing games in threes, getting DLC for each, and then not letting you get the whole story unless you bought the DLC. What's worse is that it was never true "DLC", is was already on the disc and you just paid to "unlock" it.

That's why I want to know why what Nintendo is doing is considered unfair. You should know what you're buying. It seems to me so far that N is being up front about that you get. But other people here seem to disagree.
---
Currently playing: ZombiU, RE: Revelation, & Xenoblade
#453metroid00700Posted 1/25/2013 1:46:37 AM
The industry almost mandates this should be free. Both Valve and Sony offer upgrades to their titles all the time for free so compatibility is a not an issue across many devices. Speaking strictly on emulators, the Vita runs an enhanced version of the PSP emulator that added filtering options and the right analog stick, among other things, for free. Oh yeah, almost forgot to mention, you can still play your PSOne games on your PSP after getting the games on your Vita. Sony gave you another copy for free, and a third if you own a PS3. As I've said in another topic, just because this is legally right, that doesn't make it morally right by any means.
---
Intel Core i7-3610QM/2 GB DDR5 NVIDIA GeForceGT/12GB DDR3 RAM
SEGA Dreamcast: THE Best Gaming System since 9/9/99
#454diggyfreshPosted 1/25/2013 1:50:52 AM
metroid00700 posted...
The industry almost mandates this should be free. Both Valve and Sony offer upgrades to their titles all the time for free so compatibility is a not an issue across many devices. Speaking strictly on emulators, the Vita runs an enhanced version of the PSP emulator that added filtering options and the right analog stick, among other things, for free. Oh yeah, almost forgot to mention, you can still play your PSOne games on your PSP after getting the games on your Vita. Sony gave you another copy for free, and a third if you own a PS3. As I've said in another topic, just because this is legally right, that doesn't make it morally right by any means.


Morally right? How does Sony doing it make it morally right? Is everything Sony does morally right?

It's morally right that you get a square deal. Sounds like you have cheated Sony out of their time, money, and human resources by taking something you should have paid for.
---
Currently playing: ZombiU, RE: Revelation, & Xenoblade
#455metroid00700Posted 1/25/2013 2:01:05 AM(edited)
diggyfresh posted...
metroid00700 posted...
The industry almost mandates this should be free. Both Valve and Sony offer upgrades to their titles all the time for free so compatibility is a not an issue across many devices. Speaking strictly on emulators, the Vita runs an enhanced version of the PSP emulator that added filtering options and the right analog stick, among other things, for free. Oh yeah, almost forgot to mention, you can still play your PSOne games on your PSP after getting the games on your Vita. Sony gave you another copy for free, and a third if you own a PS3. As I've said in another topic, just because this is legally right, that doesn't make it morally right by any means.


Morally right? How does Sony doing it make it morally right? Is everything Sony does morally right?

It's morally right that you get a square deal. Sounds like you have cheated Sony out of their time, money, and human resources by taking something you should have paid for.


Wow, you really are clueless. Sony ENDORSES the users to download the games they paid for on multiple devices. I had trouble setting up my PSP with a PSOne Classic I bought on PS3, so I called tech support, and Sony happily helped me set up and thanked me for buying the game and using their service. They offer a free service to ensure I can continue to play games I paid for across their various platforms and they encourage me to do it. And thanks to the easy compatibility and generous license, I'm much more likely to give them money than Nintendo. I've heard some Nintendo ignorant **** in here, but this takes the case, for sure. Cheating them out of money, seriously? How brainwashed are you?
---
Intel Core i7-3610QM/2 GB DDR5 NVIDIA GeForceGT/12GB DDR3 RAM
SEGA Dreamcast: THE Best Gaming System since 9/9/99
#456TechniMyokoPosted 1/25/2013 2:00:40 AM
metroid00700 posted...
diggyfresh posted...
metroid00700 posted...
The industry almost mandates this should be free. Both Valve and Sony offer upgrades to their titles all the time for free so compatibility is a not an issue across many devices. Speaking strictly on emulators, the Vita runs an enhanced version of the PSP emulator that added filtering options and the right analog stick, among other things, for free. Oh yeah, almost forgot to mention, you can still play your PSOne games on your PSP after getting the games on your Vita. Sony gave you another copy for free, and a third if you own a PS3. As I've said in another topic, just because this is legally right, that doesn't make it morally right by any means.


Morally right? How does Sony doing it make it morally right? Is everything Sony does morally right?

