NY Post Suggest to Not Buy the 360...Yet... [Archive]

bapenguin

11-17-2005, 11:37 AM

According to the New York Post (http://news.yahoo.com/s/pagesix/20051117/en_pagesix/don39tbuythexbox360) you shouldn't be buying an XBox 360 at launch. In fact...you shouldn't buy it until the PS3 and Revolution hit retail.

* No competition - Sure, you could rush out and drop hundreds on the 360, but we have no idea what the next-gen PlayStation 3 and Nintendo Revolution are going to be capable of doing. Both of those systems are due next year, and will surely spark a mini price war with the Xbox 360.
There are 4 other reasons you shouldn't buy an XBox 360 according to the NY Post which include: Price, Hidden Costs, Lack of Games and Older Consoles Not Dead yet.

The article brings up some good points, then again...console launches are rarely for the casual gamer.

bapenguin

11-17-2005, 11:38 AM

There's your Anti-360 news now...I hope you fuckers are happy. :D

DeadPixel

11-17-2005, 11:45 AM

This article won't change anyone's mind. The fact remains, this Christmas a lot of whiny kids will be getting XBOX 360s. Santa better have a nice pre-order list or his sled will be looking for parking at Costco.

King Drewsky

11-17-2005, 11:45 AM

And I thought not being able to play 50 Cent: Bulletproof was a positive thing.

XxSATANxX

11-17-2005, 11:47 AM

I paid 90 dollars for my X-box. I bought a total of 3 machines modded the hell out of them and just now have started really playing the box for the first time. I love paying 4.99 for the games. 360 can wait for now. Ghost recon 3 might get me to pay attention
but for now nah....

As for the hype well I'm not really seeing it that much. Jump rope add......it's thinking!

Tia

11-17-2005, 11:49 AM

I am all for it. You hear that everyone? Go and cancel your pre-orders and the sooner the better!!!

*manic evil laughter*

*runs to ebgames to get herself and X360*

"fools"

wait, did I say that out loud?

Mason

11-17-2005, 11:49 AM

Idiocy. And I'm someone who has advocated many times not to get consoles at launch.

But it is all subjective to the gamer. Take a look at the games, and only buy the console when there's a game good enough to make it worth the overhead cost.

Simply buying a new console because it is new is of course dumb. But so is ignoring a console until its competitors come out (in a year). Judge everything on its own merits! Even if the PS3 is somehow the most amazing console ever, that doesn't lessen the value of the 360, and it doesn't make a choice to buy a 360 this fall a bad choice next fall, so long as you're getting the 360 for games that you enjoy.

Rationality. It's what's for dinner.

Rakael

11-17-2005, 11:49 AM

Hell no I'm not happy!! I am still angry about...uhh....well.....hrmmm.....

Your face! Yea! In your...face...or something.

MS is teh doomed!

*Goes back to scribbling "leet" ravings about the PS3 on the wall using some sort of lumpy, sticky, brown substance*

Taco

11-17-2005, 11:54 AM

I am beginning to dislike the prevalent anti-Xbox bias on this site.

Not sure whether or not I need to mark this as sarcasm, so I just did.

fitbabits

11-17-2005, 11:56 AM

The people at the NY Post know as much about the videogame industry as I know about paleoclimatology!

fitbabits

11-17-2005, 11:59 AM

There's your Anti-360 news now...I hope you fuckers are happy. :D
Some people are never happy, bapenguin!

if76

11-17-2005, 12:00 PM

"All that for a machine that won't play the hot games this season, like Star Wars Battlefront II and 50 Cent: Bulletproof."

Fucking mainstream media. Whether their points are valid or not, a lot of gamers are gonna stop reading after that sentence. I happen to know 2 milliion dollars was cut from that game's development budget so they could get Emininem to do voicework.

