The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Metal Gear Solid 2: Substance is nearly upon us. In essence, it contains all of the original Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty game, plus extras which you can access from the main menu:
Snake Tales (extra missions)
the much awaited VR Missions
and the surprise that noone really believed they would actually include - Skateboarding
The only other difference is that you get to choose which level you start playing on in the main game first, Tanker or Oil Platform.
Here's the dilemma. I already own the original MGS2: Sons of Liberty game. If I buy the Substance version too, this would make my original game obsolete, it would never need to be played again. And it would be pointless trying to trade it in, who would buy it when Substance is available? The trade in value would be minimal.
On top of this, Substance costs around £37.99. That's nearly £40 just to play a few extra bits that in my view they should have included with the original game. Are the extras really worth forking out for?
Konami should have gone about this in a new way. They should have offered a buy back scheme for all original owners, so if they handed in their copy of MGS2: Sons of Liberty when buying Substance, they'd only have to pay £20 instead of the full price. The retailers wouldn't lose out, because Konami could reimburse them for each game returned.
Anyone else who didn't own the original could still buy the game at full price. The only loser would be, of course, Konami. But then how much business are they going to lose by original owners not buying the new game in the first place?
This buy back scheme could be extended. It's better value for the customers, because you get more return on your games than you do with just normal part-exchange using current shop schemes. It's worth publishers and developers looking into a way of implementing this, not just for games that are updated, but for all games. Say I have Tiger Woods PGA 2003, or Final Fantasy X, and EA or SquareSoft have a buy back scheme, it would nice to have the option of getting a newer version at half price as and when it's released. And if I was tired of golf, maybe I could exchange Tiger Woods PGA 2003 for FIFA 2003 under the same scheme because both were published by EA?
EA would benefit, because they get customer loyalty, I wouldn't get the same deal trading in Tiger Woods PGA 2003 for a copy of Pro Evolution Soccer 2, and EA wouldn't get anything from the deal at all.
As gamers, this kind of scheme is much preferable to allowing developers to release one half-completed game at full price one year, and then follow it up with a more complete version, again at full price, the next year. It devalues our existing game collections, especially in Substance's case where it makes my existing version obsolete.
Snake Tales (extra missions)
the much awaited VR Missions
and the surprise that noone really believed they would actually include - Skateboarding
The only other difference is that you get to choose which level you start playing on in the main game first, Tanker or Oil Platform.
Here's the dilemma. I already own the original MGS2: Sons of Liberty game. If I buy the Substance version too, this would make my original game obsolete, it would never need to be played again. And it would be pointless trying to trade it in, who would buy it when Substance is available? The trade in value would be minimal.
On top of this, Substance costs around £37.99. That's nearly £40 just to play a few extra bits that in my view they should have included with the original game. Are the extras really worth forking out for?
Konami should have gone about this in a new way. They should have offered a buy back scheme for all original owners, so if they handed in their copy of MGS2: Sons of Liberty when buying Substance, they'd only have to pay £20 instead of the full price. The retailers wouldn't lose out, because Konami could reimburse them for each game returned.
Anyone else who didn't own the original could still buy the game at full price. The only loser would be, of course, Konami. But then how much business are they going to lose by original owners not buying the new game in the first place?
This buy back scheme could be extended. It's better value for the customers, because you get more return on your games than you do with just normal part-exchange using current shop schemes. It's worth publishers and developers looking into a way of implementing this, not just for games that are updated, but for all games. Say I have Tiger Woods PGA 2003, or Final Fantasy X, and EA or SquareSoft have a buy back scheme, it would nice to have the option of getting a newer version at half price as and when it's released. And if I was tired of golf, maybe I could exchange Tiger Woods PGA 2003 for FIFA 2003 under the same scheme because both were published by EA?
EA would benefit, because they get customer loyalty, I wouldn't get the same deal trading in Tiger Woods PGA 2003 for a copy of Pro Evolution Soccer 2, and EA wouldn't get anything from the deal at all.
As gamers, this kind of scheme is much preferable to allowing developers to release one half-completed game at full price one year, and then follow it up with a more complete version, again at full price, the next year. It devalues our existing game collections, especially in Substance's case where it makes my existing version obsolete.
Page:
I'll join Wookiee on this, I wont be buying it, already have MGS2 which I never completed, got bored of the cut scenes etc etc and have subsequently lent it out to someone indefinitely.
I can't really see Substance being that much of an improvement and as you've just said, it's another £40 (didn't realise that) so that'll be a big NO NO NO!
VR missions, who cares.
Skateboarding, who cares.
Basically Konami are just ripping off the public! In my opinion anyway!
I can't really see Substance being that much of an improvement and as you've just said, it's another £40 (didn't realise that) so that'll be a big NO NO NO!
VR missions, who cares.
Skateboarding, who cares.
Basically Konami are just ripping off the public! In my opinion anyway!
Personally, I doubt I'll be bothering with Substance.
I've played the original game, I'm not interested in the VR missions, can't stand skateboarding, and it isn't worth the money for just the Snake Tales.
I've played the original game, I'm not interested in the VR missions, can't stand skateboarding, and it isn't worth the money for just the Snake Tales.
Metal Gear Solid 2: Substance is nearly upon us. In essence, it contains all of the original Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty game, plus extras which you can access from the main menu:
Snake Tales (extra missions)
the much awaited VR Missions
and the surprise that noone really believed they would actually include - Skateboarding
The only other difference is that you get to choose which level you start playing on in the main game first, Tanker or Oil Platform.
Here's the dilemma. I already own the original MGS2: Sons of Liberty game. If I buy the Substance version too, this would make my original game obsolete, it would never need to be played again. And it would be pointless trying to trade it in, who would buy it when Substance is available? The trade in value would be minimal.
On top of this, Substance costs around £37.99. That's nearly £40 just to play a few extra bits that in my view they should have included with the original game. Are the extras really worth forking out for?
Konami should have gone about this in a new way. They should have offered a buy back scheme for all original owners, so if they handed in their copy of MGS2: Sons of Liberty when buying Substance, they'd only have to pay £20 instead of the full price. The retailers wouldn't lose out, because Konami could reimburse them for each game returned.
Anyone else who didn't own the original could still buy the game at full price. The only loser would be, of course, Konami. But then how much business are they going to lose by original owners not buying the new game in the first place?
This buy back scheme could be extended. It's better value for the customers, because you get more return on your games than you do with just normal part-exchange using current shop schemes. It's worth publishers and developers looking into a way of implementing this, not just for games that are updated, but for all games. Say I have Tiger Woods PGA 2003, or Final Fantasy X, and EA or SquareSoft have a buy back scheme, it would nice to have the option of getting a newer version at half price as and when it's released. And if I was tired of golf, maybe I could exchange Tiger Woods PGA 2003 for FIFA 2003 under the same scheme because both were published by EA?
EA would benefit, because they get customer loyalty, I wouldn't get the same deal trading in Tiger Woods PGA 2003 for a copy of Pro Evolution Soccer 2, and EA wouldn't get anything from the deal at all.
As gamers, this kind of scheme is much preferable to allowing developers to release one half-completed game at full price one year, and then follow it up with a more complete version, again at full price, the next year. It devalues our existing game collections, especially in Substance's case where it makes my existing version obsolete.
Snake Tales (extra missions)
the much awaited VR Missions
and the surprise that noone really believed they would actually include - Skateboarding
The only other difference is that you get to choose which level you start playing on in the main game first, Tanker or Oil Platform.
Here's the dilemma. I already own the original MGS2: Sons of Liberty game. If I buy the Substance version too, this would make my original game obsolete, it would never need to be played again. And it would be pointless trying to trade it in, who would buy it when Substance is available? The trade in value would be minimal.
On top of this, Substance costs around £37.99. That's nearly £40 just to play a few extra bits that in my view they should have included with the original game. Are the extras really worth forking out for?
Konami should have gone about this in a new way. They should have offered a buy back scheme for all original owners, so if they handed in their copy of MGS2: Sons of Liberty when buying Substance, they'd only have to pay £20 instead of the full price. The retailers wouldn't lose out, because Konami could reimburse them for each game returned.
Anyone else who didn't own the original could still buy the game at full price. The only loser would be, of course, Konami. But then how much business are they going to lose by original owners not buying the new game in the first place?
This buy back scheme could be extended. It's better value for the customers, because you get more return on your games than you do with just normal part-exchange using current shop schemes. It's worth publishers and developers looking into a way of implementing this, not just for games that are updated, but for all games. Say I have Tiger Woods PGA 2003, or Final Fantasy X, and EA or SquareSoft have a buy back scheme, it would nice to have the option of getting a newer version at half price as and when it's released. And if I was tired of golf, maybe I could exchange Tiger Woods PGA 2003 for FIFA 2003 under the same scheme because both were published by EA?
EA would benefit, because they get customer loyalty, I wouldn't get the same deal trading in Tiger Woods PGA 2003 for a copy of Pro Evolution Soccer 2, and EA wouldn't get anything from the deal at all.
As gamers, this kind of scheme is much preferable to allowing developers to release one half-completed game at full price one year, and then follow it up with a more complete version, again at full price, the next year. It devalues our existing game collections, especially in Substance's case where it makes my existing version obsolete.
Page: