Topic: Goldeneye Wii

[Mop it up]

Exactly. So they should have released it on the other systems back at the same time as the Wii version, without anything extra (besides the obvious increase in graphics).

[NWR_insanolord]

It's a shame that Activision wouldn't consider releasing GoldenEye for $15 on the download platforms, because I'd bet they'd make more money that way than they would as a retail release.

[Mop it up]

I think that would be a bigger insult to the people who bought the Wii version than what they are already doing.

[broodwars]

Exactly. So they should have released it on the other systems back at the same time as the Wii version, without anything extra (besides the obvious increase in graphics).

Eh, I don't think so.  We all saw how Black Ops completely destroyed nearly everything that released last November.  The right time for the game to release on all platforms probably is in Q1 of the year, so for this HD GoldenEye I'd probably put it out in January or February.  As far as I can remember, Mass Effect 3 and Final Fantasy XIII-2 are the only two big games set for that time period and the MW3/Battlefield 3 buzz would likely have worn off somewhat by then.

It's a shame that Activision wouldn't consider releasing GoldenEye for $15 on the download platforms, because I'd bet they'd make more money that way than they would as a retail release.

Agreed.  It's like how that NBA JAM successor is now coming on the download platforms after the retail release didn't go so well last year.  I suspect that Dead Space Extraction sold better as a download title than it ever did on Wii, as well.

[Mop it up]

The point is, that would have been better than what they are doing.

I suspect that Dead Space Extraction sold better as a download title than it ever did on Wii, as well.

Which is proof that the title was not worth full price, and doesn't have to do with it being on the Wii.

[NWR_insanolord]

I don't believe he was arguing it had anything to do with it being the Wii. He seemed to see the same significance in it as you do.

[Retro Deckades]

I'm RomanceDawn - I'm pretty sure you are on my list as well. How often do you play and around what times?

I've been playing quite frequently lately, with no consistent time, although I generally tend to play anytime between 10 AM and 5:30 PM. I'll probably be MIA for the next week or so, but come near the end of July/beginning of August, I'll be picking it up again.

I didn't know anywhere here still played. Maybe I should pop the game in real soon and join in...

Ya Mop, you should definitely get in on this!

[Chocobo_Rider]

I really don't see what Wii-only owners have to complain about here.  You got an excellent FPS designed specifically for the Wii with multiple control methods and online play, and you'll have had it for roughly a year before the HD consoles.  It's everything that Wii owners have demanded from 3rd party developers for years.  You got a quality experience and your money's worth, so what do you care if the HD consoles get a prettier version with a new mode a year later for probably a higher price?  It's like me complaining about "not getting the best version" because I'm buying Batman: Arkham City on the PS3 when there will be a Wii U version with potentially more content a year later.  I'll have bought the version I wanted and got the enjoyment I wanted, and I'll be satisfied with that.

This is not at all a bad point.  And in the past I've tried to tell myself that time VS. content was a fair trade, but ultimately that's just not the type of gamer I am.

Just speaking personally, this is really annoying because I would always rather wait a year and know I was getting the best version.

Also, as I tried to imply earlier, it just feels insulting because
A) it is the success of the Wii version leads to these other enhanced remakes ... talk about a catch 22!
B) it never plays out in the Wii's favor.  we never get the RE5s with SD graphics and added content because it did well on other platforms.  even worse, we never get the added content on the Wii.  If it is a game I already love, I would gladly trade it in for the enhanced version (maybe not at full price mind you).

One might say: "But my dear NinSage, this sounds very contradictory to your stance on DLC and iterative releases? Isn't trading in normal for enhanced the same as ponying up for DLC? Isn't asking for an enhanced version a year later the same exact thing as an iterative release?"

It is a fine line.  But no.  I can play the new game on any compatible system in 20 years (even if its made by Yobo!). I won't be able to bring DLC to any new platform in 20 years.  Thus, one is still a purchase while the other is still a rental.  I'm sure a lot of gamers don't care about playing games 2 years later let alone 20... but I regard games the same way many regard novels.  They collect on my shelf indefinitely and when the mood strikes me, even if I'm old and gray, I can revisit them any time!

As for the iterative release aspect, I don't like when it's planned ahead of time, but the HD releases tend to merely be piggy-backed off the dollars I already spent.  Even if it was planned, at least acknowledge your original fans with the option of the enhanced version should they choose to buy it.

[marty]

Maybe they'll make a Wii U port of the XBox/PS versions and the universe can implode.

[Mop it up]

I don't believe he was arguing it had anything to do with it being the Wii. He seemed to see the same significance in it as you do.

If that is true, then he is implying that Goldeneye is not worth full price, which I would also disagree with. Why should it be acceptable for these games to be $50 on Wii but $15 on the other systems? Getting it sooner is not a valid reason as far as I'm concerned.

[broodwars]

I don't believe he was arguing it had anything to do with it being the Wii. He seemed to see the same significance in it as you do.

If that is true, then he is implying that Goldeneye is not worth full price, which I would also disagree with. Why should it be acceptable for these games to be $50 on Wii but $15 on the other systems? Getting it sooner is not a valid reason as far as I'm concerned.

Actually, that was what I was arguing with Dead Space Extraction: I liked the game, but the market spoke when it came to the game's price.  $50 was judged too much for a full retail experience, but $15 (or even FREE via Dead Space 2) via digital download with some minor additions is a much more enticing offer.

