I like my games how I like my steak Feature - your thoughts

[mid]

And I'm pretty sure GE's diamonds are anything but flawless. If they were, the people behind them would be infinitely wealthy at the drop of a hat, totally devaluing the market long ago to the point where we'd be using toilet encrusted toilet paper to wipe our bums (ouch).

If anything, the problem is that they're TOO flawless. De Beers is currently managing to persuade the major diamond buyers that it's those flaws that demonstrate they're "real" diamonds and not fake manufactured stuff. GE then worked out how to flaw their diamonds in just the right way, and De Beers flew off the handle once more. I can't remember what their current excuse is, however.

On another note, there's no obvious packaging difference between a CD I buy for ?13.99 on release day and the ?2.99 one in the HMV sale, either, and yet full-price albums still exist.

[parkinho]

A couple of month ago i wouldn't have touched a Greatest Hits version of a game, but now i couldn't care less. yes, it is nice to have the original version, but at the end of the day it's the same game and you get the same gameplay experience, plus it's cheaper.

Agreed squire. It's the same goddamn game, I couldn't give a monkey's if my box says 'Platinum' or something similar.

I'm all for re-runs/re-prints of games if the demand is there. Preferably identical to the original in everyway so that the elitist collectors/hoarders get pissed off.

[eastyy]

What do people think of when they rerelease games but its a improvement?

For example ninja gaiden black and devil may cry special edition.

I would have thought i would have been annoyed them releasing a game that is cheaper then the initial release plus with lots of extras to.

For some reason though that was not the case

[Kubrick]

Supporting developer first time around? They don't see any of your money when you buy all that minty retro yet Sega do receive money for every copy of Rez that GQD sell as well as the initial lump sum.

Smacks of elitest hypocrisy to me.

I can understand why you think its elitist and I knew I would attract criticism for that post, but how does buying a retro game make me a hypocrite? Its not like I'm buying them at the expense of new releases - Any new games I'm interested in still get bought when they come out and the respective parties get their cut. Just like SEGA/UGA no doubt did when I bought Rez in 2001.
The retro stuff is just a side-story, a hobby if you will, and shouldn't really come into the argument about reprints/re-issues. That's a totally different issue in my book and my view still stands - If I don't get a game while its reasonably new, I run the risk of having trouble finding a copy later or having to make do with a budget version. Its the way things are and I accept it.

It's how things have been done since forever...In the past, computer games would be put on compilations but I guess they're too big/expensive for that, so companies just re-release them with cheaper-looking packaging now. This happens with DVDs/VHS tapes etc as well and by altering the packaging, they create an incentive for people to buy them new (and give the company a bigger slice of the profits) since many people prefer to have the first release with the original packaging.

Also, melody, you're assuming that I never owned "retro game X" and paid full-price for it, or at least bought it while the system was still doing the rounds in 199X, yes? You'd be surprised just how many of them I'm re-buying for the 2nd, 3rd or 4th time...
The NeoGeo is the only console I have bought completely retrospectively (ie: while it was "dead" with no new games being developed). With everything else, I've owned them during their active years at some point so I don't feel a shred of guilt about buying a game for them 10 years after they were killed-off by the manufacturers.

Anyway, I would like to read more views (not just a sarcastic smiley, Marklar! ) on this subject as I find it interesting and don't think it's quite as black & white as some might think.

[charlesr]

I've not had enough money to buy Shadow of the Colossus yet, because I'm too busy buying large numbers of PS2 and DC shooters. If they rerelease it later like they did with ICO, it means I'll have a chance to play it. I can't possibly buy all the games I want to play at full price, and I'm not particularly poor. Reprinting runs makes sense to me.

[Commander Marklar]

(not just a sarcastic smiley, Marklar! )

Well, see, here's the thing. How do you account for changing taste, disinterest in a particular genre only later wanting to learn about such and such? What about money or lack of hardware? I can thing of a thousand and one reasons why somebody wouldn't buy everything just because.

And that's just it. The way you put it seems like you're buying games for no reason other than to buy them, because. I might even say you being hypocritical selling them on when those buyers should be supporting publishers and developers buying games new, not lining your own pocket. Or do you believe by reselling and later using the money to purchase as many new games as you can afford, you're doing those publishers a favour?

I'm sorry. Your post is extreme elitism and the buyer power you have, to me, means your games are unvalued and quite possibly untouched. You have a problem!

[Kubrick]

I don't buy everything!. Only what I want/can afford. Every gamer prioritises where their money goes, surely? I'm no different and will wait for the price reductions/2nd-hand copies just like anyone else for stuff I'm not comfortable paying top-whack for.

I'm not sure I understand the re-selling thing though? I fear you have pictured me as someone who buys everything! as soon as it comes out just because then tosses away the stuff I don't want to keep - to fund more new releases?!
Hell no. Any game I buy it's because I want it, and I try to choose them carefully and go into each purchase with the intention of keeping it for as long as I have the hardware. I don't need to buy certain games to know I won't like them.

You have a problem!

Haha no doubt about that, but you actually have more games than me!

[eastyy]

I buy quite a bit of stuff but its just games i like.I do not buy for the sake of it.

For example i have 10 neo geo games there are many more out there but these 10 will do me as they are the games i like.

[charlesr]

And that's the safest way eastyy. The other way leads to the darkside. I'm on strict rations. I'm pretty sure I have a problem too and would happily buy far more than I could ever play properly if I could afford it.

[Commander Marklar]

Haha no doubt about that, but you actually have more games than me!

I'm a hordy not a buyer. I have a whole different kind of problem

[eastyy]

And that's the safest way eastyy. The other way leads to the darkside. I'm on strict rations. I'm pretty sure I have a problem too and would happily buy far more than I could ever play properly if I could afford it.

Trouble is there are games i wished i had got but could not afford it at the time.

Now the same games which i could not afford then i cannot now as there being sold for such huge prices

The idea of people buying games as a investment and not to play does not feel right to me at all

[MattyD]

Ont he note of supporting developers when the game first comes out - surely the publishers are printing enough to at least break even on the first run, or else what's the point? They aren't charities. There are very few titles (and I'm talking major titles like your San Andreases and Halo 2s) that can afford to have a development budget so large it can't be reclaimed without several and / or large print runs.

Logically we can conclude that any extra money the developers receive from re-issues (and let's not forget, they haven't stumped-up the capital so they've risked nothing) is easy profit on old stock.

Since that extra profit will almost certainly lead to higher investment in the next round of titles, I'd say re-issues are a positive thing and a good indication of how healthy the games market is today.