It's morally right that you get a square deal. Sounds like you have cheated Sony out of their time, money, and human resources by taking something you should have paid for.


Wow, you really are clueless. Sony ENDORSES the users to download the games they paid for on multiple devices. I had trouble setting up my PSP with a PSOne Classic, and Sony happily helped me set up and thanked me for buying the game and using their service. They offer a free service to ensure I can continue to play games I paid for across their various platforms and they encourage me to do it. I've heard some Nintendo ignorant **** in here, but this takes the case, for sure. Cheating them out of money, seriously? How brainwashed are you?



Plus Sony is smart enough to realize they are competing with free emulation
#457diggyfreshPosted 1/25/2013 2:07:54 AM
metroid00700 posted...
diggyfresh posted...
metroid00700 posted...
The industry almost mandates this should be free. Both Valve and Sony offer upgrades to their titles all the time for free so compatibility is a not an issue across many devices. Speaking strictly on emulators, the Vita runs an enhanced version of the PSP emulator that added filtering options and the right analog stick, among other things, for free. Oh yeah, almost forgot to mention, you can still play your PSOne games on your PSP after getting the games on your Vita. Sony gave you another copy for free, and a third if you own a PS3. As I've said in another topic, just because this is legally right, that doesn't make it morally right by any means.


Morally right? How does Sony doing it make it morally right? Is everything Sony does morally right?

It's morally right that you get a square deal. Sounds like you have cheated Sony out of their time, money, and human resources by taking something you should have paid for.


Wow, you really are clueless. Sony ENDORSES the users to download the games they paid for on multiple devices. I had trouble setting up my PSP with a PSOne Classic I bought on PS3, so I called tech support, and Sony happily helped me set up and thanked me for buying the game and using their service. They offer a free service to ensure I can continue to play games I paid for across their various platforms and they encourage me to do it. And thanks to the easy compatibility and generous license, I'm much more likely to give them money than Nintendo. I've heard some Nintendo ignorant **** in here, but this takes the case, for sure. Cheating them out of money, seriously? How brainwashed are you?


You did not cheat Sony. I am sorry for saying that. I'm sure you are a fair person.

I am very brainwashed. It's a shame really. And thank you for showing me some insight. Your experience with Sony sounds like it was a good one.
---
Currently playing: ZombiU, RE: Revelation, & Xenoblade
#458metroid00700Posted 1/25/2013 2:09:27 AM
diggyfresh posted...
metroid00700 posted...
diggyfresh posted...
metroid00700 posted...
The industry almost mandates this should be free. Both Valve and Sony offer upgrades to their titles all the time for free so compatibility is a not an issue across many devices. Speaking strictly on emulators, the Vita runs an enhanced version of the PSP emulator that added filtering options and the right analog stick, among other things, for free. Oh yeah, almost forgot to mention, you can still play your PSOne games on your PSP after getting the games on your Vita. Sony gave you another copy for free, and a third if you own a PS3. As I've said in another topic, just because this is legally right, that doesn't make it morally right by any means.


Morally right? How does Sony doing it make it morally right? Is everything Sony does morally right?

It's morally right that you get a square deal. Sounds like you have cheated Sony out of their time, money, and human resources by taking something you should have paid for.


Wow, you really are clueless. Sony ENDORSES the users to download the games they paid for on multiple devices. I had trouble setting up my PSP with a PSOne Classic I bought on PS3, so I called tech support, and Sony happily helped me set up and thanked me for buying the game and using their service. They offer a free service to ensure I can continue to play games I paid for across their various platforms and they encourage me to do it. And thanks to the easy compatibility and generous license, I'm much more likely to give them money than Nintendo. I've heard some Nintendo ignorant **** in here, but this takes the case, for sure. Cheating them out of money, seriously? How brainwashed are you?


You did not cheat Sony. I am sorry for saying that. I'm sure you are a fair person.

I am very brainwashed. It's a shame really. And thank you for showing me some insight. Your experience with Sony sounds like it was a good one.