And have I not said multiple times now that I thought Goldeneye on Wii was a good game?  That said, its prospective HD audience will know that this is a port of a game from what is generally considered by that audience a "lesser console", but beyond that it's a game that's already a year old and can already be purchased on Wii for as little as $20.  There will also be less money in the marketplace to go towards $50-$60 games like this when there are other NEW games for the same price coming out at the same time.  It's been my experience that I feel much less hesitant to purchase games at $10-$20 via digital download than I am to purchase a game priced that or greater in retail.  I think if Activision released the game at $15-$20 on the digital services that they could scoop up the cash "left on the table" after their fans had already purchased something like Modern Warfare 3.  I just don't see how this game moves units at or near full price this Fall among so many other more worthy games.

[Mop it up]

A good game that Wii owners should pay $50 for but the others should pay $15 for a better version? Sorry, but I still don't get it. A game is worth what it's worth regardless of release time or competition. Maybe if it worked both ways then it would soften the blow, but the Wii didn't get any discounts on receiving Call of Duty: Modern Warfare two years late and a couple features short. If Goldeneye were to be a multiplatform release then all versions should have been released already, but at least it appears it's going to be a full-priced retail game so it doesn't feel so much of a rip-off.

[broodwars]

A good game that Wii owners should pay $50 for but the others should pay $15 for a better version? Sorry, but I still don't get it. A game is worth what it's worth regardless of release time or competition. Maybe if it worked both ways then it would soften the blow, but the Wii didn't get any discounts on receiving Call of Duty: Modern Warfare two years late and a couple features short. If Goldeneye were to be a multiplatform release then all versions should have been released already, but at least it appears it's going to be a full-priced retail game so it doesn't feel so much of a rip-off.

So it's Activision's problem that you couldn't be bothered to play the game you paid full price for at launch, and now you feel ripped off?

[Mop it up]

Eh? I didn't buy it for full price at launch. It's because it will have more features. If all it had were improved graphics, I wouldn't care about it.

[broodwars]

Eh? I didn't buy it for full price at launch. It's because it will have more features. If all it had were improved graphics, I wouldn't care about it.

The only extra feature it has that I can find is a silly challenge mode, which will probably suck.  The improved visuals are nicer than the originals, but it's not like this thing is going to compete with any AAA game released this year on a technical level.  The bottom-line I think is that this is a year-old port, and fair or not it's going to carry a negative stigma from being a Wii game.  I don't see the intended audience willing to pay the same amount at the HD launch as at the original Wii launch, not when HD games depreciate in value fairly rapidly within even a month of the original release in some cases.

As for the Call of Duty 4 Reflex Edition, I don't agree with the game not being discounted, but I think that was Activision seeing what they could get away with considering the ridiculous sales from previous franchise games.  There are some legit costs in play as well in the conversion between the 360 and Wii, necessitating the game to be partially rebuilt in many cases.

[Mop it up]

That's why I think they should have released the other versions at the same time as the Wii game or not at all.

There are some legit costs in play as well in the conversion between the 360 and Wii, necessitating the game to be partially rebuilt in many cases

Are there not costs involved converting a Wii game to the XBox 360 and PS3? Can you offer anything besides speculation that it cost more to convert Modern Warfare to the Wii than it did to convert Goldeneye to the other systems? Maybe that's why it's a full-price game instead of a cheaper download.

[broodwars]

There are some legit costs in play as well in the conversion between the 360 and Wii, necessitating the game to be partially rebuilt in many cases

Are there not costs involved converting a Wii game to the XBox 360 and PS3? Can you offer anything besides speculation that it cost more to convert Modern Warfare to the Wii than it did to convert Goldeneye to the other systems? Maybe that's why it's a full-price game instead of a cheaper download.

I have some experience in 3D modeling, and in my experience it's far easier to add detail or polygons to a model than to remove them.  Activision may have had to partially rebuild characters and environments just because it would be easier than cutting the existing ones down.  It's hard to say.  Going the opposite direction is much easier, though, since you can just layer details on top of what's already there, split polygons to add further detail, and add additional lighting.  Textures would have to be completely remade, though, if you want them to look nice (by contrast, it's pretty easy to down-res existing textures).  Only Activision knows for sure, of course.

[Chocobo_Rider]

It's because it will have more features. If all it had were improved graphics, I wouldn't care about it.

Maybe if it worked both ways then it would soften the blow, but the Wii didn't get any discounts on receiving Call of Duty: Modern Warfare two years late and a couple features short.

Agreed.

[NWR_insanolord]

Honestly, I'm extremely impressed by how close Activision managed to get the Call of Duty Wii games to the 360/PS3/PC versions. I don't think you can complain about that.

[Mop it up]

No one is complaining about that. All I'm saying is the one that was two years late should have had a lower price. Otherwise, that's a double-standard.

[alegoicoe]

Well, Activision managed to get CoD to the wii, but it was a mess, i mean that game has n64 textures.

[bustin98]

Have you played CoD on the Wii on a standard def tv? Play that then go hook up your N64 to the same tv and then come back and tell us about the N64 textures. You're either giving the N64 too much credit or CoD not enough credit.

[Chocobo_Rider]

Have you played CoD on the Wii on a standard def tv? Play that then go hook up your N64 to the same tv and then come back and tell us about the N64 textures. You're either giving the N64 too much credit or CoD not enough credit.

It's funny how this generation scrutinizes graphics more than any previous one, yet has the poorest compare/contrast skills.

And by "funny," I of course mean "sad" =P

[kraken613]

This game is $10 at Gamestop this week.