Cha-Ka

11-17-2005, 12:01 PM

I'm planning to wait a year before buying a 360 if I get one at all. I just don't think the hardware or software will be worth my money at launch. I keep asking myself how many X-Box or PS2 launch titles are still worth a shit me now and I keep arriving at the same answer of "exactly none." If I wait a year the hardware get more refined and less expensive as unpublicized improvements are made to the 360's innards and the first generation of fully-developed titles will have started to creep onto shelves. T

The introduction of an exclusive 'must have' title might change my mind. If my pc can't handle Elder Scrolls Oblivion I might give in sooner. Of course, my console interest is at low tide these days since city of heroes/villains still eclipses all my other gaming concerns.

Evil Dude

11-17-2005, 12:05 PM

But that's the part of the problem. To get the full Xbox 360 experience, you need to spend hundreds - perhaps thousands - of dollars. All that for a machine that won't play the hot games this season, like Star Wars Battlefront II and 50 Cent: Bulletproof.

They sure know their stuff :rolleyes:

Roc Ingersol

11-17-2005, 12:05 PM

groundbreaking news from the NYPost: Don't buy consoles at launch unless you have money to burn!

people who don't care about gaming shouldn't try to cover gaming news. They just look like idiots.

DropD98

11-17-2005, 12:07 PM

The points made in the article are all well and good, but I want the console... now... not just because of the games either... the 360 is one cool friggin box! :D

motor

11-17-2005, 12:09 PM

The points made in the article are all well and good, but I want the console... now... not just because of the games either... the 360 is one cool friggin box! :D

Allard, stop posting to EA and get back to work!

Kyle Jones

11-17-2005, 12:12 PM

Yeah, I won't be buying it, but then again, I never buy a console at launch.

DropD98

11-17-2005, 12:12 PM

Allard, stop posting to EA and get back to work!

ROFL! Oh wow, I soooo wish! Then I'd have a lot more money to spend on frivolous things like high dollar hookers and a kick a$$ bachelor pad! :cool:

Kamalot

11-17-2005, 12:15 PM

Ha! What about if I buy the Xbox 360 after work? Then I won't be buying it at lunch! That'll show those dummies over there.

"Don't buy it at lunch" duh!

Doctor Setebos

11-17-2005, 12:18 PM

Wonder how much Sony paid for that piece of "journalism".

Yeah, I said it! :D

Phades

11-17-2005, 12:26 PM

They obviously don't understand gaming. By their logic they should release a followup article, "don't buy a current generation system!" That way, it's cheap, you know what the top games are for it, and it shouldn't be too hard to find.

Syrinx

11-17-2005, 12:26 PM

And if you add peripherals, such as the ability to play games over the Internet, and the Xbox 360 costs nearly $600!

What the.... I hope they aren't including internet service cost into this.

Heretic Machine

11-17-2005, 12:27 PM

I think Bap pretty much it the nail on the head... The article says that casual gamers shouldn't buy it, but that is pretty much a given for any console launch. Bad article... but then again, what else can you expect from the NY Post?

bapenguin

11-17-2005, 12:29 PM

I think it's funny they mention lack of games. 25 some odd games at launch (including live arcade) is pretty awesome.

protocol_image

11-17-2005, 12:31 PM

what the NY Post doesn't seem to take into consideration is that some people like to own ALL the systems. i personally LOVE the fact that the 360 comes out so much earlier. i've been saving up for months and i can now afford it. but if i waited until all 3 systems were out, i'd have to drop somewhere around $2,000 to pick them all up.......it's much easier on the wallet to spread that out :)

not to mention that there is ALWAYS at least one game worth owning each system for.....obviously it becomes an expensive habbit when you own all systems, but honestly, if you are a "gamer" there's no other choice......looks like it's ramen noodles for dinner again! but at least i'll get to start earning achievement points for my gamer card on Day One =)

Conner Dain

11-17-2005, 12:33 PM

And I thought not being able to play 50 Cent: Bulletproof was a positive thing.

Anything that removes awareness of 50 Cent's existence is a good thing.

fitbabits

11-17-2005, 12:34 PM

I think it's funny they mention lack of games. 25 some odd games at launch (including live arcade) is pretty awesome.
Oh, but most of them are ports, available on other systems or sucky-360-exclusive-rushed-out-the-door-games. Which brings the total down to 1 - PGR 3, which itself is simply an upgrade to PGR 2. With shinier graffix. Don't believe the hype - the Xbox 360 is the bastard stepchild of the PC you probably already have! :rolleyes:

Mason

11-17-2005, 12:35 PM

And if you'll indulge me in some brief paranoia, I find it interesting that Murdoch's NYPost would be so blatant about an attempt to kneecap the latest venture from Microsoft. The interesting bit is that Sony and Murdoch's News Corporation have scrambling for position in many different markets lately, from British TV to Indian telecomm. But also a number of collaborations.

However, Microsoft and Murdoch seem particularly at odds over the future of Western games and internet technologies. News Corp has been sniffing around acquiring major games studios for some time now. They already own IGN (and MySpace, and a bunch of other stuff). And so in this regard, Murdoch seems to have a big chip in the whole MS/Google/Yahoo conflict.

But in the meantime News Corp is picking up fun stuff like Intermix Media (http://www.edbott.com/weblog/archives/000857.html), a spyware/adware infection company. So maybe disable javascript and cookies from MySpace, as a suggestion.

But in the end, I'd say that this comes down to a few issues. Fox Studios are heavy supporters of the Blu-Ray format, which is basically dead in the water if the PS3 doesn't Trojan it into people's homes. And Microsoft still stands up for consumer rights a tiny bit on DRM issues, unlike Sony, who'll obviously go to criminal lengths to protect content. Which the owner of a massive TV (both content creation and cable/satellite distribution) and film empire would certainly respect.

Alternately, one could suggest that Murdoch is seeking to soften up the game industry in general, to make buying a huge chunks of it far easier. And if putting "DON'T BUY THE XBOX 360" isn't an attempt to gimp the upcoming launch, then they probably could've found a way to say it with a bit more tact.

And you know that they're stretching to convince people not to get the 360 for ulterior motives when they include sentences like this:

All that for a machine that won't play the hot games this season, like Star Wars Battlefront II and 50 Cent: Bulletproof.

I mean...come the fuck on.

Ultima Thulian

11-17-2005, 12:38 PM

The article is pretty much common sense to ANY consumer. The older things get and the more competition=cheaper price. Well, yeah, no shit. Whether or not I get the 360 this christmas (with my own money, moochers be damned) will depend on qualtiy software and quality peripherals and ease of use. But I'll probably hold out for a while. I think I'll wait until they have a kickass bundle (like the gamecube did metroid prime and supersmashbros.). That way I get everything and some games. And maybe by that time they'll improve their shitty BC list.

hideouslywrinkled

11-17-2005, 12:45 PM

then again, what else can you expect from the NY Post?

I heard there's an article on Page 6 about the Xbox 360 giving the Gamecube "Jesus juice" in a secret room on the Microsoft campus!

Felonous

11-17-2005, 12:47 PM

They forgot to mention the most important reason for not buying the Xbox 360....

To ensure that Felonous does not have any 'sorry, sold out' issues when he goes to buy his Xbox 360 on launch day!

EternalGamer

11-17-2005, 12:49 PM

What is really stupid about this article is that much of it seems to be comparing buying a Xbox 360 to buying or playing the current generation systems. This is retarded because 99.99% of the people who would consider purchasing an XBOX would ALREADY have one of those systems and would already be able to play those "hottest" titles and buy cheaper games. Who in the hell is considering buying a 360 as their first game console?

Dan

Nath5000

11-17-2005, 12:51 PM

It says the old consoles arent dead yet which is true, and overall, when comparing many games that are on 360 including the ports like EA and 2ksports and King kong, to the consumer playing the system on a SDTV they might not even really see that big of a difference. To an SDTV owner the value of the 360 is mostly in just new newer exclusive games like Call of duty 2, Kameo Perfect Dark Zero PGR3 etc. I personally as an HDTV owner who has had the xbox and PS2 since day one am happy to finally get a console that isnt going to look fuzzy and grainy on my television as the xbox and ps2 have in 480 progressive modes.
My personal opinion is that this article only really applies to SDTV owners who maybe got the 360 within the past year to two years. Im sick of last gen. Even if it turned out to be another dreamcast I'd still buy it becuase from what I've seen they have the games I want now and into the future (gears of war, possibly final fantasy, too human Huxley etc)

the dreamcast had a sad end, but if i could go back to 9,9,1999 Id buy it all over again. Ill get ps3 just as I got Ps2 and PSP, but either way, I dont think sony really is out to innovate in any ways that benefit anyone but themselves.

Goronmon

11-17-2005, 12:53 PM

Despite the poorly written article, the points made are valid for most people, not everyone is a hardcore gamer willing to blow $400 plus peripherals and games at the drop of a hat.

And about the Bulletproof game. I think the point was that its prolly going to sell like crazy (the article never said anything about it being the best game out there), and there are other systems you can get for a lot cheaper.

The problem is you are looking at this from the EA-crowd standpoint. For normal consumers, this stuff is pretty much common sense.

Goronmon

11-17-2005, 12:55 PM

Who in the hell is considering buying a 360 as their first game console?
Some kid begging there parents for one for Christmas?

kraemer

11-17-2005, 01:10 PM

I dont want to play PGR3 because that would be too much fun. I certainly dont want to play PDZero because that would be WAY the hell too much fun. And I REALLLLLLY dont want to hook the Xbox360 up to the HDTV and have it be the front end for the Media Center Box. That would be just TOO convenient.

Yea, I will wait for PS3 and revolution, because hey those will do everything Xbox360 will do and even clean my house and mow the lawn! Yea!

XenonCJ

11-17-2005, 01:10 PM

Casual consumers are fairly irrelevent... It's what do screaming-console-wanting-kids want for Christmas??? Game Cube? PS2? Xbox? FUCK NO.

XBox360, it's just that simple...

Mason

11-17-2005, 01:11 PM

So no one else wants to engage in the speculation that this is all posturing to help Fox with its Blu-Ray launch? That's no fun.

Kelegacy

11-17-2005, 01:21 PM

Serapth

11-17-2005, 01:44 PM

I think most of their reasons for NOT buying the 360 are valid, but the one that stands out at me the most is: THE OLD SYSTEMS ARE NOT YET DEAD.

I'll be playing Dragon Quest 8 this weekend, and choosing a bit more from the 50 or so other quality games being released this Fall.

Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather spend 400 bucks on 8-10 new games than 460 bucks on 1 game.

Yeah, but those arguments apply to every fucking system ever launched!

Technically, they still make games for the PS1 ( god know why )... so maybe we should have all picked up a bunch of Playstation 1's because their cheaper, you can get a ton more games, etc.. etc..

This is a retarded story that has nothing to do with the XBox 360 in the first place, and has everything to do with new launches in general. Plus, the XBox 360 has the biggest launch lineup ive ever seen, which makes his no games point doubly stupid.

Then again... for my car related news I dont go read Home and Garden magazine... so really why the hell would I read the NY Post for my gaming news?

askheaves

11-17-2005, 01:48 PM

I picked a very very bad time to buy a house. It looks like I'm going to have to go get my $50 back from GameStop (like I had a box coming anyway).

Kelegacy

11-17-2005, 02:15 PM

Yeah, but those arguments apply to every fucking system ever launched!

