Topic: PS3 Version of HoDespair has local Co-op?

[cecil-kain]

Well it's pretty fair.  360 paid for the DLC, so it would be strange for a company to suddenly give away the rest of the DLC to PSN owners for free.   

Konami already been generous adding Yoko, Julius and one of the largest and most unique stages for free.    People shouldn't be so darned cheap and self-centered.   Putting up DLC on digital market, even as a free download, costs something to Konami.   

If enough people on PSN chip in like XBLA people have for the DLC, that could convince Konami to either later start supporting Harmony of Despair with extra DLC, or make a cool direct sequel to this!   Castlevania Harmony of Despair 2 sounds really epic!     Double the chapters, 50% more characters, music tracks, option to transfer their HD1 data, etc.!   

The market is trendy --most games released a year ago are hitting the bargain bins about now.  Konami should be grateful that we're still willing to buy this game a year after the fact.  Expecting us to pay full price or wait still longer for the full DLC package --now THAT's cheap.

[affinity]

The market is trendy --most games released a year ago are hitting the bargain bins about now.  Konami should be grateful that we're still willing to buy this game a year after the fact.  Expecting us to pay full price or wait still longer for the full DLC package --now THAT's cheap.

in bargain bins, successful games a year old are still usually sold for at least $30 new.  And also the digital market is a different arena.   

Castlevania Harmony of Despair will still be brand new to the majority of PSN community, so it still counts as a new game for the most part.   

Just like any port that comes to a different console, even a year later, is still sold at full price,
they still had to do all the work to make it playable on a different console and add that local co-op feature.  They didn't have to, but they did the extra work, so they do deserve top dollar for their extended efforts for the PSN version. 


You don't see companies selling a game for $60 on one console, and then porting it to another console and selling it for like 50% less or giving away all the DLC for free (and most games don't have DLC as valuable as CV:HD)!    Of course leeches out there would grab anything for free if they could, but really it isn't the company that's cheap, it's the consumers that act like they are entitled to getting more for less. 

There are people who pay over $100 for collectors editions, and 50-$60 for games,  yet they would be so immature and cheap as to have a problem paying $30-$40 worth of DLC they want, when that very DLC could give them more fun and replay value than anything else that costs more.   

Konami becomes generous giving away local co-op, 2 DLC characters, and a DLC chapter, yet pirahnas still demand more for nothing.   

Also if all of the DLC is not available the same month, that isn't so bad, I don't think Konami will spend as long releasing the DLC bit by bit like before, but at least PSN owners will have some extra things to enjoy in the meantime with 2 added characters and Chapter 7.   

For Hard Corps,  Leviathan DLC was released same day for the PSN version, whereas XBLA had to wait about a month.    Maybe the rest of the DLC will come much earlier for Harmony.

[cecil-kain]

in bargain bins, successful games a year old are still usually sold for at least $30 new.  And also the digital market is a different arena.

Touche'   

Castlevania Harmony of Despair will still be brand new to the majority of PSN community, so it still counts as a new game for the most part.

By that logic, Gears of War 1 would be "new" if that got ported to PS3.  Amiright?    lol

Just like any port that comes to a different console, even a year later, is still sold at full price,
they still had to do all the work to make it playable on a different console and add that local co-op feature.  They didn't have to, but they did the extra work, so they do deserve top dollar for their extended efforts for the PSN version.

Like I said before, porting is not usually difficult or expensive.  Retooling the code for the local co-op is a nice addition (and it might mean the world to some players) but it hardly makes or breaks the purchase for the majority.

You don't see companies selling a game for $60 on one console, and then porting it to another console and selling it for like 50% less or giving away all the DLC for free (and most games don't have DLC as valuable as CV:HD)!    Of course leeches out there would grab anything for free if they could, but really it isn't the company that's cheap, it's the consumers that act like they are entitled to getting more for less. 

There are people who pay over $100 for collectors editions, and 50-$60 for games,  yet they would be so immature and cheap as to have a problem paying $30-$40 worth of DLC they want, when that very DLC could give them more fun and replay value than anything else that costs more.   

Konami becomes generous giving away local co-op, 2 DLC characters, and a DLC chapter, yet pirahnas still demand more for nothing.   

Demanding more for less is the American way.  Konami was negligent toward PS3 owners this past year --and for that negligence, they should apologize --by sacrificing profits.

Also if all of the DLC is not available the same month, that isn't so bad, I don't think Konami will spend as long releasing the DLC bit by bit like before, but at least PSN owners will have some extra things to enjoy in the meantime with 2 added characters and Chapter 7.   

At least...

For Hard Corps,  Leviathan DLC was released same day for the PSN version, whereas XBLA had to wait about a month.    Maybe the rest of the DLC will come much earlier for Harmony.

We'll see...

[affinity]

By that logic, Gears of War 1 would be "new" if that got ported to PS3.  Amiright?   

 

It would be brand new to the PS3 masses that don't own a 360 and didn't play GOW. 
Just like if Metal Gear Solid 4/Online was ported to 360, it would be brand new experience to the majority of 360 community.   

And just like when Guardian Heroes appears on XBLA, it will be brand new to those that didn't own a Saturn and GH.

Like I said before, porting is not usually difficult or expensive.  Retooling the code for the local co-op is a nice addition (and it might mean the world to some players) but it hardly makes or breaks the purchase for the majority.

I wouldn't say that,  I am surprised how more people instantly jumped on the bandwagon primarily because of the 4 players local co-op feature.  It's a much bigger demanded feature than online fans may expect.       

And with 4p local co-op combined with the wonderful 6 players online co-op feature, it can now potentially sell far more than things like Scott Pilgrim vs. The World. 

Demanding more for less is the American way.  Konami was negligent toward PS3 owners this past year --and for that negligence, they should apologize --by sacrificing profits.

No company in their right mind would sacrifice profits to the degree some might demand.
Demanding more for less is kind of shameful.  I wouldn't call it the American way.   That kind of thought exists in different regions and cultures, but there are people that are mindful of companies and the uphill battle they are having with piracy, online game sharing, and used game sales soaking up their potential profits. 

Konami already have been more generous than anticipated.  Are companies like Capcom handing out any SSFIV costumes or MVC3 DLC characters for free?    No.   Konami at least is giving away  2 extra DLC characters, a DLC stage, and 4 player local co-op included.   That is already saving everyone at least $15 extra.     

I have yet to see any other company give that much these days.    The closest would be probably Borderlands GOTY edition, but that was initially sold for like $40-60 anyway. 

The PSN version of this will likely still cost only $15.  So really, any other DLC that must be bought to obtain, is money well spent if people really want it.   

Also, as separate DLC, people can pick and choose what they want, potentially saving money in the process, instead of receiving a bulk that raises the price, including content they might not be interested in using at all.   So there are good points to selling the rest of the DLC separately like before.

[cecil-kain]

 

It would be brand new to the PS3 masses that don't own a 360 and didn't play GOW. 
Just like if Metal Gear Solid 4/Online was ported to 360, it would be brand new experience to the majority of 360 community.   

And just like when Guardian Heroes appears on XBLA, it will be brand new to those that didn't own a Saturn and GH.

Fascinating.  So if Super Mario 64 --or even Super Mario Bros 1 ever came to PS3 they would also be a "new"... --Because none of the Marios were ever released on Playstation...   

No company in their right mind would sacrifice profits to the degree some might demand. Demanding more for less is kind of shameful.  I wouldn't call it the American way.   That kind of thought exists in different regions and cultures, but there are people that are mindful of companies and the uphill battle they are having with piracy, online game sharing, and used game sales soaking up their potential profits.

Walmart is the evil empire of retail because it delivers more for less --all because the American People demand more for less.  And yes, it is shameful --we'd rather buy cheap Chinese imports than high-quality goods produced by Americans --but that's another topic entirely...

Konami already have been more generous than anticipated.  Are companies like Capcom handing out any SSFIV costumes or MVC3 DLC characters for free?    No.   Konami at least is giving away  2 extra DLC characters, a DLC stage, and 4 player local co-op included.   That is already saving everyone at least $15 extra.

I have yet to see any other company give that much these days.    The closest would be probably Borderlands GOTY edition, but that was initially sold for like $40-60 anyway.

The PSN version of this will likely still cost only $15.  So really, any other DLC that must be bought to obtain, is money well spent if people really want it.   

Also, as separate DLC, people can pick and choose what they want, potentially saving money in the process, instead of receiving a bulk that raises the price, including content they might not be interested in using at all.   So there are good points to selling the rest of the DLC separately like before.

Funny you mention Capcom of all places.  Megaman 10 was released about a year ago, and right now it can be purchased with Megaman 9 in a combo pack for $15.00 --the Full Game can be purchased for $10.00 --and the DLC bundle alone for $5.00.  We'll see if Konami has the good sense to market this game with a competitive price point.  My guess is no.

[affinity]

Fascinating.  So if Super Mario 64 --or even Super Mario Bros 1 ever came to PS3 they would also be a "new"... --Because none of the Marios were ever released on Playstation..

No, SM64, SM1/2/3 don't apply.  They are over a decade old and more people are likely to played them.

Castlevania HD is barely a year old.    Millions would pay $40-60 for a SM64 port, but they would complain about something that only costs $15 that can also be played with group of friends?     

Funny you mention Capcom of all places.  Megaman 10 was released about a year ago, and right now it can be purchased with Megaman 9 in a combo pack for $15.00 --the Full Game can be purchased for $10.00 --and the DLC bundle alone for $5.00.  We'll see if Konami has the good sense to market this game with a competitive price point.  My guess is no.

MM games don't even have multiple upgradable characters, over 100 items, 2-6 players co-op, customizable music tracks, and non-linear progression within each stage.     Of course they would get dirt cheap combo deals, because MM games offer MUCH less replay value and gameplay variety than this does.   

If the PSN version is sold about $15 like the 360 version, that is already a competitive price point, especially with the DLC included that was announced.      People are complaining about $60 being too much for games,  and they would whine about Castlevania HD's total DLC cost??? 

[cecil-kain]

No, SM64, SM1/2/3 don't apply.  They are over a decade old and more people are likely to played them.

Castlevania HD is barely a year old.    Millions would pay $40-60 for a SM64 port, but they would complain about something that only costs $15 that can also be played with group of friends? 

So with that said, where do you draw the line?  Does a game have to be outdated by 5, 10, or 20 years to diminish the market value?  Hell that's not even fair, because of the nostalgia factor...  Surely you don't deny 360 has cornered the lion's share of the hardcore market...  Surely you don't deny a substantial number of PS3 owners were already flushed out of the market by downloading the Xbox Live Arcade version...  In your view, the game might be "new" to a very small market that owns ONLY the PS3, but do you really think that market is large enough to support the game at full price?

MM games don't even have multiple upgradable characters, over 100 items, 2-6 players co-op, customizable music tracks, and non-linear progression within each stage.     Of course they would get dirt cheap combo deals, because MM games offer MUCH less replay value and gameplay variety than this does.   

You're treading on apples and oranges here --and missing the point entirely.  Both Megaman and Castlevania are niche, hardcore markets.  Capcom had the good sense to release MM 10 simultaneously for all 3 systems.  Like HoD, MM 10 has a year under its belt, and again Capcom has the good sense to make cheap bundles available for DLC and currently markets the game cheaper than its debut price.

If the PSN version is sold about $15 like the 360 version, that is already a competitive price point, especially with the DLC included that was announced.      People are complaining about $60 being too much for games,  and they would whine about Castlevania HD's total DLC cost???

Since I don't own an 360, I'm not privy to HoD's debut price, but anything less than $20.00 would surprise me --surely most of profits were made off the DLC anyway.  Until a PSN price is officially announced, the value is yet to be determined.  Also, you can't compare the $60 price tag on modern state of the art game to something retro like this...  A debate about the value is pointless until we have an official price to discuss.  Right now the only thing that is official is that 1.) the game is being delivered to PSN a year after 360 --and 2.) it will not be the full package 360 owners currently have access to.

Unless of course...  you have some additional inside information to share?

[affinity]

Surely you don't deny 360 has cornered the lion's share of the hardcore market...

