I don’t know, it just looks like a €50 stand-alone expansion that could’ve been DLC for the first game. But now they get to sell it for more, and add new/more individual smaller DLC for this one.
Not been much of a fan of Frontier ever since Braben left. They started focusing very heavily on paid DLC since, especially back when for Elite Dangerous it was first just cosmetics, but they got greedy and now have paid early access for new ships, after the game was content starved for years. And before that instead of focusing on new content there was a long period where the only thing that got updated was a new microstransaction currency and raised prices of the DLC.
Doesn’t feel much different with the Planet Coaster and Zoo games. They get littered with paid DLC, and it’s almost taking The Sims forms of additional paid content.
As much as I hate being a corporate shill: ask yourself this. Is the game worth the asking price with no DLC? You don’t have to buy every DLC, that’s just the cost of the additional game development time. And maybe the game isn’t worth the price now, but in two years you can probably pick it and a few of the best DLCs up for the same price as it is now and get your money’s worth.
Well I got the game back when it came out. I did not know the game would be leaning so heavily on paid content after that, so it often felt like missing out on new stuff. It was the same with Elite Dangerous, I backed that from Kickstarter, and then they pull shit like that paid early access content.
I’d say I easily got my money’s worth out of both games for what I paid at the time. But it still feels like being screwed over when they start putting price tags on all new content. And it’s often not even a lot of content that justifies the price tag. Compare this to games like No Man’s Sky, that get free updates quite often.
I think this would’ve bothered me far less had the base games been free to play games, and then charge for DLC. To me Frontier turned into a greedy company so fast, it’s really up there with EA, Blizzard Activision and Epic.
You nailed to describe my frustration with Frontier perfectly. They really are the EA of Zoo and Theme Park games to the point I’m not buying their games anymore even when they’re well made on a technical level and interesting to me. They’re just way too greedy.
I don’t get that amount of frustration. The zoo game from frontier that I bought years ago still get updated with new free content here and there. Sure there are DLC but you can perfectly play the initial game without any of them, or get them on a sale. Isn’t it ?
This has literally always been the case with Steam, the only difference is that people are told up front now. Things will likely continue to operate exactly the same as it has until now, I doubt Valve wants to disrupt the giant money train they have.
As far as I know there is no mandatory DRM on Steam either, so if a publisher wants to they can just make their game be portable and not require Steam to even be installed. Pretty sure all the re-releases that use DOSBox or ScummVM are like this, for example.
Yeah there are loads of DRM free games on steam (mostly indies of course). Steam just offers a very basic (and easily bypassable if you know how) DRM to devs/publishers but they absolutely don’t need to use it.
On the other hand, how is doom even on the list? This isn’t a ‘most influential games’ list. Surely the 10th best game in 2024 isn’t Doom 1993? Their scoring system (Quality 60%, Importance 15%, Hotness 15%, Playability 10%) makes sense to me, but how they assign those scores is baffling.
Take doom and doom eternal for example:
Doom 1993: Q 8.41 - I 9.99 - H 6.81 - P 6.81
Doom eternal: Q 8.00 - 7.45 - H 6.09 - P 8.45
How is cardboard enemies, simplest damage mechanics, story made of 2 still pictures and exposition text, and single axis camera control higher quality than any modern shooter? And in what universe could a 30 year old game be called hot??
I don’t have strong feelings about level design. I think the levels I enjoyed the most were in other episodes. If this is about the keys I’m neutral about them, I like exploring everywhere anyways so I’d just collect them on the way. I don’t know what else to say
I feel the same way for smb. It has historical importance but it’s not up to the quality standards of today. I like the digital movement, feels better than the analogue stick in nwerer games
I’m a massive nerd for level design, and in my mind massive sprawling (especially proceedurally generated) maps/levels are a scourge on modern gaming.
I don’t think it’s hugely controversial, but I view E1M1 as possibly one of the best levels ever designed. But then again I also view Doom as more like a dungeon crawler RPG that just happens to be first person and real time, so who knows?
