(rant) How Much Is The Highest You Would Pay For A Digital Or Modern Game.

[oldgamerz]

Games have actually gotten cheaper over the years

money is worth way less than it was back than not to mention that there where games especially rpg's with save memory wich costed close or over 100$. wich is even more $ by today standard inflation. money had more value back than.

The only exceptions to modern games being more expensive than back in the day are expensive dlc or lootboxes wich would increase the price well over 100 sometimes over 200$. but most games for 60 retail occasionally with the small 25$ or less dlc are cheaper than back in the day no questions asked.

To get back on topic: I'd like to quote what was said here earlier by @sworddude

I can agree that with modern technology make's it even cheaper to produce  all consoles and games both  today are now way way cheaper to produce now then back in the day.

Computer chips and even disc based and cartridges are a hell of a lot cheaper now to make than back in the 1970's 1980's 1990's and so on.

my point is why are games the same price or similar to the price we paid for our old games when they were released? Even without production costs? and why the hell, are the consoles not built to hold more games? It's all a gimmick. For you to spend more money on multiple modern consoles in order to keep games now.

But I could care less about modern games. Because I'll never play them in this lifetime, I don't care really I got tons games to play anyway. But I'm just saying for you guys part. and, for the fact that some of you don't even have access to retro video game like Australian collectors.

From what I heard in Australia, retro game prices there are a hell of a lot more there then in Europe and Japan and in the United States

My main complaint, is how many games that can't fit on one console. To me it makes the PS4 seem  like a PlayStation 1 with a 1mb memory card. And An Xbox One into an original Xbox with a primitive early 2000's vary expensive back then hard drive

Game are bigger today and have way better graphics but realistic graphics were just fine on the Xbox360 and PlayStation 3 in my opinion

[oldgamerz]

far fetched but do you think they no longer make games due to metals or electric radiation found in the earth and the pile up of discs and cartridges in city landfills?


maybe it has something to do with toxic waste pilling up in land fills? I don't know why game companies don't pruduce games anymore or like they used to other then to be greedy/ and again some factory workers in Japan or China are out a job or will be

I hope they will get support to feed their families

[Cartagia]

my point is why are games the same price or similar to the price we paid for our old games when they were released? Even without production costs?

Like sworddude said, if you account for inflation games are cheaper than they’ve ever been.  They were $50-60 in the 90s which is equivalent to over $100 today.

and why the hell, are the consoles not built to hold more games? It's all a gimmick. For you to spend more money on multiple modern consoles in order to keep games now.
[...]
My main complaint, is how many games that can't fit on one console. To me it makes the PS4 seem  like a PlayStation 1 with a 1mb memory card. And An Xbox One into an original Xbox with a primitive early 2000's vary expensive back then hard drive

You don’t  have to buy another console.  External HDDs are a thing and they are relative inexpensive.  I got an 8TB I use for my media for just over $100.  No, it’s not ideal to need to expand the space, but it is not prohibitively costly.

far fetched but do you think they no longer make games due to metals or electric radiation found in the earth and the pile up of discs and cartridges in city landfills?


maybe it has something to do with toxic waste pilling up in land fills? I don't know why game companies don't pruduce games anymore or like they used to other then to be greedy/ and again some factory workers in Japan or China are out a job or will be

I hope they will get support to feed their families

No I do not.  It’s cheaper to not produce discs, so indie studios are incentivized to not to physical releases to save money - and are the one case where I’m generally ok with buying digital.  AAA studios have found out that they can charge the same thing for a product that costs less.  Why would they not do that?  It has nothing to do with whatever you are going on about.

But I could care less about modern games. Because I'll never play them in this lifetime, I don't care really I got tons games to play anyway. But I'm just saying for you guys part. and,

Then why make a thread about it?  If one of the people who play these games are concerned, we will bring it up.

[Warmsignal]

What are you smoking, the gameboy line is far better than the Wii U.

I never cared much for trying to play video games on a gloried calculator screen, especially considering how crummy they looked compared to their 8-bit home console counterparts. In fact, I always found in completely unplayable. The Sega Game Gear, Atari Lynx, even the Neo Geo Pocket and Bandai Wonderswan were leagues ahead Game Boy, Color, and Advance. At least SP was finally backlit. I'm smoking facts. I pity the fool who'd choose a Game Boy over a Wii U. You gonna choose a Virtua Boy over PSVR?

[sworddude]

What are you smoking, the gameboy line is far better than the Wii U.

I never cared much for trying to play video games on a gloried calculator screen, especially considering how crummy they looked compared to their 8-bit home console counterparts. In fact, I always found in completely unplayable. The Sega Game Gear, Atari Lynx, even the Neo Geo Pocket and Bandai Wonderswan were leagues ahead Game Boy, Color, and Advance. At least SP was finally backlit. I'm smoking facts. I pity the fool who'd choose a Game Boy over a Wii U. You gonna choose a Virtua Boy over PSVR?

Those crappy handheld consoles better than GBA you can't be serious 

have you ever played neo geo pocket or wonderswan because those consoles where way less than the GBA advance it's not even a contest. better than gameboy color and gameboy classic for sure but the GBA was an inferior snes slightly worse but not by that much not to mention some things are better on gba than the snes. neo geo pocket and wonderswan do not come close to being as a snes. Gamegear did by far not even come close to the genesis/megadrive and you could clearly see the limitations even in it's best very late released games. besides you could play gameboy to gameboy advance games on a tv screen wich especially with gba is the way to go. if you would play any other old handheld console on the big screen it clearly is a handheld game and it's mediocre except when you do it with gba in wich it is excellent and in some cases better than snes.

and atari lynx? that system's library is absolute trash you can't even take that handheld seriously compared to the others.

Have you ever played the metroid games such as zero mission or metroid fusion on gba some consider those better than snes's super metroid not to mention that grapicly it's not much less than snes and by some considered better kinda hard to say that the gba was less than all those other handheld consoles while in reality it's a hell lot better no contest. Fire emblem games where more impressive looking on gba than the super famicom games. series such as advance wars the castlevania games. a very nice port of super mario world

there are tons of impressive games on the GBA. and when played on the big screen it's a console experience aside from being portable. you clearly know very little about handheld games if you put such handheld consoles as being miles ahead of the GBA console.

your smoking some real hardcore stuff if your telling me an atari lynx is miles ahead of the GBA and saying that these are true facts while in reality that console in terms of gameplay is allot worse than even the gameboy classic.

As far as back lit goes they sold equipment to give light while playing them handheld games. there is a reason why they did not introduce back lit since outside options are wat cheaper than making consoles backlit. The battery life of an atary lynx was horrible you needed to spend a ton of money on batteries not to mention that the retail price of the console was very expensive aswell thanks to these features. it was a wise decision to only introduce backlit way later on if it really was a problem there where additional accesoires wich where way cheaper for light solutions not to mention nice battery life.

if backlit really was an issue nintendo actually had the best solution compared to making an expensive handheld console. super gameboy on the snes in wich you could play them gameboy classic gameboy color games on your tv wich btw also give gameboy classic games color images wich also happens when you play them on a GBA.

[Warmsignal]

Those crappy handheld consoles better than GBA you can't be serious 

Let's start by just comparing the "top ten" games of Neo Geo Pocket Color to Advance.

NGP - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnWrvKrDweY

Advance - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CaJkcny7e8

That is not what I call a next-gen difference in graphics and presentation of the games. The graphical presentation of most GBA games is somewhere between sufficient and just plain ugly. The more detail they try to implement, the uglier the game usually looks. NGPC games are a bit more basic looking yes, but everything is clean and vibrant/colorful. Like FF Tactics, that's a perfect example of GBA ugliness. Blurry, overly detailed character models that don't mesh well with the background graphics, which by the way are super pixelated and blurry because again, highly detailed sprites in a super low resolution look like crap. It looks hideous, and a lot of GBA games look like that. Not so with NGP games, where everything is crisp and colorful with less detailed sprites but much more pleasing to the eyes.

Have you looked at Wonderswan Color games? The sprites and backgrounds are every bit as detailed as GBA. It has a very similar graphical style to GBA, and again released two years prior. It has a diverse line-up of equally hideous abominations. Square, Sega, Pokemon knock-offs, it's got it all if that's your bag.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lb7mZBPOp20&t=600s

Gamegear did by far not even come close to the genesis/megadrive and you could clearly see the limitations even in it's best very late released games. besides you could play gameboy to gameboy advance games on a tv screen wich especially with gba is the way to go. if you would play any other old handheld console on the big screen it clearly is a handheld game and it's mediocre except when you do it with gba in wich it is excellent and in some cases better than snes.

That's because Game Gear is basically Master System hardware crammed into a handheld, of course it's not a Genesis. Master System is nothing to sneeze at, it's a solid 8-bit console and frankly I'd take that classic 8-bit style over GBA any day, because again the presentation and colors are simply cleaner looking, and it has lots of good old fashion side-scrolling action games which I'll take over a bunch of a slow paced isometric games trying to be modern and quasi-3D. Despite only being Master System hardware, Sega managed to crank out some pretty sharp looking games on the Game Gear, some of which do look closer to 16-bit than 8-bit.

and atari lynx? that system's library is absolute trash you can't even take that handheld seriously compared to the others.

How about Ninja Gaiden, Double Dragon, California Games, Stun Runner, Batman Returns? Yeah the titles aren't fantastic but what's sad is some of the games look strikingly similar and in some cases better than GBA, and arguably could have never been done on SNES and we're talking about a handheld released in 1989! That alone is very impressive.

Have you ever played the metroid games such as zero mission or metroid fusion on gba some consider those better than snes's super metroid not to mention that grapicly it's not much less than snes and by some considered better kinda hard to say that the gba was less than all those other handheld consoles while in reality it's a hell lot better no contest. Fire emblem games where more impressive looking on gba than the super famicom games. series such as advance wars the castlevania games. a very nice port of super mario world

I've not played those, but I can tell you Mario Kart Super Circuit is a disgrace. I cannot believe that was all the Advance could muster. Ugly, slow, and crappy. I'd take Super Mario Kart any day. Sonic Drift 2 on the Game Gear is a better game.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NZMkE1bsxwI

your smoking some real hardcore stuff if your telling me an atari lynx is miles ahead of the GBA and saying that these are true facts while in reality that console in terms of gameplay is allot worse than even the gameboy classic.

I don’t have a ton of experience playing Lynx but some of the games look damn good for a handheld.

It's just that GBA should be a far more "advanced" experience to those older handheld systems, and it's simply not. It took Nintendo 12 years to reach a competitive level of quality in the handheld market with the Advance, and even then, I'd take other older hardware and older style games over what it offers. The GBA is just not for me, I'm not impressed with it, I have no nostalgia for it (even though I had an SP), and I think all of the good titles Nintendo put on it where done a disservice. Game Boy was a cheap-o handheld series aimed largely at younger kids. It wasn’t a serious gaming device and no iteration of it was worthwhile in my view.

if backlit really was an issue nintendo actually had the best solution compared to making an expensive handheld console. super gameboy on the snes in wich you could play them gameboy classic gameboy color games on your tv wich btw also give gameboy classic games color images wich also happens when you play them on a GBA.

I will give Nintendo props for having mercy and understanding that if you really wanted to play these games, then you needed to see them on a screen that wasn't cheap garbage. Thank god for that, but it's supposed to be a handheld! The hardware should have just been good to start with! Sorry, but GBA is at the bottom of my list of handhelds for many of the reasons mentioned above. This leads me back to my original point - it’s insulting to compare a cheap and cruddy handheld to the Wii U, let alone say it’s overall better.

[sworddude]

Let's start by just comparing the "top ten" games of Neo Geo Pocket Color to Advance.

NGP - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnWrvKrDweY

Advance - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CaJkcny7e8

That is not what I call a next-gen difference in graphics and presentation of the games. The graphical presentation of most GBA games is somewhere between sufficient and just plain ugly. The more detail they try to implement, the uglier the game usually looks. NGPC games are a bit more basic looking yes, but everything is clean and vibrant/colorful. Like FF Tactics, that's a perfect example of GBA ugliness. Blurry, overly detailed character models that don't mesh well with the background graphics, which by the way are super pixelated and blurry because again, highly detailed sprites in a super low resolution look like crap. It looks hideous, and a lot of GBA games look like that. Not so with NGP games, where everything is crisp and colorful with less detailed sprites but much more pleasing to the eyes.

Have you looked at Wonderswan Color games? The sprites and backgrounds are every bit as detailed as GBA. It has a very similar graphical style to GBA, and again released two years prior. It has a diverse line-up of equally hideous abominations. Square, Sega, Pokemon knock-offs, it's got it all if that's your bag.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lb7mZBPOp20&t=600s

That's because Game Gear is basically Master System hardware crammed into a handheld, of course it's not a Genesis. Master System is nothing to sneeze at, it's a solid 8-bit console and frankly I'd take that classic 8-bit style over GBA any day, because again the presentation and colors are simply cleaner looking, and it has lots of good old fashion side-scrolling action games which I'll take over a bunch of a slow paced isometric games trying to be modern and quasi-3D. Despite only being Master System hardware, Sega managed to crank out some pretty sharp looking games on the Game Gear, some of which do look closer to 16-bit than 8-bit.

i agree super mario kart on gba is garbage but I don't even like the snes version of the mario kart series or if I'm totally honest any 2d kart racing game period.

the first playable mario karts for me are mario kart 64 and ds. 2d and 3d mario kart are just different kinds of games.

that being said neo geo pocket I have played my fair of those games and they are very basic also the music and sounds are way worse than on 8 bit home consoles. sound is quite a bit of the game experience and that's not great on all other handheld consoles except from gba. and some of the gameboy classic tracks. i could say the same for game gear btw but that console is a bit worse than neo geo pocket (color).

Also how is the gba worse while having very decent ports of a link to the past snes, super mario world yosi's island also them advance wars, metroid fire emblem kirby , megaman & bass megaman zero 1 to 4 and castlevania all excellent looking games and a quite a bit more sonic advance 1 to 3 are way better than the sonic game on neo geo pocket.

metal slug advance on gba is way better than metal slug 1 and 2 on neo geo pocket 2nd mission one of the best looking neo geo pocket games how is that not a small difference. the grapical difference between gba and neo geo pocket is huge not to mention the superb music and sound effects on gba especially compared to even the wonderswan color there is no comparison.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPlCC58sRZw

metal slug advance

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-jJs_ikerE

Even wonderswan color the sounds are way less advanced comparable to early mostly worse gba sound effects and music it's very mediocre in terms of sounds. and grapic wise it's only compared with the medium low end stuff not the above average  high end wich have way better grapics. also only 90 games wich are mostly very subpar don;t make me laugh that this is comparable to gba you have to be joking. what a trash console that is. game gear and neo geo pocket are way better options than wonderswan color after looking at the full library of that console.

sure wonderswan looks better than gba's trash filler title grapics but is it truly an accomplishment to beat sombody's trash while even the top titles seem very mediocre and have horrible sounds.

I will not deny that there are a ton of bad looking gba games especially the filler titles in most cases look horrible but all systems have bad stuff that look as bad as pre generation consoles and a ton of them that's not a good excuse that happens with every retro console.

Everyone can have their opinion obviously. gba is not my favourite system but in terms of handhelds there is a ton less interesting stuff to play on handheld systems that are not gba. also unless your speaking fluent japanese a ton of those games are unplayable while doing so for a very mediocre system

GBA has excellent rpg's action games shoot em ups and them snes esq mascot games wich look very comparable. the other systems don't come close in terms of gameplay aside from way lesser quality sounds music and grapics.

in terms of zelda, kirby metroid and mario. I agree with super mario kart but otherwise the mascot games alone make the gba already a ton more interesting than the other handheld consoles

That's because Game Gear is basically Master System hardware crammed into a handheld, of course it's not a Genesis. Master System is nothing to sneeze at, it's a solid 8-bit console and frankly I'd take that classic 8-bit style over GBA any day, because again the presentation and colors are simply cleaner looking, and it has lots of good old fashion side-scrolling action games which I'll take over a bunch of a slow paced isometric games trying to be modern and quasi-3D. Despite only being Master System hardware, Sega managed to crank out some pretty sharp looking games on the Game Gear, some of which do look closer to 16-bit than 8-bit.

i disagree it should be a master system but the quality is a ton less. more like a poor mans master system even though the game gear has 4000 colours vs the master system wich has 64. Game gear games look allot worse than master system games and let's not forget the music and sound effects you can basicly write those of on game gear. obviously worse than master system
Game gear is an inferior master system logical since it's a handheld but i can't agree that it is basicly a master system.
let's look at power strike II on game gear vs master system

master system

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vk1yqYfbTQs

game gear

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cZs0-8zepk




I dare you to play some neo geo pocket or game gear games or if your bold atari lynx  and compare them to the likes of the snes ports of a link to the past mario world contra final fantasy III or games like metroid zero mission/fusion mario & luigi superstar saga gunstar heroes or any other great gba games

Let's see what you enjoy more even titles likes shinobi on game gear stand no chance against gba and they look really bad on game gear btw. if game gear truly had master system grapics it actually could have looked pretty decent.

also if you don't like the gba grapical style no worries gba got you covered

mario bros, castlevania zelda zelda II metroid 1 mighty final fight all have very nice ports of the nes games on gba.

there is almost no genre that the gba does not cover

we have run & gun we have plenty of action platfomers to many rpg's snes ports of the iconic snes classics shoot em ups puzzle games etc. everything that other handheld consoles have the gba has and more I see nothing what i would rather play on them older consoles aside from the games being different. if we would look at genre's alone I'd rather pick one of those games on gba than on any older handheld console wich already have less enjoyable experience thanks to the lack of good music and sound effects.

and atari lynx? that system's library is absolute trash you can't even take that handheld seriously compared to the others.

