Thread 11932238

>"arcade games are quarter munchers"
>"3rd and 4th gen games are hard to make them impossible to beat by renting them just once"
Why do people say these as if they were bad things? They had to be commercially viable and technical limitations prevented the games from being too packed back then.

What the hell is a 3rd and 4th gen?

>>11932238 (OP)
>Why do people say these as if they were bad things? They had to be commercially viable
Because now, for a player, all that matters, is fun. Not how it was designed to be profitable.

Brainrot thread

>>11932238 (OP)
True quarter munchers that are impossible to complete on a single credit are very rare and mostly US developed games, or Japanese developed games that the US branch fucked with.

I miss when retarded frogposting threads were deleted on sight

>>11932238 (OP)
The "make it too hard to beat rentals" thing was also very much US-developer centric thing to do. Or again, Japanese developed game fucked with by US branch.

>>11932249
>thread about current discourse
>posts historical shilling in magazines

>>11932238 (OP)
Easy is a state of mind I can't finish mario easy on switch 1

>>11932260
You see that's precisely the problem with letting frogposting retards roam free, they keep posting.

>>11932240
NES and SNES, or Sega System and Genesis if you are one of those people.

>>11932238 (OP)
>"arcade games are quarter munchers"
Sort of, arcade proprietors did want a machine to be profitable, but this had a balance to it as well.

If an arcade game was way too easy and any customer can just waltz over the game with one quarter, then they probably aren't going to play the game that many times, thus the machine doesn't make that much money.
If the game instead is bullshit hard, and it's not very fun to play because it's just unfair and tedious, well, people aren't gonna spend much money on that either, nobody wants to play a game that's unfun (aside from the modern day Naughtydog audience).

So ideally you want a game which people really want to play, but which they are going to have to spend SOME money on to play, but because the game is good, they are going to WANT to spend money on it, hell, maybe the game is so good that people want to play it again even after beating it, and/or it has a good multiplayer component where people want to pay money to play it with their friends.

If people called a game a "quarter muncher," chances are the proprietor turned up the difficulty with the switches and options and set them too high, ruining the gameplay and making it unfun.

>>11932238 (OP)

>"3rd and 4th gen games are hard to make them impossible to beat by renting them just once"
This one's a half-truth and it echoes the previous part, and relates mainly to actual buying.

If you spent your hard earned money on a new game and you were completely done with it in an hour, that's kinda lame, that's not very good value (and it also differs some from expectations set by arcades). People didn't want a bullshit hard game, but they also didn't want a game which didn't put up a fight, challenge was seen as part of a game's value.

A place renting out games certainly would like it if customers couldn't beat it in one weekend, but rental places didn't exactly have that much industry pull (hell, they were b& in Japan and Nintendo hated Blockbuster), and rental places didn't exactly tend to pass along profits to devs or publishers.

However, just the same, if the game is more attractive to customers, then they are more likely to rent them, so just the same, Blockbuster would end up wanting more good games because they would be more likely to make them more money.

Some people want to interpret these things in a much more cynical manner, usually one which isn't realistic, and usually because of an acute case of Scrub Personality Disorder.

>>11932238 (OP)
I only hate timers in shit like castlevania, it's like the score system in mega man but actively annoying

>>11932247
Yeah, they really weren't the norm.

>>11932249
Me too, I think a lot of jannies and mods have fled and we're kind of just left to fate, currently.

I recognize your posting and you seem dedicated, so maybe consider doing it for free if they ever open up applications again. It's thankless, but without someone to sweep up bullshit 7th gen threads and culture war threads, they're just gonna accrue on the board.

>>11932258
I guess MAYBE this was done some on the U.S end? I don't know of any verified examples though, and it'd be easy to ruin the profitability of titles by making them way too hard.

not even frog shit gets deleted anymore. this board is fully 6th gen zoomer /v/ermin now

You can factor in word of mouth to all of this as well. The worst thing kids at school will say about your game is to not bother spending money on it because it sucks, meanwhile, if kids like the game and encourage each other to try it, that encourages money being spent on your game.

The best way to make the latter happen is if your game is good, which includes your game not being too easy, because people don't want games which are too easy (even if that can be a largely subjective metric at times, which is why selectable difficulty levels is a good compromise, and also allowing certain increased replayability by offering a higher challenge after beating the game).

>>11932238 (OP)
>Why do people say these as if they were bad things?
"People" playing arcade games and 3rd/4th generation console video games where known to be "children" who didn't have "jobs" and, therefore, didn't have superfluous amounts of "money."
It was fun, but costly. Costly meant that it minimized how much children (or how many children) got to play them, which led to depression and anger when NOT playing them.
And what do people, especially children, DO when they're upset? They complain.

I KNOW!!!
This is INCREDIBLE human behavior! The kind you never knew about! But, I like helping, so, you're welcome for the insight!
:)

>>11932391
It was mostly licensed dreck that was terrible anyway.