I think I also tend to be more into simpler games than ones with too many bolted on systems, which might also be why I tend to favour older ones (or indie ones).
Maybe that’s the point? Newer Doom games aren’t especially top tier FPSs, and you can find better examples of them (Bioshock (not so modern anymore), the alien-dinosaur-robot spaceship thing, and probably others). So they don’t make the list, and then Doom holds the classic place and genre defining status. (Hexen and Strife were never gonna make the list).
I agree that Super Mario Bros could do with a new lick of paint (and think Nintendo has given it more than a few of them) to bring it up to par. Doom, I’m less sure needs updated graphics, but I don’t think it’d hurt if it kept everything else the same.
(Favourite Doom levels are probably E1M8, E2M9, and some D2 and TNT and Plutonia levels I can’t call to mind off the top of my head.)
I’ve come to the conclusion I’m incredibly biased on this matter and also that you’re entitled to your own opinion, and appreciate that you’ve responded kindly and patiently.
I see, I don’t consciously think about the map/level design when playing something so my opinion of doom comes from its mechanics and presentation, both of which are lacking in comparison to what indie boomer shooters have today.
find better examples of them (Bioshock
I don’t know if I played it wrong or something but I really didn’t like bioshock 1. It lasted like twice as long as it was fun and as time passed enemies just got spongier. Ammo is super scarce in the beginning and super common at the end. Shooting not very satisfying. The existence of the elemental gun. Bioshock 2 was much better imo
Just for the record, this is exactly what any museum would do, because they’re not going to actually run anything on the original hardware. Those systems are part of the collection, and it behooves a museum to not put any wear on them.
Plus you can do stuff like reset the emulator to a certain state pretty easily. Without having to reboot the hardware or anything. So you could do an exhibit on level 7 and have the game queued up to the level the exhibit is about.
That is highly depending on the type of Museum. Many Videogame and Computer Museums (at least in Germany) are showing the real Hardware running, some are even allowing the visitors to use and play at the old machines. And yes, they are often very used to repairing the hardware too.
I would expect from Nintendo that they would show and use real hardware in their museum, and not some emulators. Because I can see the games on an emulator at home (for example using my Switch Online or my SNES Classic), I don’t need a museum for that experience.
I know to be a certified museum in the US, you must work to preserve your articles in perpetuity, meaning anything that could be detrimental to the article is discouraged if not totally disallowed.
Unless they store everything in high vacuum and near absolute zero, it’s going to get oxidized and fail eventually. There is no such thing as perpetuity. Might as well give them some use.
You really think an old parchment document would survive being in a high vacuum and near absolute zero?
Yeah sure, nothing lasts forever, but the really not the point. Your goal is to attempt to preserve your articles forever.
Are you going to fall short? Absolutely, but your still required to attempt to do so. So you avoid doing anything directly harmful, such as operating an old computer, firing an old cannon, or diving an old car.
Parchment would survive the vacuum and near zero most likely quite good, parchment is a type of leather after all and way more sturdy then paper, the process of thawing would be a way bigger issue. And should it ever thaw fast and uncontrolled that would for sure ruin it completely
Ok that is not the case in Germany, here you can have items multiple times, to have some to archive and some to use.
I can see that the preservation aspect is very valid for highly rare or one of a kind items, but that is generally not the case with retro hardware. Yes there are examples for that too (like C65 or other prototype stuff) but nobody would expect a museum to put that to use.
No one would have cared to preserve a Mosin Nagant from 1892 when they were making 500,000 of them, why would they? You can just go and buy more, the factory is right over there. Fast forward 132 years later, they are scarce antiques. And in another 100 years, there may only be a dozen left.
The entire field of computers as we know it, integrated circuits, is about half as old as that particular rifle, and the technology has changed so fast, it’s really crazy.
So while it might seem like that’s reasonable now, I mean the people who designed those systems are often still alive, even still working. Of course we can still fix and use them.