How about Ninja Gaiden, Double Dragon, California Games, Stun Runner, Batman Returns? Yeah the titles aren't fantastic but what's sad is some of the games look strikingly similar and in some cases better than GBA, and arguably could have never been done on SNES and we're talking about a handheld released in 1989! That alone is very impressive.

I pity the fool who would rather play double dragon on a atari lynx  than double dragon advance on gba

if you'd rather play double dragon on atari lynx than double dragon advance be my guest.

atary lynx is imo a way worse console than gameboy classic just try and play some games. colors are fun and all but in reality it's a very poor console in my experience. gameplay wise it is a downgrade compared to gameboy classic let alone gba.

if your still saying that other handhelds are better than gba your basicly saying neo geo pocket, game gear and wonderswan are better than a snes console. the grapical difference of the snes ports or other games that could have been on snes aren't to big and gameplay wise they are pretty much the same in for example a link to the past final fantasy III not to mention gba's unique games zelda four swords and minish cap that could have easily been snes games

[Warmsignal]

Also how is the gba worse while having very decent ports of a link to the past snes, super mario world yosi's island also them advance wars, metroid fire emblem kirby , megaman & bass megaman zero 1 to 4 and castlevania all excellent looking games and a quite a bit more sonic advance 1 to 3 are way better than the sonic game on neo geo pocket.

If you want to talk about systems that lack proper unique entries, where was Mario's GBA game? Probably better that it doesn't exist. They knew it would suck. Just like the Super Mario Land games. How many Sonic games were on Game Gear? Five, if you don't count the master system ports, and yes they were MS ports. Not all were great, but better than any exclusive Mario title for any Game Boy.

Link to The Past? Yoshi's Island? Why play those on a crummy GBA when you can play them on SNES?

also only 90 games wich are mostly very subpar don;t make me laugh that this is comparable to gba you have to be joking. what a trash console that is. game gear and neo geo pocket are way better options than wonderswan color after looking at the full library of that console.

I'm not even trying to say Wonderswan is good, in case you didn't notice I called the games abominations. I don't think any of it looks that good, but point being neither does GBA.

GBA has excellent rpg's action games shoot em ups and them snes esq mascot games wich look very comparable. the other systems don't come close in terms of gameplay aside from way lesser quality sounds music and grapics.

Sound maybe, but I doubt you'll convince me that there's anything I'm truly missing out on with GBA.

in terms of zelda, kirby metroid and mario. I agree with super mario kart but otherwise the mascot games alone make the gba already a ton more interesting than the other handheld console.

So interesting I've never felt the need to buy a single game for it in 15 years! Okay, I picked up ONE game. Lady Syia, and I don't even know if it's any good. Doesn't look very good.

i disagree it should be a master system but the quality is a ton less. more like a poor mans master system even though the game gear has 4000 colours vs the master system wich has 64. Game gear games look allot worse than master system games and let's not forget the music and sound effects you can basicly write those of on game gear. obviously worse than master system
Game gear is an inferior master system logical since it's a handheld but i can't agree that it is basicly a master system.
let's look at power strike II on game gear vs master system

This is literally not true. The Game Gear was designed to be a portable Master System "The console contains an 8-bit 3.5MHz Zilog Z80 chip for a central processing unit,[14] the same as the Master System. Its screen is 3.2 square inches in size and is able to display up to 32 colors at a time from a total palette of 4096 colors,[4] at a display resolution of 160 × 144 pixels." - Wikipedia with sources. The Game Gear also had a cart converter base where you can plug your Master System games into your Game Gear and play them.

master system

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vk1yqYfbTQs

game gear

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cZs0-8zepk

So.... which one are you saying is the worse game again? Because I'm thinking the GG version has a slight edge graphics wise despite smaller screen res, and MS version has a slight edge on the sound. Definitely no night and day difference here.

Let's see what you enjoy more even titles likes shinobi on game gear stand no chance against gba and they look really bad on game gear btw. if game gear truly had master system grapics it actually could have looked pretty decent.

You might check your eyes, because Game Gear is very very similar to Master System, because it was built with very similar specs.

atary lynx is imo a way worse console than gameboy classic just try and play some games. colors are fun and all but in reality it's a very poor console in my experience. gameplay wise it is a downgrade compared to gameboy classic let alone gba.

Again, I'm only saying the Lynx was an impressive handheld for it's time and could do things no other handheld could for many years. The GBA was not impressive given it was friggin' 2001 by then. Atari Lynx was was more advanced than GB classic and even though the games are janky, I'd much rather play those than pretty much any Game Boy. Then again I'd rather gouge my eyes out than play GB classic.

Much rather play this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apeFud7tCmI

Than this on a calculator's screen - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AF1C0xZxBOw

[sworddude]

I'm absolutely convinced now that you find those handhelds to be better than snes in your opinion. obviously gba has lower res sounds in most cases also music than on snes but it's a handheld  plenty of people say that the gba is basicly a snes console and many of the good games are snes like games.

also you clearly have a biased opinion if you find the super mario land games to be trash. tons of people find those games excellent.

tons of master system ports on game gear took quite a hit on game gear these are facts your delusional if you say that majority of game gear games look better than on the original master system. true there are some impressive genesis demakes of say dynamite headdy ristar gunstar heroes but gameplay wise and especially in sound it's nothing to write home about.

lower res is lesser grapics. obviously some sprites are bigger than on master system since it was designed for a small screen but it doesnt look as good as the master system version. I can't see how you find the game gear version of power strike II better looking grapic wise but o well who needs glasses i guess.

why would people get gba ports of said games and play them on a gba player for pretty much having snes games. for saving money perhaps especially if your going cib or in some cases even lose carts are a ton cheaper? or perhaps for playing a different kirby metroid or zelda game in the series wich look very simular to snes games. Look at a ton of rpg's on gba vs snes prices or say r - type III third lightning

besides aren't sonic 1 and 2 on sonic gear games poor ports of master system games with slight alterations. 

also unique games you say ports don't count. well you can pretty much throw a ton of atari lynx games away wich you mentioned than since all games are better on nes. a very sizable chunk of game gear games are also gone if you would say ports are gone.

I'm done just stay in your delusion that other handheld consoles are way better than gba wich basicly has snes games and in some cases arguably better looking with better sounds such as metal slug advance

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-jJs_ikerE


also why would anyone pick lady sia as their first gba game i pity that fool. I have that game aswell It's a decent game but it's not great in comparison to the actually good gba games. just stick with your love for the wii U I never intented to stop you. you probably picked it up for cheap or free as far as lady sia goes i cant imagine anyone going out of their way getting especially lady sia as their first gba game even if the game is fairly cheap in the first place.

The wii u did it's job it was good for smash and mario kart 8 and a few other sides games but it is easily the most forgetattble nintendo console

mario kart 8 had the worst battle mode of all mario kart games using actual race tracks as stages 
a zelda game when the system was dead wich was the laucnh title for switch
a 3d mario game wich looks like a 2d mario game wich ad cat suits for even bowser 
the sides games let's not talk about that on wii u. during it's life time people where complaining that the wii u had so few games the entire time. there is a reason why everyhing will get ports and why nintendo wants to hide their failure that was the wii u.

It's just that GBA should be a far more "advanced" experience to those older handheld systems, and it's simply not. It took Nintendo 12 years to reach a competitive level of quality in the handheld market with the Advance, and even then, I'd take other older hardware and older style games over what it offers. The GBA is just not for me, I'm not impressed with it, I have no nostalgia for it (even though I had an SP), and I think all of the good titles Nintendo put on it where done a disservice. Game Boy was a cheap-o handheld series aimed largely at younger kids. It wasn’t a serious gaming device and no iteration of it was worthwhile in my view.

That's kinda funny actually. nintendo always had competitive lvl's of prices gameboy was 90 gameboy color  70 and advance at 99. i can't imagine what the games would look like if we would have had comparable prices such as game gear or atai lynx but low prices give bigger sales.

game gear was 150$ atari lynx was 189 $. only neo geo pocket had a competive lvl of price but isnt that much older than gba and has comparable grapics to the best gameboy color games

in terms of actual quality all these handheld consoles have crappy libraries in comparison and in terms of durability o boy.

Tons of game gear games have malfunctions with sound or the screen. dead pixels etc. same goes for atari lynx they where poorly made even though there prices where high. only neo geo pocket seems to have the same durability as nintendo's handheld consoles if you find a functioning console in the wild for those two your pretty lucky these days even unused copies could have malfunctions as far as these consoles go. for nintendo consoles these upgrades are optional not a must and most folks stick with the vanilla withouth any fancy modern upgrades.

even if a nintendo handheld console is super beat up in a ton of times it still works perfectly. in terms of actual quality the other hand held consoles sucked even though there msrp's where way higher. They are unplayable to many people who like to play handheld games. people spend 50 to 100+ extra on mods modern upgrades $ to get a reliable console to play those games on in terms of atari lynx or especially the game gear even if the console was fully functional in the first place that's the kind of thrust people have in those consoles since they do break down pretty fast at some point. lack of quality in my opinion.

I'm very suprised that you still have interest snes games considering that you find other handheld games to be better in terms of gameplay and visuals but hey to each their own.

[Warmsignal]

just stick with your love for the wii U I never intented to stop you. you probably picked it up for cheap or free

That's kinda funny actually. nintendo always had competitive lvl's of prices gameboy was 90 gameboy color  70 and advance at 99. i can't imagine what the games would look like if we would have had comparable prices such as game gear or atai lynx but low prices give bigger sales.

game gear was 150$ atari lynx was 189 $. only neo geo pocket had a competive lvl of price but isnt that much older than gba and has comparable grapics to the best gameboy color games

in terms of actual quality all these handheld consoles have crappy libraries in comparison and in terms of durability o boy.

Tons of game gear games have malfunctions with sound or the screen. dead pixels etc. same goes for atari lynx they where poorly made even though there prices where high. only neo geo pocket seems to have the same durability as nintendo's handheld consoles if you find a functioning console in the wild for those two your pretty lucky these days even unused copies could have malfunctions as far as these consoles go. for nintendo consoles these upgrades are optional not a must and most folks stick with the vanilla withouth any fancy modern upgrades.

even if a nintendo handheld console is super beat up in a ton of times it still works perfectly. in terms of actual quality the other hand held consoles sucked even though there msrp's where way higher. They are unplayable to many people who like to play handheld games. people spend 50 to 100+ extra on mods modern upgrades $ to get a reliable console to play those games on in terms of atari lynx or especially the game gear even if the console was fully functional in the first place that's the kind of thrust people have in those consoles since they do break down pretty fast at some point. lack of quality in my opinion.

I'm very suprised that you still have interest snes games considering that you find other handheld games to be better in terms of gameplay and visuals but hey to each their own.

My point exactly, Nintendo sold cruddy portable hardware that cost less to produce, and it always showed. But, the 7 year old little Timmys of the world didn't know any better. They didn't know Nintendo was ripping them off, it was just meant to keep them quiet in the back seat of a car. It was was a cheap enough "toy" as most people thought.

Yeah dead caps happen, and it causes issues with a lot of other handhelds because eventually all caps will die. I can replace the caps myself, I've done it, and it brings everything back to life and good to go for another 30 years. I'd be surprised if there's any caps inside of a GameBoy. I think that thing runs mostly off of ants and broken dreams. Again, rather play nothing than play one of those. I'd rather play a Game Gear that you can barely see or hear. I'd rather play a Tiger Electronics wrist watch game.

Yeah, I'm not a fan of GBA. I've played more than Lady Syia and still not impressed. I've not felt compelled to even bother collecting games for it or any Game Boy system. It's just sub-par and so unappealing. I'd rather play an SNES. I'd rather play the infinitely better DS, Nintendo's first handheld worth playing and ironically probably the best handheld ever. If I'm going to play something Game Boy, it's going to be on the TV player.

We've had the discussion about SNES. I think you know my thoughts on that. But when it comes to SNES games, I'd rather play them on SNES for sure. It's kind of cheap to count those as killer apps for a handheld, especially since they couldn't possibly be better than the originals.

[sworddude]

We've had the discussion about SNES. I think you know my thoughts on that. But when it comes to SNES games, I'd rather play them on SNES for sure. It's kind of cheap to count those as killer apps for a handheld, especially since they couldn't possibly be better than the originals.

actually there are quite some people that say that a link to the past on gba is the way to go the definitive version of a link to the past it has quality of life changes it has an extra end game dungeon and some other extra's so it's not exactly the same.

snes has slightly better grapics, sound and ofcourse a slightly bigger screen since it's a home console game but gba has the extra stuff

among zelda fans there quite some people who are not choosing the snes version as the no1 way to play the game.

so in a way it's kinda hard to say if the snes version is truly the best version to play at least as far as the general consensus goes

also in terms of for example mario bros 3 the gba version tons of stuff added and for many the way to go as another example of a port being arguable superior. i could obviously mention more examples but you get what i mean.

Just saying that your comment ain't necessarily true

[hoshichiri]

Hey guys? Can we roll the handheld debate off to another thread? It's an interesting subject, but it's decidedly off-topic for discussing pricing of digital games.

Getting back on track- I think the advent of boutique publishers doing small print runs of digital indies is having an interesting effect on what I, at least, deem worthy of spending money on. I'm not a big fan of digital, so since the beginning of this year I can only think of 5 titles I bought & downloaded- Wandersong, Gris, Donut County, Sayonara Wild Hearts, & Untitled Goose Game. Of those, 4 are getting small print releases, and as big as Goose Game's gotten, I fully expect it to go physical within a year.

This is making it all the more impossible for me to get past my $20 paywall, because now I practically expect the games I'm interested in to get a physical release- meaning I now must assume I'll be paying another $20-30 for the game down the road to get that physical copy. If a game doesn't grab me shortly after release, I'm not likely to buy it at all becuase I'm waiting for that physical announcement- something that's actually paid off on multiple occasions (Hellblade: Sensua's Sacrifice, Freedom Planet, & Transistor all come to mind). It's an interesting thing to witness- of my last gen digital choices, only Child of Light & the Journey collection made the jump- for this go-round almost everything's ended up on some sort of physical release.

[aliensstudios]

Hey guys? Can we roll the handheld debate off to another thread? It's an interesting subject, but it's decidedly off-topic for discussing pricing of digital games.

Getting back on track- I think the advent of boutique publishers doing small print runs of digital indies is having an interesting effect on what I, at least, deem worthy of spending money on. I'm not a big fan of digital, so since the beginning of this year I can only think of 5 titles I bought & downloaded- Wandersong, Gris, Donut County, Sayonara Wild Hearts, & Untitled Goose Game. Of those, 4 are getting small print releases, and as big as Goose Game's gotten, I fully expect it to go physical within a year.

This is making it all the more impossible for me to get past my $20 paywall, because now I practically expect the games I'm interested in to get a physical release- meaning I now must assume I'll be paying another $20-30 for the game down the road to get that physical copy. If a game doesn't grab me shortly after release, I'm not likely to buy it at all becuase I'm waiting for that physical announcement- something that's actually paid off on multiple occasions (Hellblade: Sensua's Sacrifice, Freedom Planet, & Transistor all come to mind). It's an interesting thing to witness- of my last gen digital choices, only Child of Light & the Journey collection made the jump- for this go-round almost everything's ended up on some sort of physical release.

I've gone through this same thing. I ended up having to double-dip on games like Sonic Mania and Wonder Boy: The Dragon's Trap, while other times patience paid off with games like Shovel Knight, Hollow Knight, Snipperclips, Golf Story, Mega Man 9 & 10 and Unravel.

I never bought Cuphead because even before it was announced, I was fairly certain they would ship a physical version someday. Now I'm just waiting for Marble it Up to perhaps get a physical version someday.

[Warmsignal]

Hey guys? Can we roll the handheld debate off to another thread? It's an interesting subject, but it's decidedly off-topic for discussing pricing of digital games.

I've said my piece. lol

[pzeke]

The most I would pay for a digital game is $5, quite frankly. Maybe I'd be willing to shell out a couple more bucks if there are some perks included with it, like soundtracks and such, but that’s pushing it. I’m a shameless cheapskate.

The most I would pay for physical is somewhere arund $20 being the cheapest and $60 being the ultimate price for something I'm quite interested in, pretty much the standard for any release. A collector’s edition has to really, really, REALLY entice me to even consider buying it. However, spending hundreds for these types of releases is definitely not an option for me.

Like I said, though, I’m a cheapskate, and with my never-ending backlog, I tend to get games once their hype has died down and I can find them for cheap new or used. Case and point, I was planning on getting a PS4 in order to play Kingdom Hearts III during its week of release, and the day I went to Walmart to get both, I didn’t. I just stood there in front of the glass pane staring at the console, saying in my head that I can wait.