I don't think you see the point here. The other consoles have lots of life in them, or should. The PS1 has been squeezed dry for years now. The Xbox is still a very capable machine, and the PS2 even surprises us all with things like Resident Evil 4. These systems still have fresh megahits coming out and there really is no need to upgrade right now other than a handful of games that are ports, sequels, or games that were supposed to be launched on last-gen's systems. Kameo and PDZ are the only titles that interest me, and if I owned a 360, I bet I'd have beaten those two games in just a couple days.

The Xbox will be around for exactly 4 years when the 360 comes out. Some titles take that long to develop. The PS2 will have 6 years or more under its belt when the PS3 arrives. I didnt buy a PS2 at launch because titles like Chrono Cross, FF8 and 9 and others were still coming out for the capable PS1. Why buy a new cow when the current one is still producing Grade A milk. Some could argue that the milk is even sweeter now, the cream of the crop.

So while the article is obvious to us gamers, it still makes points that are valid and might help the more "hardcore impaired" out there that are still on the fence. I for one cannot wait for the price war, so I can finally cave and buy a 360 (if there are games out that entice me--Oblivion is the only one I can see me getting excited about right now).

And Mason is right: people that buy things just because they are new are stupid. But people do this, hence the reason Nanos sold so well upon their release. And I'm sure there are people here that purchased a 360 for that reason alone, though they probably haven't even realized it yet.

I wish I was a 360 so I could suck up some of your highly disposable incomes.

Serapth

11-17-2005, 02:54 PM

I didnt buy a PS2 at launch because titles like Chrono Cross, FF8 and 9 and others were still coming out for the capable PS1. Why buy a new cow when the current one is still producing Grade A milk. Some could argue that the milk is even sweeter now, the cream of the crop.

No, this was my point exactly. Everytime a new console comes out, the current gen still has some exceptional games coming out. Infact they will probrably be among the best games of that gen strictly because the devs know the hardware better, or the game spent so long in development.

What im saying is, this article is a description of new console launches in general, and has nothing to do with the Xbox 360 specifically.

funtownarcade

11-17-2005, 02:55 PM

"And if you add peripherals, such as the ability to play games over the Internet, and the Xbox 360 costs nearly $600!"

haha

askheaves

11-17-2005, 03:12 PM

I can give you a couple of quick, good reasons to buy on launch day.
The first edition systems are the most likely to be hacked with the least effort once the chips/softmods become reduced to science.
If you don't get a 360 on launch day, you've pretty much relegated yourself to waiting until about April before you can get another crack at one.
Cool factor.
Get your GamerTag more experience/points earlier.

Goronmon

11-17-2005, 03:22 PM

What im saying is, this article is a description of new console launches in general, and has nothing to do with the Xbox 360 specifically.
Doesn't make it any less valid.

Cha-Ka

11-17-2005, 03:25 PM

Casual consumers are fairly irrelevent... It's what do screaming-console-wanting-kids want for Christmas??? Game Cube? PS2? Xbox? FUCK NO.

XBox360, it's just that simple...

Actually, casual gamers and thier gift-giving relatives are the backbone of the industry. If you take the longer view it's the hardcore gamers like us that are fairly irrelevant to largescale success. Our purchases only account for a drop in the profit-bucket compared to the money the casual audiences spend.

IagoTheHunted

11-17-2005, 03:27 PM

meh, I'll be gettin' all the systems as they launch so I'm not to concerned with competition. Of course I'll get reamed price-wise like with all the other systems, but it's worth it for the first few months of super-cool before the new tech becomes old-hat.

Serapth

11-17-2005, 03:31 PM

Doesn't make it any less valid.

True, but it does make it misleading, especially when the publication is aimed at the general populous and not gamers.

People could read an article like this and think to themselves "Hmmm... the Xbox is so-so, I better wait for the PS3 because it will have a better launch".

Serapth

11-17-2005, 03:36 PM

Actually, casual gamers and thier gift-giving relatives are the backbone of the industry. If you take the longer view it's the hardcore gamers like us that are fairly irrelevant to largescale success. Our purchases only account for a drop in the profit-bucket compared to the money the casual audiences spend.

Thats not really true either. Both are needed. The casual gamer makes up for the bulk of unit sales, but the hardcore gamer has by far the highest attach rate of games sold. If your the type that buys 20 or 30 games per system, they LOVE YOU. You've made the profit of six or seven casual gamers. Where as if your a casual gamer, and only buy one or two games and rent the rest, chances are they lose money on you.

So frankly, they need to cater to both crowds.

EternalGamer

11-17-2005, 04:10 PM

TrackZero

11-17-2005, 04:25 PM

So no one else wants to engage in the speculation that this is all posturing to help Fox with its Blu-Ray launch? That's no fun.

Hell, I'll agree with you on this Mason. That just gives me further justification for buying the 360 early and supporting Microsoft on this. ;)

TrackZero

11-17-2005, 04:34 PM

The reverse side of the article is that if you wait to buy a new system, you may get it cheaper, but you get to enjoy it that much less before it is abandoned for new technology. I'm all for people waiting to buy game systems when they are $99, they just have to understand that with that cheaper price tag comes a shortened life span. If you buy systems when they are new, you get a good 4-5 years to enjoy new product on them. If you wait until they are cheap, you don't get nearly as much use out them before that happens.

Dan

True enough. Cost over time as well is usually at it's cheapest when the system launches. The price may go down a year or two later, but not enough to justify the time lost.

i.e.

System X has a lifespan of 5 years. It launches at a pricetag of $500.

Person A who buys the console at launch is then paying $100/per year with the console.

System X, 2 years into it's lifespan has a pricetag of $380.

Person B who buys the console at launch is then paying $126/per year with the console.

So it's usually worth it to grab it at launch. Of course this doesn't assume any problems with the initial batch of hardware that can/may arise, or any bundled games the later systems usually have. Or the titles that are out from launch -> onward. And you're assuming the system is "dead" at the end of it's "lifetime".

But I suppose it does show it's not a huge difference in cost of ownership to grab it ASAP instead of waiting.

The Iron Weasel

11-17-2005, 04:56 PM

Allard, stop posting to EA and get back to work!

RED CLOAK IS J.Allard JEBUS! :D

Kelegacy

11-17-2005, 04:58 PM

The reverse side of the article is that if you wait to buy a new system, you may get it cheaper, but you get to enjoy it that much less before it is abandoned for new technology. I'm all for people waiting to buy game systems when they are $99, they just have to understand that with that cheaper price tag comes a shortened life span. If you buy systems when they are new, you get a good 4-5 years to enjoy new product on them. If you wait until they are cheap, you don't get nearly as much use out them before that happens.

Dan

What? Say the guy who bought a PSOne when the PS2 came out is now ready to buy a PS2 as the PS3 is coming out. I don't see how that shortens his console life span. He's using the system for the exact same length of time, or getting the same amount of use out of it. Listen, I only bought an Xbox last fall, and in that year's time I've caught up on most of the previous 2 years of gaming. Are you saying that owning a system for 4-5 years and waiting for games to be released, eating them up as they are spat out into the stores and then playing the waiting game again, is better than owning a system for 1-2 years and having a large library of games at your disposal? Me, I bought an Xbox last year...I won't buy a 360 until it hits probably 200 bucks...maybe sooner or maybe later. So that gives me about another year or so with this current Xbox. That's 2 years at the bare minimum I've owned an Xbox (half of the console's lifespan) and I've played all the same games as launch buyers, though later and for a much cheaper price.

If you follow this cycle, or follow the cycle of buying a last-gen system when the next-gen system comes out, you will never be hungry for games, you'll get the exact same amount of play out of it, and you'll be saving hordes of cash. Of course, most of us at EvAv don't do that, but for people on a budget or unconcerned about the newest games or eye candy updates, they can get quality gaming while the rest of us buy games and technology that is "cutting-edge", whatever that means.