Now give it 60 or so years, your sitting around in you retirement community, sad you lost the auction for a 2003 eMachines tower PC with all the stickers still attached, kicking yourself about how you tossed one out back in the day.
At least you kept your Atari Jaguar, kept in a hermetically sealed container, that managed to save when you had to evacuate from the 2nd Finnish-Korean Hyperwar.
They’re fucking Nintendo. They made the consoles they’re showing off in their museum. They absolutely have the ability to supply that museum with equipment and maintain it in perpetuity, because they fucking invented it
That’s not the point of it though. Not about whether you could fix or maintain it when operating it, it’s about not operating it if presents a notable risk of failure. The Smithsonian doesn’t start grinding cornmeal in a bowl from the Mississippians. The Connecticut Museum doesn’t take it’s colt rifles out the range for target practice. These organizations would use a replica to demonstrate what it was like, as opposed to risking damaging an original article.
Thats also not even necessary true either. While they may have invented there various consoles, at some point it will be nearly impossible to acquire replacement parts. They don’t manufacture the ICs or mainboards or the various discreet components. So if there’s no old stock, how would they “fix” a broken N64 (or later) console? It might be theoretically possible to fab a NEC VR4300 to replace a dead one, but probably cost hundreds of thousands, and it wouldn’t be broken anyway if you hadn’t left if running 16 hours a day so some sweaty tourists could play on real hardware.
And why would they? It would cost more, be more work, and have less reliable results than using a completely replacable computer running an emulator. The entire consumer facing side of the equation is worse if they run the games on the actual hardware, as long as the consumer doesn’t see it, which is really down to how they design the exhibit.
Do you think the public is understanding enough to accept that “The NES is really old and it broke so you can’t play super mario bros today”, when it’s the only day you are gonna be there? Temper tantrum, bad reviews, loss of face. From what I understand, Japan actually cares about all that, so Nintendo probably does as well.
They could replace all the parts in a SNES or NES with components indefinitely, because inside are either off the shelf components or specifically made components made after schematics from Nintendo. So even if nobody makes such parts anymore at the moment there is nothing (but time and money) that would stop Nintendo to order new parts based on their schematics.
Most issues with old consoles can even be fixed by hobbyists and if they can’t that’s because they don’t have access to the needed information to create new versions of the tailor made components.
So there should be no issue for Nintendo to supply their museum with replicas forever. Yes it would cost way more money then using Emulators, but it would be way more appropriate for their own museum. But no they have chosen the lazy route.
Oh no, poor Nintendo, how could they possibly afford a custom IC fab? They only have more money than God.
The way I see it, they have two choices. Make the investment to supply their museum with original hardware, or be ok with emulation. They’re trying to have their cake and eat it too, and that’s shitty.
That would just be wasteful, and wouldn’t really be the same thing? Analogue already makes N64 FPGAs make things that are almost N64s, and Nintendo doesn’t seem to care.
Your forgetting that Nintendo emulates there own games all the time, literally since the GameCube.
There argument has never been about what they can do, it’s about what you can do. Now they are wrong under US law, but it’s not like it’s hard to go find ROMs of these games, they aren’t even on torrents or shady websites, you can download them directly.
I disagree. If they actually care about the preservation of their history (which is the whole point of museums), they should be willing to invest a tiny fraction of their incredible wealth to do that, if they want to run it themselves.
Your forgetting that Nintendo emulates there own games all the time, literally since the GameCube.
I’m not forgetting anything. That’s my whole point. Nintendo has their own emulators, in both software and hardware. Why are they running some Windows emulator on a Windows PC in their own museum? It makes me think that they just took one of the myriad open source emulators (that they’re probably trying diligently to get shut down) and installed that, and it wouldn’t surprise me if they’re playing ripped ROMs on it, given that they include ripped ROMs on their own emulation libraries (that they charge people to access, btw). Because they’ve proven that they’re hypocrites when it comes to emulation.
There argument has never been about what they can do, it’s about what you can do.
Right, again, that’s my point. Emulation is fine and dandy when Nintendo does it, but not when anyone else does it, yet they still benefit from those other emulators. That’s shitty.
Or they could just, I don’t know, not burn out console after console running them constantly so they don’t have to spend exuberantly. That’s if the they can even produce that process node somehow. If not, making a new fab would cost 10s of millions, to produce old and completely antiquated hardware that they can already emulate on there current hardware.
What do think Nintendo does there development on? You think they run the unity editor on the Switch? They have probably used windows emulators for development since the Gamecube, and they absolutely have there own versions. Which open source emulators are they trying shut down? Something from this decade? If you mean Switch emulators, that’s just piracy, which I’m all for, but it’s not a exactly a moral high ground.
I thought they had included ripped ROMs, someone mentioned in another thread that were packaging the ROMs the same way. I’m not sure if that means the used the same tools or got to same result another way, buts it’s only a way of packaging ROMs.
It’s there IP, they can choose what’s allowed to be done with it. If they want to emulate it, they can. If they want it to only ever play on a N64DD, then thats also up to them. If they benefit from open source emulators, which I mostly doubt, then they as the fault on the emulator developer for being open source. Close it down, make Nintendo license it if you think it’s benefiting them unfairly.
I assure you they are currently runnng there in-development Switch2 games on in an emulated environment as we speak.
Or they could just, I don’t know, not burn out console after console running them constantly so they don’t have to spend exuberantly.
You’re grossly overestimating the number of consoles they would “burn through” by having a few of their original original hardware set up in their museum. If you’re worried about them running constantly, they could easily have a couple consoles per station that get swapped between throughout the day so that no one console is ever on for more than a few hours. People used their regularly NESes and SNESes for several years, I’m sure you could stretch that to decades of you had the expertise and resources of the company that invented the hardware behind you.
You’re grossly overestimating the amount of money it would cost to maintain original hardware. As another user said, hobbyists can maintain an original system themselves for decades using mostly off-the-shelf parts. The rare occurrences where a proprietary Nintendo part needs replaced wouldn’t cost tens of millions of dollars. There’s thousands of shops that can manufacture small runs of custom ICs or circuit boards for a few thousand bucks. They wouldn’t need to maintain a custom multi-million dollar facility.
to produce old and completely antiquated hardware that they can already emulate on there current hardware.
Then emulate on your current hardware, if you’re going to use emulation! Don’t use a Windows emulator from who-knows-where, when you’ve repeatedly made clear that you’re against other parties emulating your hardware! That’s certainly more embarrassing by the way, if your Windows emulator crashes and museum goers are greeted by a Windows BSOD or whatever, instead of the Switch home screen or the Nintendo Online interface.
What do think Nintendo does there development on?
We’re talking about NES/SNES games here (which Nintendo doesn’t develop anymore, btw), because that’s what they were caught using a Windows PC and a Windows emulator for. So either they’re using someone else’s emulator, or they ported the emulator that runs on the switch to run on Windows (which would be a huge undertaking, considering the architecture and OS differences between a Nintendo Switch and a Windows PC).
If you mean Switch emulators, that’s just piracy
Emulation is not piracy.
I thought they had included ripped ROMs
Some of the ROMs on their official library contained signatures from popular ROM rippers, which indicates they straight up just downloaded them from one of the various ROM sites they’ve been trying to shut down for the last couple decades.
It’s there IP, they can choose what’s allowed to be done with it. If they want to emulate it, they can.
That’s fine, I don’t have a problem with anyone emulating anything, including Nintendo. My problem lies with their hypocrisy. If they want to emulate NES/SNES games in their own museum, go for it. But at least use your own emulator on your own hardware, given they have the ability to easily do that. Using a Windows PC and a Windows emulator for that is hypocritical.
NES and SNES processers? Those should be simple enough, although I’m not sure it would be 1 to 1 swap. Anything later? No.
You’d have to make the same processor on the same process node. That’s not even just to do transistor size, as that’s just one aspect of a particular companies process. No one has made 350nm MIPS dies since, well, the late 90s or early 2000s. So the equipment likely doesn’t exist anymore. I think they licensing is open now, but otherwise they would also need to relicense the design, which would be something that would be very hypocritical for Nintendo to do.
Sure a hobbyist could swap a dead passive component out, and probably fix a damaged trace on the PCB, that’s where it would stop. I’ve never seen a hobbyist or even small company make a PCB that complex. I know from personal experience that getting a batch of those made would run in the tens or hundreds of thousands. It actually may also need leaded solder, which would violate Japans version of RoHS. I’m not familiar enough with that standard to know if that would be permissable.
If hobbyist do have the capability to recreate the processor, why would a company like Analogue make an FPGA instead for there N64 clone? Think about all the development they put into that instead of trying to do what you’re suggesting is commonplace.
They don’t need to make an IC, the need to make the same IC. There are more powerful chips running smart toasters, and they cost a couple of dollars a piece, but that’s not the original hardware
Your also assuming that expertise and resources lies with the company, and not the staff themselves. I also know from personal experience how big of mistake that can be.
Anything later than an N64 is going to be progressively harder and harder to fix. By the end of the decade they will probably be emulating N64s. And so on and so forth.
The whole point is to not damage original articles, not to damage and then fix them. That’s what’s required of US Museum at least. It will matter more and more as the hardware ages and becomes scarcer.
On the next point, I think your giving the public too much credit. The BSoD is probably the most common failure screen in the world, but how many people would know to equate that with a windows PC and just with any computer?
What percent of the population knows what an emulator or emulation is? 1%? Maybe among people who are visiting the Nintendo museum, probably in the double digits, but not by much. The only embarrassment would be a reddit post, which would get turned into garbage news articles and shorts which everyone but us will forget about 3 seconds later. Basically every person that sees it would just be mad it’s not working when they happened to be there.
It’s is quite literally only there decision what hardware there IP can run on. In every legal way, they are the arbiters of that. Why are we supposed to care what emulator they use? If it’s open source, it’s as much there’s to use as everyone else’s. I wouldn’t run it on Windows certianly, but that is objectively there decision.
They probably have there own way on running NES/SNES games for development for Switch online or the NES classic, so your silly comment about them no longer developing those not only pointless but also probably wrong.
I’ve used mGBA on both my Switch and a PC, I’m not sure why you think that would be so hard. That’s literally made by a hobbyist, for a more modern system, and runs on several other platforms as well.
All emulation is probably (but not 100 certainly) piracy. It depends on how you read the law, but it seems clear to me that you can’t legally transfer software copies without transferring the original. Meaning for it to be legal, you would have to make the copy yourself, and continue owning the original. I say this as someone who fully supports pirating from AAA publishers, including Nintendo.
Can you provide a source for the ripped ROMs? I’ve been well actually’d on that before, now in both directions, but I can’t find an actual source.
These are in the most certain terms possible “rules for thee and not for me” but it’s there IP, and they get to set those rules. I wouldn’t describe there rights they fight tooth and nail for as hypocritical.
Funnily enough, I’m guessing the whole reason they are emulating NES/SNES is because they were having reliability issues.They probably picked the simplest thing they could get working on short notice.
Even if they don’t use the real old hardware then at least they could have created something that is closer to the original hardware, for example a SNES/NES/N64 console based on FPGA in a recreated original shell. Anything but a stupid emulator running on a Windows PC.
I am sure that Nintendo is using FPGA for internal R&D, so they have people capable of writing cores for FPGA. Add to that the fact that Nintendo has all the schematics and detailed information about the original hardware and designs.
Yes, a FPGA would have been work, but not lots of work for them. And we are speaking of 8 and 16 bit hardware, that is very small and limited hardware.
Besides that: Windows can run on a Raspberry PI, so maybe the emulator on Windows used by Nintendo is already using that. Who knows?
Why should they do that? They already have their own SNES emulator with Canoe (used for example on the SNES Classic Mini). It is much more logical to assume that they compiled Canoe to run on Windows for this exhibition.
I have and if the code is well written and prepared then such a port can be done with just a recompilation for the different platform. Yes, often it is not that easy but the developers at Nintendo are neither dumb nor incompetent.
You’re making my point for me though. Each of the other things you’ve suggested is more work than requires more expertise. Popping up an emulator on an existing box and dumping a ROM in there is something an intern can do.
All of these other things can be done, but they’re not as quick and simple, and that’s why we’re seeing this in the first case - Nintendo went with a quick and simple solution, and someone found a bug (it still plays Windows noises).
You have your view at the world, a view where everyone is lazy on every level, and I have mine. Thank you for the nice conversation and have a great day!
This is a “Museum” run by Nintendo in Japan. Meaning they could have used or even created more original hardware to run the titles, but instead cut costs by using the same Emulators that they’re hoping to take down.
Them being the original creator of the products doesn’t necessarily imply that they still have running production processes for every product that they ever made.
If I obtain all the original schematics and software and make 1 Nintendo internals for commercial purposes wothout their permission it would be illegal.
If they do it, it costs them the price of a couple of family dinners at most.
This museum IS NINTENDO. They are the only people allowed to do this job correctly.
I mean they have old games available for new platforms and have had that for multiple generations. One of the things you get with a Nintendo online subscription is a switch catalog full of a bunch of SNES and NES games for play on the switch.
In other words, emulators are crucial for game preservation? This shows that Nintendo knows that, and when they say it’s not the case, they’re not simply wrong, they’re lying.
I assume most FOSS emulators have a non-commercial license, so if a company is using it to make money they are already violating the law, but who is gonna go after Nintendo for that?
If they had that, they’d no longer be FOSS and instead “source available” and half the community will raise the pitch forks. Best FOSS licence to protect against this sort of thing is AGPL because it’s toxic for corporations. But even that could be used in this case if they had the source on the same computer imo (IANAL though)
Dave the Diver is the only game in this list that I have played and would not recommend. That game gets really grindy, but has a fun loop for the first couple of hours.
The pace drove me a bit mad. So much stuff front loaded with all kinds of things in play, then you reach a point where they want you to wait X in game days for a crucial item so it grinds to a halt
What if I told you I find Valheim to be just fine, so I am surprised it is on this list? The subjectiveness of enjoying a game is a very large spectrum
Honestly, there were a TON of games I was surprised to find on this list, but Valheim was not one of them.
Multiplayer games are especially vulnerable to the subjectiveness of enjoyment because not everybody has the same set of friends or experiences with their friends in the game, assuming they played with friends at all.
That said, I’ve been playing games for decades and I would put forth that even single player Valheim with no access to multiplayer would deserve to be much higher than the 100 placement on this terrible list.
I would say that it’s offensive to put Early Access games on those lists. It clouds people’s judgment as they are valued with different standards and are expected to get better (especially if more people support the game). Any game that’s not fully released is a 0/10 in my book even if they were my favorite games.
Valheim was a better game in it’s first version than a lot of the games that are “complete” on this list.
I get where you’re coming from, and certainly some games don’t deserve to even be sold in their “early access” state. However, I think saying none of them should count at all is a bit ridiculous.
Valheim offered hundreds of hours worth of entertainment even in the early versions and has only improved since then. It only takes up 1gb of data through some miracle, and runs fairly well even on the steam deck.
Honestly it puts many of the other titles on the list to shame. Ignoring it because the dev wants to continue providing MORE free updates instead of calling the game finished and then charging for “DLC” is not a reason to punish the studio, if anything they should be looked to as an example of what other devs should do.
pcgamer.com
Aktywne