Lunar Threads

Lunar is the solution. If everyone buys a copy, there will be a seq....AHEM!...the economy will be fixed.

Old_School wrote:Lunar is the solution. If everyone buys a copy, there will be a seq....AHEM!...the economy will be fixed.

We must all buy several copies of Lunar!

Lunar is Universal Healthcare, everyone needs it.

http://news.vgchartz.com/news.php?id=7049

american preorder chart

lunar stands @ 31k...

wow US just beaten the jap version...

Those numbers aren't to be considered accurate, but it would be nice if they were and went even higher.

Silver Phoenix wrote:Those numbers aren't to be considered accurate, but it would be nice if they were and went even higher.

yeah hopefully...

Vyse of Arcadia wrote:I've found that the places with the cheapest rent are college towns. So long as you don't mind putting up with more concentrated idiocy than normal, it's not so bad. I've a 3 bedroom apartment, no roommates, about $650 per month, all bills accounted for. Then again, Alabama also has one of the lowest costs of living in the US.

But yeah, I found it funny how vocally people complained about $60 PS3 and 360 games. I guess they never noticed their parents paying $60-$80 for Genesis and SNES games.

Yep.

$80 Phantasy Star games I believe 3 was around $83 at one time? Final Fantasy 3 snes had to be around $75 too. Hell I remember Mortal Kombat Trilogy on n64 being $75 new. And that $300 Sega CD too. I've got old electronics boutique catalogs they would mail you from around 1994 and so with tons of stuff like this. A $50+ Barbie snes game? XD

Was Lunar 2 EBC on ps1 $70 new by the way? I forget. I know it has all the extras too. But I was just trying to remember the new retail prices for the ps1 remakes.

TerraBemani wrote:
Yep.

$80 Phantasy Star games I believe 3 was around $83 at one time? Final Fantasy 3 snes had to be around $75 too. Hell I remember Mortal Kombat Trilogy on n64 being $75 new. And that $300 Sega CD too. I've got old electronics boutique catalogs they would mail you from around 1994 and so with tons of stuff like this. A $50+ Barbie snes game? XD

Was Lunar 2 EBC on ps1 $70 new by the way? I forget. I know it has all the extras too. But I was just trying to remember the new retail prices for the ps1 remakes.

And that was when we had less inflation and money was worth more. I think EBC was $60 new.

Old_School wrote:

TerraBemani wrote:
Yep.

$80 Phantasy Star games I believe 3 was around $83 at one time? Final Fantasy 3 snes had to be around $75 too. Hell I remember Mortal Kombat Trilogy on n64 being $75 new. And that $300 Sega CD too. I've got old electronics boutique catalogs they would mail you from around 1994 and so with tons of stuff like this. A $50+ Barbie snes game? XD

Was Lunar 2 EBC on ps1 $70 new by the way? I forget. I know it has all the extras too. But I was just trying to remember the new retail prices for the ps1 remakes.

And that was when we had less inflation and money was worth more. I think EBC was $60 new.

$60 sounds right. I know it was a pretty penny for me at the time when I didn't have much money.

I do wish game prices would go down. Once everything is digital they might... not that that's what I want to see either though.

You would think Digital Downloads would make games cost less but it won't. You can see full game prices for digital downloads are the same as the actual manufactured game prices.

Cartridges were more expensive to manufacture than cds, so that was a big reason for the technology to shift. Of course I'm not a fan of paying $60 for every damn PS3 game either.

I remember Virtua Racing for the Genesis was $100 when it released.

Silver Phoenix wrote:You would think Digital Downloads would make games cost less but it won't. You can see full game prices for digital downloads are the same as the actual manufactured game prices.

The form of media has almost no bearing on the price. The same holds true for books: hardcover and paperbacks have a less-than-$1 difference to make, and paper itself is relatively cheap. The selling price is nearly all based on expectations of what someone can charge, and recovering development/marketing costs. So, whether it's digital download or physical media will have little to no bearing on the price. KF

Final Night wrote:I do wish game prices would go down. Once everything is digital they might... not that that's what I want to see either though.

Actually they have gone down when you adjust for inflation. But the problem is that console games cost significantly more to make these days.

Unfortunately, this means console game prices should really be going up, not down.

Silver Phoenix wrote:You would think Digital Downloads would make games cost less but it won't.

Well, potentially, they could price the digital version lower, but this would anger the big distributors (e.g., Gamestop).

Kizyr wrote:

Silver Phoenix wrote:You would think Digital Downloads would make games cost less but it won't. You can see full game prices for digital downloads are the same as the actual manufactured game prices.

The form of media has almost no bearing on the price. The same holds true for books: hardcover and paperbacks have a less-than-$1 difference to make, and paper itself is relatively cheap. The selling price is nearly all based on expectations of what someone can charge, and recovering development/marketing costs. So, whether it's digital download or physical media will have little to no bearing on the price. KF

Why are you making a point of trying to negate what I'm saying when I'm saying the same basic thing without going into detail about price versus format? The premise is the same.

Silver Phoenix wrote:Why are you making a point of trying to negate what I'm saying when I'm saying the same basic thing without going into detail about price versus format? The premise is the same.

Why are you assuming that I'm trying to negate your point in the first place?

On forums, occasionally people like to support other folks' points with a different perspective.

I really think you need to get out of the habit of assuming that everyone responding to you is doing so to contradict you. It's starting to affect the quality of your posts. KF

Well, you could say "in agreement" when quoting directly. You forget this thing called the internet where expression can be taken a multitude of ways and very easily misunderstood. I am not the only person on this forum who takes a defensive stand when they feel offended in some form, regardless of it being intentional or not.

I just happen to be one of the few who clarifies it, and makes sure there's no ill intent. For whatever reason the atmosphere on here seems to be defensive as of late, and it certainly isn't just me.

Silver Phoenix wrote:Well, you could say "in agreement" when quoting directly. You forget this thing called the internet where expression can be taken a multitude of ways and very easily misunderstood. I am not the only person on this forum who takes a defensive stand when they feel offended in some form, regardless of it being intentional or not.

No. I'm not going to state the obvious when something can easily be inferred from the actual content of my post. There wasn't any emotion behind what I said before, and there wasn't any hidden subtext behind it. It was simply a statement of fact, connected to something you had said already.

If you quit assuming that everyone who responds to you is out to contradict you, you'll likely find that fewer people than you believe actually are contradicting you in the first place. Your earlier post wasn't clarifying nor asking anything; it was assuming that I was negating you in the first place.

Furthermore, there are many people who do disagree with you on several things (myself included). Most people here are able to adopt a calm attitude about it. About 90% of the time you have as well; the last month or so has been an odd exception. Really, what happened? Why have you been so defensive about everything, to the point where you're not just arguing with folks who disagree with you, but even when folks are in agreement? KF

Silver Phoenix wrote:You would think Digital Downloads would make games cost less but it won't. You can see full game prices for digital downloads are the same as the actual manufactured game prices.

Yup, there are even times when it costs more to download. I noticed that Hammerin' Hero is $20 on PSN, but I regularly see the physical UMD for $15, new. This is even more common with movies. A lot of the movies that are $10 over PSN/Xbox live are only $5 in a Wal-Mart bargain bin.

Some companies want digital only access so they have firm control over pricing, and don't have to worry about how stock is moving/not moving in a store. Of course if your only available way of making a purchase of a particular product is digital only then you don't have another choice. Well actually, you do have a choice. It's buy or don't buy.

Digital Downloads also eliminate the middle man, so the producer gets most if not all of the profit.

Digital Downloads also eliminate the middle man, so the producer gets most if not all of the profit.

I'm unsure about how I feel about digital downloading. I've been doing it with several games lately (most recently Empire: Total War, which was on sale last week on Steam). I do it for purely economic reasons, that is, whenever it's a deal I can't pass up.

But I still want the option to browse these things in person, to fondle the boxes, to scan the back cover, to be pulled hither and yon by the two games in my hand, when I've only budgeted for one. Besides, I like having a copy of a game that is independent of any online service (Impulse, Steam) and that would not be lost with a hard drive crash. And Digital Downloads most often still have some "middle man," except in the cases where the provider is the publisher. So I try to buy in person...

I much prefer tangible game releases myself, and I prefer not to waste space on a hard drive or memory stick. A lot of companies are doing this so they don't have to worry about manufacturing cost, but I always prefer to have game content in a solid form.

One such case is with Resident Evil 5: Gold Edition. Sure I could just get the new DLC cheaper, but if something ever happened to my system I would have to re-download it. I only have an 80 GB system that is down to around 40+ GB and I prefer to not waste space on such a small addition. So, I'm just going to use some gift cards and buy the game for a second time. This release is only $10 cheaper, and I'm stupid for not spending $14 for the total DLC packs. I just prefer to have the content where I can use it anywhere, and in a tangible form.