EternalGamer

11-17-2005, 05:29 PM

Kelegacy, I definately see your side of the argument. I think the complication comes from whether you viewing the game industry as a technology industry or as an entertainment one; it's definitely both. Allow me a comparison. When I go back and watch "old" movies like High Noon or Naked City, they have every bit as much appeal and enjoyment. The fact that there is "newer" technology has absolutely no effect on those films, in my opinion. However it might have an effect on my enjoyment of old Science Fiction Films or some other type of genre that is greatly dependant on special effects. However as time moves on, technology makes less and less difference even in these genres. A Sci-fi film made in the 80's, for example, might have every bit as much appeal as one made this year to some fans. As time passes the technology becomes less and less a factor no matter what where your interest lie.

The game industry is essentially no different than the film industry in this respect, except that maybe the line between games that are "technology" driven and those that are not become decidedly more blurred and subjective and that we might disagree about where currently are in the "technology" timeline. Nevertheless you have to admit that playing PS1 games no longer have near the appeal they had when they first came out. As much fun as I had playing Tomb Raider or Twisted Metal, I simply could not enjoy them as much to day. The level of expectations has risen and it significantly effects the playing experience. There are certainly games that are exceptions to this rule and that are very bit as entertaining as when they were initially released, but I think they are actually in the minority. This is certainly less of a factor with this generation compared to the next, but, for me at least, it is still a prominent factor.

It really comes back to that issue of "quality vs. quanitity for me. Playing 10 old FPS games are not nearly as valuable to me as playing 1 knock-my-socks-off new one. I simply wouldn't have the time to play through the stack of the cheaper games anyway. I probably don't spend any more money than you, I just end up buying 1 new game every couple of months instead of buying a slew of older ones that would just pile up and not get played. This is especially true because of my limited time I have to spend gaming. As with the film industry, I think eventually we are going to level off on this technology driven appeal (perhaps sooner rather than later). Interestingly enough, I think you could also make this argument as to why it is better for casual gamers to adopt the new technology. If they are people that don't play as many games, the fact that they can get a lot of cheaper games for the same price does not really weigh into the equation. It is more beneficial to them to buy the one system and two or three games than to buy 30 games during the year that they would never get around to playing. It will be interesting to see how the industry model and gamer's attitudes and purchasing decisions change when that happens. Perhaps one day I will not think any more about owning the "newest" game or game system than I would think about seeing the "newest" film, but right now, I think for me and for many others, the technology is still a significant factor in the entertainment experience of gaming.

Dan

Kelegacy

11-17-2005, 06:03 PM

EternalGamer

11-17-2005, 06:32 PM

There are too many rational people here. But I actually like it when someone doesn't immediately flame another for stating their opinion, even though I look at my own views as gold-plated fact. I've had a couple quality "arguements" today, and in this thread alone, with EternalGamer and Serapth--that's a good thing here in the era of the asshole internet.

It's good to see us not go completely bananas and spit in one anothers' eyes. Though I do enjoy a catfight every now and then. But usually it involves mud, oil, or some kind of leotard.

Schopenhauer once said that we do not desire what is rational, but rationalize our desires. I'm not sure if most of us here are really "rational" but we do have a lot of fun and put a lot of energy into attempting to rationalize our crazy obessesions and desires. At any rate, cheers. :)

Dan

RMan

11-17-2005, 06:48 PM

Nevertheless you have to admit that playing PS1 games no longer have near the appeal they had when they first came out.
Yes, but this is ONLY in relation to newer games. The user that buys games later doesn't experience this because he's not playing the games immediately upon their release. Essentially, he's experiencing the EXACT same thing, just one or two years later, and for much less money (not to mention he's getting burned less by overhyped games and possibly getting less buggy ones due to patches). The idea that getting a system earlier makes for a better experience is absurd, it’s like saying a shirt is less comfortable because it’s no longer in fashion.

As far as this article is concerned, it's aimed at people looking for advice on the worth of the 360. IMO, the vast majority of people who buy at launch decided a long time ago to buy the system, so this article isn't really aimed at them.

