236
Why are younger generations embracing the retro game revival? (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/retrogaming@lemmy.world
94 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 112 points 2 years ago (18 children)

It turns out that, just like fancy graphics, not constantly trying to empty your customers pockets actually represents some kind of economic value. The ironic thing is so many of these old games were literally designed to steal your quarters.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 18 child comments
    •
  • [–] 65 points 2 years ago* (17 children)

    Well, only the arcade versions of games were designed to steal your quarters. The home console versions were much better about not harassing your wallet.

    For instance, Gauntlet Legends on its arcade cabinet hardware drained your health at a consistent time based rate. Add more quarters to gain more health. All home console versions abolished this health drain mechanic.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
    •
  • [–] 30 points 2 years ago (16 children)

    That's mostly true, except for games made specifically harder so that you'd have to rent them multiple times (eg: ActRaiser 2 NTSC-U/C / SNES is much harder than its NTSC-J / SFC counterpart).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
    •
  • [–] 27 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    games made specifically harder so that you’d have to rent them multiple times

    Fucking BattleToads

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 14 points 2 years ago (2 children)
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    That's mostly true, except for games made specifically harder so that you'd have to rent them multiple times

    Wait this was a thing game designers actually to into account? I’ve never heard this

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 17 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    Probably some games did after the home rental market got started, but a lot of older games were difficult specifically to extend the experience. Cartridge storage was small, so if it was too easy you'd get through all 10 levels in less than a day and then feel like you hadn't got very much for your money.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Well I guess I am just wondering how more rentals from a video store would benefit the developers financially? I mean I’m sure I could research but surely game studios didn’t get any kind of percentage from the rental places based on how many times a title was rented right?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago

    They didn't want you to rent it multiple times. They wanted you to rent it once, be unable to beat it, but be intrigued enough that you purchased the game from a store. If you could play and beat a game in a single rental, there was little incentive to buy it (so the developers thought, and I imagine had some data to back it up).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Except there were so many Japanese games not brought to the west because they were deemed too difficult for western gamers.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    But is making a game harder to discourage rental and encourge purchasing stealing your quarters? Id argue no. You still get value if you renting the game, and the idea of rentals is really that if you like it then you pay to own it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent