Wii version much more expensive than PC version?
Hi Telltalegames team,
I just finished the first chapter on the Wii and I must say that this a really nice game. The riddles aren't to hard so no frustation during the play (also it could've been a little longer...).
But something really sets me up. I just saw that the PC version can be bought for 35 $ for the complete 5 episodes.
I bought the first episode as Wiiware for 10 € (which are about 15 $ atm). So, buying all 5 episodes on the Wii will cost me 50 € which are about 75 $ !!!
So buying the Wii edition will cost me more than twice as much as the PC version would.
I sadly must say that I have no understanding for this difference! There must be a different solution and then I would be happy to buy the other 4 episodes for the Wii (as playing living room is nice)!
I just finished the first chapter on the Wii and I must say that this a really nice game. The riddles aren't to hard so no frustation during the play (also it could've been a little longer...).
But something really sets me up. I just saw that the PC version can be bought for 35 $ for the complete 5 episodes.
I bought the first episode as Wiiware for 10 € (which are about 15 $ atm). So, buying all 5 episodes on the Wii will cost me 50 € which are about 75 $ !!!
So buying the Wii edition will cost me more than twice as much as the PC version would.
I sadly must say that I have no understanding for this difference! There must be a different solution and then I would be happy to buy the other 4 episodes for the Wii (as playing living room is nice)!
Sign in to comment in this discussion.
Comments
Hope the Japanese aren't getting THAT good of a deal.
That's why I'm a PC gamer. You get better quality at a better price, and you don't have to buy a different console every time a new console comes out.
The PC version of Tales of Monkey Island has better graphics quality and also better sound quality. You might as well buy it on PC from now on. The $35 season pass + the €10 you already spent on the wii version is still cheaper than $75.
The only reason I have a PlayStation 2 at all is because I wanted to play only one game - Metal Gear Solid 3 which has no PC version. I'm disappointed that Metal Gear Soild 4 is exclusive to PlayStation 3, but I'm not willing to buy one of those! Seriously... developers should just release everything on PC.
It's actually far more expensive to keep a PC up to date than to drop $250-$600 on a brand new console every 5-6 years.
That's true, but you have to update your PC heaps, it costs waaay more to play games on PC than it does on a console. Consoles last 8 years or so before a new one comes, PC's cost twice as much and only last you 2-3 years max.
But seriously, where do you get your figures from? PCs last alot longer than 2-3 years, that's just bollucks, most games don't even push my one. Sure, if you want to stay on the cutting edge with maxed out settings then and run multiple games at once then yes you have to keep upgrading, but most PCs will still be able to run games at decent settings for years.
Oh wait this is the internet, should make up some stats. 99% of computers can beat up consoles for their pocket money, and 95% of consoles spontaneously combust.
While I'm typically more of a console person, this is a little off. Console cycles have typically been no more than 5 years, even the SNES and Genesis only lasted 5 before being replaced.
The 360 and PS3 may be the first to really break that cycle, simply because there's no where for the technology to really improve right now, except into motion control territory, and that doesn't require a completely new system, hence why they're both releasing add-ons next year.
thanks alot for the answers.
Yes, I know that the graphics is a lot better on the PC version and my PC is surely capable of playing TOMI well enough.
BUT as I'm getting older and doing my dayjob sitting at the PC, have a wife and a kid, I gladly like to sit in the living room at my free time. And as we already have a Wii it makes sense for me to play the game on that console (the Wii was my first console ever!). Additional to that, graphics aren't that important for a good adventure.
But to come back to the costs for purchasing that game. It is indeed frustrating that Nintendo have chosen to set 1$ = 1€. But I found a few seller on Ebay which sell the 1000 points for 7,5€ which is nearly exactly what it would costs when paying in dollars.
So, I've decided to buy the episode 2 for the Wii and continue on playing the game on the Wii even it is still a few dollars (or Euros) more expensive than on the PC.
But what makes it even worse is, that is for Nintendo, not for TT-Games, that you can't sell you Wiiware games as it is bundle to your special Wii.
The person we were responding to had said "You get better quality" so it was kind of assumed we were talking about moderately high end rigs.
Yes. You can knock up a PC or upgrade your existing one using quite cheap mid-range products like a graphics card and get max settings on Tales. My PC's about 2 years old now and even then when I bought it, it was using 2 years older technology (AGP graphics!) and still I can run Tales on setting 9.
As long as the PC you start off with isn't crap to begin with and has a reasonable amount of future proofing it will last years. And even when that time is up, you might get away with sticking in a budget price new graphics card and have extended it's life cheaply.
Plus, I can play any of my older games. Sometimes I dig out Theme Hospital from 1995 and it runs flawlessly on the PC. A couple of months ago I was playing ToonStruck (made for DOS).
You can't say the same for consoles. You'd have problems running a Super Nintendo game on your Playstation 3! But actually there are some pretty good SNES emulators on the PC too...
We all have to keep in mind that the people who buy Piestation 3s and Eggbox 360s aren't the same people who you'd generally see play tales of monkey island on their computers, they play fallout 3, mass effect, assasins creed 2 (when that comes, can't wait) and so on which any 2 year old laptop with 4 year old stuff in it can't run. If you want to keep up to date with the AAA releases you will spend a lot more of money on your computer then on the console, the basic cost for a console is around 300$ you won't get a computer that can run the same games with the same graphics for as much
Oh and hardware wise, don't compare the Wii, the Wii is a last generation console
Graphics hardware wise, PC graphics are continually improving. This was PC graphics a couple of years ago before Playstation 3 was out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1Q2kbcw6-k
I'd say that PC graphics cards coming out around now and with DirectX11 in Windows 7 and Vista, consoles will probably have that level of graphics later on. But PCs can have it today.
While you have fixed hardware in a console, and that makes it idiot-proof for sticking in a games disc and having it run and for games developers, that also means that it will be outdated from the moment it goes on sale. E.g. if you have a PS3 with a 40GB drive, wouldn't you be envious of the people who are buying current ones that look smaller and have 250GB drives in them? You'd have to replace the entire console to upgrade to a new feature set. But on a PC if you want a bigger drive, you just get a bigger drive.
Well, it all depends on what you want really. There was an interesting article I read comparing Telltale games on console and PC and there were definitely advantages on the PC versions (besides the free DVD and episodic releases) - things like the saved games being able to communicate with each other (DeSoto decals being carried forward to next episodes in Sam & Max season 2 for example).
I'd guess most people with consoles must also own PCs anyway - they do much more than just games - you can shop online, buy stuff, visit forums, watch movies, download music, burn photos, email, video...
When it came to deciding should I get a mid-quality PC and a PS3 and an XBox, or should I just get a PC that does it all, I'd go with the PC that does it all and can be upgraded when I want to do more. The only problem is console exclusive games. Which would be solved if they just released everything on PC too.
On that note, I don't mind games being developed for XBox because most of the time they also get released on PC as well. I was thinking that's because Microsoft made the XBox hardware similar to a Windows PC, so it must be easier to develop simultaneously on both.
The eggbox graphics are based of directX, and yes the xbox programming interface is a lot like coding for windows games. As for the hardware being old on the consoles, it's not the same hardware that you put in the computers and the enviorment allows you to get more power out of the hardware, the power of the hardware in the consoles doesn't really matter that mcuh as long as it is "good enough". The games are optimized to run on that specific hardware. The hardware in the consoles still haven't reached their full performance, none of the current consoles on the marker are used to their full potential, you could get those exact graphics showed in that video or better on a console.
The fact that the hardware is cheaper to be bought on a console then on a computer counts for a lot when it comes to sales, it is as I said above, the reason people make so many games for consoles is because there is where the real money is.
And their's the game prices, most new games cost £15 more on the PS3 or XBox360 than the PC. If you're a gamer who buys at least three games a year and has their computer unchanged for three years you've already saved £225.
And then their's the fact that PCs do a LOT more than gaming (they do everything).
But but but but, you can code directly to the hardware on Windows XP too! Well windows XP is an OLD OS, coding directly to the hardware in Windows XP is doable but very far from being recommendable, it causes a lot of problems. One of the main reasons for example Vista, Windows 7 or Mac OS X are considered to be slower then Windows XP is that the programmer is put further away from the hardware and hence can't mess up your computer configuration. This is a good thing btw.
Having a computer with the same hardware with the same typo of arch and the same type of OS the consoles use you can get the same performance out of it, but you won't be able to do much else with it, and the games developed would only be able to run on that specific hardware.
As for computer hardware being cheaper, at least in Sweden buying only the Geforce 7800GTX card will cost you more then the entire PS 3 console.
Upon doing some google, it turns out to be the same way in the UK, at least if you want a card a 7800 GTX card which corresponds to the one in the PS 3. Cheapest I found was 410£
That seems ridiculously overpriced to me. Maybe it's because they are obsolete and not being sold widely any more? I checked some shopping sites and you can get a much more powerful GeForce 9 series card for under £100. Compared to a PlayStation 3 for about £250-300. Even the latest ATI Radeon and GeForce 280GTX cards are under £300.
ehhhh, With that statement I have to assume that you are either a retard or a PS3 owner with a hidden agenda (Not that it's difficult to figure out that agenda).
Btw. For you people who's considering to buy a pc/laptop to game on, you just make sure to get one with a graphics card from nvidia or Ati and make sure that the model number includes either a 6, 7 or an 8 not anything lower.
Example:
Nvidia cards: 8600, 8800, 9600, 9800, 260, 280.
Ati cards: 4600, 4800, 5800.
And aprox. 2 Gigs of ram and you are pretty much golden, unless you have to run a game like Crysis on the highest possible settings.
Oh and btw. no current console is able to run a game like Crysis so if you pc can run this on medium settings you should be allright.
I can assure you I'm neither of those (I would never buy anything from sony).
I want to point out that I said was to get the same card on your computer as the PS 3 has you need to pay that much, I did not mention other cards or anything like that. Let's leave discussions like these for people able to read and comprehend next time? Then we can avoid embarrassing posts like that one in the future
On Crisis, Crisis could be run on consoles but will not be ported, crisis 2 is due for both PC, Eggbox 360 and Piestation 3
Fair enough, and yes, Crysis 2 is coming to consoles BUT believe me, it won't be like Crysis 1, forget the very large maps with high details, there is just not enough ram on consoles and because they have to stream the data from a disc as opposed to a harddrive on the pc, the console version will be limited compared to Crysis 1. I guess that Crysis 2 can be just as beautiful and open world on the pc as Crysis 1, but that will not happen as it will probably be developed primarily for consoles so the pc version will suffer.
You needs a PC (Macs count as PC's) regardless of your gaming habit. You have to buy some cheap PC once in a while anyway.
Now go for the bargain bin. All the blockbusters of some years ago can be found for 5 to 20 euro or so. Your cheapo PC will generally be more powerful then the expensive stuff at the game's release date so there is no problem with performance.
Yes, you will be lagging behind but if your budget is tight this is the best deal you can go for.
That card is no longer in production, as it's massively outdated.
However, you could get a much more powerful card, the Nvidia 9800GT, which is two generations newer, for £75.
My own PC I bought in 2002, upgraded once for about £100 (new graphics card and more memory), and I'm only just now planning to replace it.
It's lasted right through a significant part of both the Playstation 2 and the Playstation 3 lifecycles, and I can still play less demanding newer games on it (as well as watch DVDs, online TV, use Office, play music, play all my older games dating back to about 1993, etc).
I can understand the argument that if you spend all day at the office you don't want to mess around with a PC when you get home, but mostly for me the 'messing around' consists of double-clicking the game icon I want and then starting to play. It's not like I have to install the game again every time I start up my PC.
Really, if I only wanted to play games, then I'd probably get a console. But since I'd be buying a £300 PC anyway, for work, Internet, etc, I might as well spend another £300 and get a HD-capable game machine built in, that I can then upgrade three or four years on for another £100.
You cannot judge the life cycle of a console by when you yourself switch to a new system; many consoles live well into the lifespan of their successors.
Add to that the broader variety of games and gameplay concepts, with the PC having gotten pretty stuck on the same 1st person shooters and RTS over the years.
And because the programmers have a definite hardware to tweak the game for, you get better quality than on a PC with similar specs. Even years after the Xbox 360´s launch you can get the same games as on PC with maximum settings to play flawless on the system; you can´t do that on a PC of the same age.
The problem of console games costing more than PC-games comes from licensing fees; consoles are not free platforms since the days of the Atari 2600. Every publisher has to pay royaltis to the system manufacturer; and pass the quality control of Sony, Microsoft or Nintendo, while their is no such thing for PCs.
But I honestly prefer to pay a few Euros more on games than having to tune my PC and fiddle with compatibility problems, download new drivers and adjust settings to play in the best possible quality.