That's only what 360 worshippers out there would say.  Really, hardcore market?   I see more diversity of games like fighting games, Japanese RPGs, and adventure games appear on the PS3 top 10 more often than 360's top ten lists (which are mainly flooded with shooters.)
Yes, 360 has grabbed the eastern Shmups library, but that isn't saying much.

Surely you don't deny a substantial number of PS3 owners were already flushed out of the market by downloading the Xbox Live Arcade version...

substantial?  It's obvious not even half of the PS3 owners in the world own a 360. 
You underestimate the PS3-only masses out there you can't see.
Your point is like saying "the majority of Wii owners own a PS3", when that's not true.   People owning one platform is far more common than owning 2 or more.

In your view, the game might be "new" to a very small market that owns ONLY the PS3, but do you really think that market is large enough to support the game at full price?

Of course it's large enough!   And 'full price' is a very sweet deal for a lot of PS3 owners.  $15 is nothing for something that delivers so much on the single player as well as multiplayer side.   Thousands would pay for DLC like  RE5, and SSFIV, even after paying $60,  so even $40-50 counting DLC isn't a big deal to most people that aren't so cheap.  And those that don't want to pay that much don't have to, they can enjoy the vanilla edition if they are against buying DLC.   They can still play what's there for a really low price.

Castle Crashers became the top best selling PSN game on PS3, despite being on 360 first.
http://www.joystiq.com/2010/10/19/zen-pinball-and-castle-crashers-top-psn-sales-in-september/

You're treading on apples and oranges here --and missing the point entirely.  Both Megaman and Castlevania are niche, hardcore markets.  Capcom had the good sense to release MM 10 simultaneously for all 3 systems.  Like HoD, MM 10 has a year under its belt, and again Capcom has the good sense to make cheap bundles available for DLC and currently markets the game cheaper than its debut price.

MM was bundled because they don't have lasting appeal as stand alone games.    Again, MM10 and 9's value are far less and offer much less features and replay value than what Castlevania HD has to offer.  That can't be denied. Ask any Castlevania HD fan on XBLA if they would play MM 9 or 10 over Castlevania HD,  they will think you're crazy, and they will have plenty of reasons why.  It's like comparing Strider with Guardian Heroes.   To many that enjoy it, Castlevania HD is worth far more than 1,000,000 MM games.   

Right now the only thing that is official is that 1.) the game is being delivered to PSN a year after 360 --and 2.) it will not be the full package 360 owners currently have access to.

2.  I don't think that is officially confirmed.   Yes, it's not likely all of the DLC will be available to buy first day,  but I think the wait for the DLC won't be as long as it took for Xbox360 to receive the DLC all the way up to Chapter 11 and Fuma.

[cecil-kain]

That's only what 360 worshippers out there would say.  Really, hardcore market?   I see more diversity of games like fighting games, Japanese RPGs, and adventure games appear on the PS3 top 10 more often than 360's top ten lists (which are mainly flooded with shooters.)
Yes, 360 has grabbed the eastern Shmups library, but that isn't saying much.

We're talking about raw market share --not the diversity or the quality of the software.

Substantial?  It's obvious not even half of the PS3 owners in the world own a 360. 
You underestimate the PS3-only masses out there you can't see.
Your point is like saying "the majority of Wii owners own a PS3", when that's not true.   People owning one platform is far more common than owning 2 or more.

PS3 is certainly more successful than 360 in Japan, but we're talking about the western market --and 360 dominates PS3 in the west.  Also Hardcore gamers are much more likely to own multiple systems than the casual types that just buy Wiis.  IMO you are overestimating the base of PS3 loyalists. --And for the record I do not own a 360.  My point being --if I did, I'd already own HoD on that system --as MANY already do.  Such people won't bother repurchasing for the PS3.

Of course it's large enough!   And 'full price' is a very sweet deal for a lot of PS3 owners.  $15 is nothing for something that delivers so much on the single player as well as multiplayer side.   Thousands would pay for DLC like  RE5, and SSFIV, even after paying $60,  so even $40-50 counting DLC isn't a big deal to most people that aren't so cheap.  And those that don't want to pay that much don't have to, they can enjoy the vanilla edition if they are against buying DLC.   They can still play what's there for a really low price.

This price obcession has been a bit much, let's wait on an -official- announcement do debate the value of the price.

Castle Crashers became the top best selling PSN game on PS3, despite being on 360 first.
http://www.joystiq.com/2010/10/19/zen-pinball-and-castle-crashers-top-psn-sales-in-september/

I'd hardly compare a fresh IP to something as established as Castlevania.  That's not even apples and oranges --more like meat and potatoes...

MM was bundled because they don't have lasting appeal as stand alone games.    Again, MM10 and 9's value are far less and offer much less features and replay value than what Castlevania HD has to offer.  That can't be denied. Ask any Castlevania HD fan on XBLA if they would play MM 9 or 10 over Castlevania HD,  they will think you're crazy, and they will have plenty of reasons why.  It's like comparing Strider with Guardian Heroes.   To many that enjoy it, Castlevania HD is worth far more than 1,000,000 MM games.

This is all subjective.  You obviously have a strong opinion --and I'm sure an army of flaming Megaman fanboys wouldn't convince you otherwise...  But you're clearly ignoring the parallels I made a point to mention earlier.

2.  I don't think that is officially confirmed.   Yes, it's not likely all of the DLC will be available to buy first day,  but I think the wait for the DLC won't be as long as it took for Xbox360 to receive the DLC all the way up to Chapter 11 and Fuma.

You believe Konami's entitled to profits,  I believe fans are entitled to an apology.  But please explain why shouldn't the full package be available on Day 1?

[affinity]

PS3 is certainly more successful than 360 in Japan, but we're talking about the western market --and 360 dominates PS3 in the west.  Also Hardcore gamers are much more likely to own multiple systems than the casual types that just buy Wiis.

Your definition of hardcore sounds misplaced.  Hardcore gamers are fewer than mainstream gamers.     And they do not encompass every PS3 owner.  There are casuals on all consoles.    Believing the majority own more than 1 console is like believing most people own more than 1 TV in their room (personal-wise, not family-wise.)

IMO you are overestimating the base of PS3 loyalists. --And for the record I do not own a 360.  My point being --if I did, I'd already own HoD on that system --as MANY already do.  Such people won't bother repurchasing for the PS3.   

In general, the PSN version wasn't released with the 360 user base in mind.    If Konami thought they would only make a good amount of profits from 360 owners, they wouldn't have bothered porting it.   The PS3 user base is more vast than you think and it encompasses people that haven't touched a 360.   360 is more successful in west, but PS3 isn't lacking in sales and popularity at all, otherwise it wouldn't have continued  receiving award winning exclusives and exciting multiplatform releases.  Nothing wrong with being 2nd in the west, PS3 still has a massive user base, especially millions on PSN.

You believe Konami's entitled to profits,  I believe fans are entitled to an apology.  But please explain why shouldn't the full package be available on Day 1?

Apology?   For what?   The PSN version isn't even being specifically marketed towards XBLA players.   And there are XBLA version veterans that are looking forward to PSN version, even willing to buy all the DLC again.     So what did Konami do wrong?   The local co-op addition?  Many ports released a year or more afterwards often get extras the original version didn't have.    The year wait?   Microsoft paid for a time exclusive.  people shouldn't live in the past.   If anything, PSN receiving its version a year later has been beneficial in various ways.   It's like something that was very cool a year before being very cool again to a new audience (like Castle Crashers when it released on PSN.)

I don't mind if every single DLC is available Day 1, but I'm not counting on "all" of it being released the same day.    PS3 is different hardware so it's possible they could still be taking their time testing and making sure the rest of the DLC works properly.   

And perhaps releasing the DLC over time (not as long as 360 had to wait, but maybe more DLC per month) so it gives players more time to focus and enjoy what's already there and then over time, have some fresh and fun DLC to look forward to, instead of grinding everything through the same month.

But either way they manage the DLC is fine by me as long as they don't release the DLC the same amount of time it took for XBLA to get all of the DLC.    (but if it does, no use complaining.  At least PSN version will get all of the DLC eventually.)

[crisis]

this debate is soo epic


From what I've read I'd have to agree with cecil-kain, but you 2 should eat some banana already & lay down IMO

Affinity, you're unbelievable! If only you showed this much enthusiasm for the rest of the series...

[cecil-kain]

Your definition of hardcore sounds misplaced.  Hardcore gamers are fewer than mainstream gamers.     And they do not encompass every PS3 owner.  There are casuals on all consoles.    Believing the majority own more than 1 console is like believing most people own more than 1 TV in their room (personal-wise, not family-wise.)

I'd be curious to know how you make your distinction between mainstream and hardcore gamers.  Castlevania isn't exactly mainstream IMO --like I said before it has a niche audience...  And for that reason, I can understand why Konami passed over the Wii --at least in terms of perceptions that it's a casual gaming machine...  But the PS3 certainly doesn't have that problem.

In general, the PSN version wasn't released with the 360 user base in mind.    If Konami thought they would only make a good amount of profits from 360 owners, they wouldn't have bothered porting it.   The PS3 user base is more vast than you think and it encompasses people that haven't touched a 360.   360 is more successful in west, but PS3 isn't lacking in sales and popularity at all, otherwise it wouldn't have continued  receiving award winning exclusives and exciting multiplatform releases.  Nothing wrong with being 2nd in the west, PS3 still has a massive user base, especially millions on PSN.

I think we're confusing the figures here.  I'm speaking in terms of percentages, while you're speaking more in terms of populations.  Obviously there's an under-served population of Castlevania fans that own PS3s and not 360s --we're the ones that got jipped.  Porting it over to PSN is dirt cheap especially with digital distribution.  Any additional sales are gravy --even at $10.00 a sale.

Apology?   For what?   The PSN version isn't even being specifically marketed towards XBLA players.   And there are XBLA version veterans that are looking forward to PSN version, even willing to buy all the DLC again.     So what did Konami do wrong?   The local co-op addition?  Many ports released a year or more afterwards often get extras the original version didn't have.    The year wait?   Microsoft paid for a time exclusive.  people shouldn't live in the past.   If anything, PSN receiving its version a year later has been beneficial in various ways.   It's like something that was very cool a year before being very cool again to a new audience (like Castle Crashers when it released on PSN.)

So far the only officially announced addition to the game is the local co-op.  If they pimp out the game with some real extra content --say the Trevor, Sypha, Grant example, maybe Morris & Lecarde, more stages etc --certainly that's worth a second look.  But as of this moment, it's too little too late to pay a premium unless we're guaranteed the full package Day 1.  BTW--if indeed Microsoft paid off Konami for exclusivity, that diminishes your profit argument even further...

I don't mind if every single DLC is available Day 1, but I'm not counting on "all" of it being released the same day.    PS3 is different hardware so it's possible they could still be taking their time testing and making sure the rest of the DLC works properly.   

And perhaps releasing the DLC over time (not as long as 360 had to wait, but maybe more DLC per month) so it gives players more time to focus and enjoy what's already there and then over time, have some fresh and fun DLC to look forward to, instead of grinding everything through the same month.

I have a feeling HoD will be a breeze, and we'll get stuck waiting impatiently for DLC content --much like with Lords of Shadow...  At least LoS's DLC was still in progress when the main game was released --and that justified some of the wait --but HoD's DLC is already finished.

But either way they manage the DLC is fine by me as long as they don't release the DLC the same amount of time it took for XBLA to get all of the DLC.    (but if it does, no use complaining.  At least PSN version will get all of the DLC eventually.)

One would hope so --guess we'll wait and see...

[Sonic_Reaper]

Let's be honest here.  The "DLC" in HoD are rehashed sprites, some over a decade old.  They have at most a handful of new frames.  I don't see how that can be compared to DLC that is genuinely new and freshly created (ie:  SSFIV or MvC3).  I personally don't mind paying for the DLC, especially with the amount of hours I've sunk into HoD, but at the end of the day, the guys at Konami took some old ass sprites, slapped them into an already completed engine, and charged way more than they are worth.  Let's not kid ourselves otherwise.

[Pemburu Vampir]

Konami really made a stupid decision naming this game Harmony of Despair.

[Vlad_TepeZ]

You people gotta stop calling it HoD..

HoD = Harmony of Dissonance
HD = Harmony of Despair!

Damn it...