Oh no worries. I understand if you don't own other consoles grasping how they handle their business is hard.
---
Intel Core i7-3610QM/2 GB DDR5 NVIDIA GeForceGT/12GB DDR3 RAM
SEGA Dreamcast: THE Best Gaming System since 9/9/99
#459Demon_KiwiPosted 1/25/2013 2:56:26 AM
diggyfresh posted...
Demon_Kiwi posted...
If you buy a physical copy of a game and then something like a game of the year edition with all the paid dlc comes out for the same price as the version you bought without the dlc are you entitled to that dlc for free? No. Maybe it's because I grew up when digital distribution did not exist but it seems to me I bought a VC game for the Wii and when I bought it I wasn't paying for Wii U functionality or save States or anything like that. Now I can continue to play the game I purchased or I can pay a dollar or a buck and a half to have a "new" version of the game with those features. I fail to see the issue. I still have what I paid for and I even get a discount on those new features. I am not entitled to them and personally would not have cared if they charged full price though I likely wouldn't have bought any titles I already owned. Just like physical distribution if you want the new version buy the new version. I had to pay full price to get The Legend of Zelda on the GBA despite owning it on the Nes. I don't see why I should be entitled to a free version on the Wii u or 3ds just because I bought it on the Wii. Remember that backward functionality is not a right and you are lucky it has it at all.


I would agree with this except that nowadays these companies are getting really sneaky about nickel and diming you for the experience. Like releasing games in threes, getting DLC for each, and then not letting you get the whole story unless you bought the DLC. What's worse is that it was never true "DLC", is was already on the disc and you just paid to "unlock" it.

That's why I want to know why what Nintendo is doing is considered unfair. You should know what you're buying. It seems to me so far that N is being up front about that you get. But other people here seem to disagree.


I agree completely on the points you brought up. On disc dlc is silly and things like those games where its all micro transactions and dlc to get the full game also suck unless the game is stupidly cheap to begin with since you aren't even really getting a complete game. However Nintendo isn't doing that with this. They gave users a way to play the games they bought for free which they really didn't have to do (my snes couldn't play nes games and I didn't complain this is no different) and they are even offering a discount on the new version of these games which again they don't have to do. No one said when you bought a wii that wii games/VC games would work on the next system. Then they made the Wii U and said it would be backward compatible and it is. You can play the games you bought exactly as you bought them, and you didn't buy Wii U gamepad functionality so you can't use it. Simple stuff
---
Gamertag: Daemon Kiwi
#460diggyfreshPosted 1/25/2013 3:05:59 AM
Demon_Kiwi posted...
diggyfresh posted...
Demon_Kiwi posted...
If you buy a physical copy of a game and then something like a game of the year edition with all the paid dlc comes out for the same price as the version you bought without the dlc are you entitled to that dlc for free? No. Maybe it's because I grew up when digital distribution did not exist but it seems to me I bought a VC game for the Wii and when I bought it I wasn't paying for Wii U functionality or save States or anything like that. Now I can continue to play the game I purchased or I can pay a dollar or a buck and a half to have a "new" version of the game with those features. I fail to see the issue. I still have what I paid for and I even get a discount on those new features. I am not entitled to them and personally would not have cared if they charged full price though I likely wouldn't have bought any titles I already owned. Just like physical distribution if you want the new version buy the new version. I had to pay full price to get The Legend of Zelda on the GBA despite owning it on the Nes. I don't see why I should be entitled to a free version on the Wii u or 3ds just because I bought it on the Wii. Remember that backward functionality is not a right and you are lucky it has it at all.


I would agree with this except that nowadays these companies are getting really sneaky about nickel and diming you for the experience. Like releasing games in threes, getting DLC for each, and then not letting you get the whole story unless you bought the DLC. What's worse is that it was never true "DLC", is was already on the disc and you just paid to "unlock" it.

That's why I want to know why what Nintendo is doing is considered unfair. You should know what you're buying. It seems to me so far that N is being up front about that you get. But other people here seem to disagree.


I agree completely on the points you brought up. On disc dlc is silly and things like those games where its all micro transactions and dlc to get the full game also suck unless the game is stupidly cheap to begin with since you aren't even really getting a complete game. However Nintendo isn't doing that with this. They gave users a way to play the games they bought for free which they really didn't have to do (my snes couldn't play nes games and I didn't complain this is no different) and they are even offering a discount on the new version of these games which again they don't have to do. No one said when you bought a wii that wii games/VC games would work on the next system. Then they made the Wii U and said it would be backward compatible and it is. You can play the games you bought exactly as you bought them, and you didn't buy Wii U gamepad functionality so you can't use it. Simple stuff


Yes, but N could just upgrade Wii VC games with the features for free. It's what other video games companies do. Nintendo is a video game company. So they should not charge for what others do for free.

Nintendo is shaming the industry by using backwards marketing tactics. They have no principles.
---
Currently playing: ZombiU, RE: Revelation, & Xenoblade