EternalGamer

11-17-2005, 07:25 PM

Rman, you would be correct if the theoretical person we are positing lived in some type of social vaccum whereby he didn't have access to the impressive advancements in game technology, but I think the existence of such a person remains (for the most part) hypothetical. You don't have to see every latest Sci film to recognize that 40's SciFi stuff looks hokey by today's standards. Similarly, you don't have to have played every modern game to have the impression that Tomb Raider 1 looks and feels very rough.

I don't think your shirt analogy really works, unless the new "fashion" of shirts actually improved their utility in some way (I'm not even sure what that would mean). As I argued above, I do think we will eventually get to a point where the "newest" videogame is no different than the "newest" film or even the "newest" fashion; where it becomes based in nothing more than pop-cultural aesthetics. However, I personally don't feel the game industry has reached that point as of yet.

Dan

Serapth

11-17-2005, 07:32 PM

A better anology then comparing old sci-fi movies to games, would be to compare playback devices. If their was no impact, wouldnt we all still be watching movies on laser disk? Why did everyone upgrade to VHS then DVD? Did it change the content of the movie? No, not really. All that really changed was audio and picture quality.

Yet, pretty much everyone in soceity has atleast a VHS player, and the vast majority have DVD players now.

EternalGamer

11-17-2005, 07:36 PM

Serapth, I think the problem with the clear cut technology analogy is that it does not allow for those experiences which transcend technological limitations in the game industry and to which these limitations really do not play a key role in their entertainment factor (similar to the way my enjoyment of High Noon is not effected--perhaps for example Super Metriod). I think we are talking about a more complex relationship, which is why I posited the film analogy where you also have both factors to consider.

Nevertheless, you do make a good point about the media revolution. With the advent of DVDs, watching VHS becomes much less satisfying than it once was. You really notice the difference whereas you didn't before. And, I would argue, you notice this difference even if you dont personally own a DVD player.

Dan

RMan

11-17-2005, 07:54 PM

Rman, you would be correct if the theoretical person we are positing lived in some type of social vaccum whereby he didn't have access to the impressive advancements in game technology, but I think the existence of such a person remains (for the most part) hypothetical.
Technically, sure, but the person that isn't excited by a slightly better looking game isn't going to have his experience significantly lessened by the knowledge that there's s slightly better looking game out there. In fact, these days it's actually not unreasonable that a casual gamer not have much exposure to the newer games anyway, I mean, most game commercials don't even feature much, if any, game footage. The idea that a player is going to get a 360, play Halo 3, and have his experienced lessened by knowing that Halo 4 is out and looks slightly better is just crazy, I mean, it's a bit like saying there's an ice-cube in the room, it's gonna get cold. I mean, it's going to get colder, but in such an insignificant way that it's not going to make any difference at all.

EternalGamer

11-17-2005, 08:05 PM

I think we just disagree about where we are along the technology line. You seem to think we have already reached a point where the difference is becoming neglible and that newer technology has already primarly just pop culture aesthetic. I don't think we are quite there yet; I think the market is still very driven by the technological advancement as is part of our enjoyment from the entertainment. Again, it will be interesting to see how perceptions and consumer habits shift when this inevitability takes full effect. I say give it another three or four years tops.

Dan

RMan

11-17-2005, 08:19 PM

Why did everyone upgrade to VHS then DVD?
Not a bad analogy, I would argue that the adoptation of DVDs had less to do with quality than it did practical issues (cost, storage, lifespan, additional features, and just the fact that that's where the standard went, so at a certain point there's no choice). Related to the point at hand, the idea that watching Independance Day on DVD for the first time will be a weaker experience because I know that The Matrix DVD is out and has cooler looking effects is just crazy to me. Again, the guy's not getting an inferrior experience, he's just getting an inferrior experience if he chooses to get bent out of shape about the fact that there's a potentially better experience to be had.