234
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] any1th3r3@lemmy.ca 30 points 7 months ago

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).

[-] teft@lemmy.world 27 points 7 months ago

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

Fucking BattleToads

[-] EvilBit@lemmy.world 14 points 7 months ago
[-] nugget359@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

I didn't know they artificially ramped up the difficulty! That game had a reputation when we were kids! Thanks for sharing

[-] EvilBit@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

Yep. Buncha bastards.

[-] Lifecoach5000@lemmy.world 8 points 7 months ago

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

[-] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 17 points 7 months ago

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.

[-] Lifecoach5000@lemmy.world 6 points 7 months ago

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?

[-] xyzzy@lemm.ee 9 points 7 months 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).

[-] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 4 points 7 months ago

More rentals = more demand = more copies purchased by rental stores (I can't rent you the game you want if someone else has it right now).

[-] aniki@lemm.ee 1 points 7 months ago

There was definitely the occasional tom-foolery with publishers and designers here and there but it was also generally never at the expense of game play.

[-] son_named_bort@lemmy.world 6 points 7 months ago

The game companies also wanted gamers to call their hotline if they get stuck, where they would charge by the minute to give tips (and they weren't known for their brief calls).

[-] 800XL@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago

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

[-] xyzzy@lemm.ee 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

You say this like you're correcting the person you're responding to, but they didn't dispute this. Both can be true.

[-] 800XL@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

Both were true!

[-] 4am@lemm.ee 3 points 7 months ago

Did game companies get royalties from rentals? I though the idea was that you’d want to buy it if you couldn’t beat it in a rental period

[-] RightHandOfIkaros@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months 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.

this post was submitted on 02 Apr 2024
234 points (97.2% liked)

RetroGaming

19669 readers
76 users here now

Vintage gaming community.

Rules:

  1. Be kind.
  2. No spam or soliciting for money.
  3. No racism or other bigotry allowed.
  4. Obviously nothing illegal.

If you see these please report them.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS