pointlesswasteoftime.com— The PS3 is too expensive, the 360 isn't selling outside the USA, and 75% of homes don't have an HDTV. Could this spell disaster for the gaming industry? This article makes a good case.
May 15, 2006View in Crawl 4
We've heard the ET story 1 million times, it's a cheap and easy joke now.Anyway, the author uses poor logic throughout the article. Maybe new consoles came out with better graphics to ensure market share isn't stolen by other competitors? There's no evidence that people were abandoning their games.Think about it. If new games were still consistently coming out for Xbox, PS2, and Gamecube, wouldn't you still be buying them? I know I'll still be buying good Gamecube games while they come out. I'm by no way tired of the graphics or the "novelty". People play games because they're fun, not because they're novelties.
The video game market won't crash, but the PS3 might.I don't know about the rest of you, but I will be buying a Wii, a few games for it, and a few controllers. Sure, if I buy enough games for it from the get-go, I might end up spending as much as I would on a PS3, but I'd get more for my money. That's why I think the PS3 will flop.$250(estimate) for The Wii, $60-$80 for two extra controllers, and maybe another $100 for two games, and that's still less than the PS3. If I were to buy a PS3, I'd be out of $680 or so. The PS3, and one game. Obviously I'd be buying the $600 dollar version since you're pretty much forced to do so.Sony's just trying to push a crappy, DRM-filled format into the mainstream.I strongly believe the video game industry is not ready for HDTV. Why do I say that? Well, most HDTV's are back-lit. I don't want my HDTV to end up with burns from constantly playing video games. I'd hate seeing a health bar on my TV while I'm watching something else. Not only that, but HDTV's don't last that long.I have one, but I"m not going to sacrifice it so I can play a game that looks fine on a regular television. I can't afford to replace a TV every five years.Miyamoto said their next console will be HD enabled. This is what I like about Nintendo. They don't try to push any technology on you that you don't want/need. In five years, HDTV's will be more mainstream and hopefully, they'll last longer.
Well there is a phenomenon, I can't remember what it's called, that states the closer you get to photo-realism the less immersed you can be because of bad animations.You're brain is expecting the person it sees on the screen to move and act human, if the mannerisms or movement is off it's much more jarring than more artistic renderings ala Psychonauts.I think graphics are moving along just fine, it's the animations that are lacking.
I know first hand that Nintendo's new marketing strategy works. My dad is in his late 40's and has never touched a video game let alone bought one since I was born. And yet, a few weeks ago, he walked in the door with a copy of Brain Age in his hand. It wasn't for me, though I do use it quite often, it was for him and my mom. If Nintendo can sell anything to my dad who doesn't know the differance between WoW and Everquest then I have hope for them.
the kids want the games because they play the original. they like the original, but once you unlock the story and accomplish the major goals, you yearn for more from the game. back in the days, that would lead us to master games. how many times have you beaten the first super mario brothers? or super mario brothers3 for that matter? you go back and try to find all the hidden secrets. the gap between releases and game purchases forced us to take in all we could from the games that were in front of us. now kids can beat halo, and then instead of delving any deeper or playing through again on the additional difficulties, kids want to continue that game. usually they just go out and buy a game in the same genre, or they play the multiplayer version.whens the last time you heard on of your cousins play through a game multiple times? id bet never.
The info about the E.T. game is just wrong. The figure is 5 million cartridges, not 7, and they didn't "sit untouched on store shelves"; people bought the game, but returned it because it was so bad. I don't think that 2600's were sitting in closets by 1983. I remember playing both E.T. and Pac-Man at the time.
I don't think there is a game called 'Jet Goblins Attack' for the 2600. 2600 games didn't look great but only pong games like Video Olympics looked like his screenshot. I'm assuming he's going for humor, but the impact of his article is kind of compromised by these factual deviations.Also, I don't think people stopped playing videogames after the crash, they started playing more sophisticated games on home computers, which were getting cheap enough to veer into console territory. Back then, unlike now, home computers were static platforms so gaming was just as much plug and play as a console is today. Most of them even accepted cartridges. Today, even though desktop PCs are very inexpensive, it's harder to insure that a game you buy will run reliably on your PC than on a console. PC hardware constantly evolves. This explains the consumer appeal of consoles.Time will tell whether the author is correct or not about the industry, but I have a sneaky feeling that people have been so indoctrinated into the idea of disposable "movielike" console gaming that they will not burn out the way he's saying they will. Never underestimate the bad taste of the consumer.
shmooMay 15, 2006
We've heard the ET story 1 million times, it's a cheap and easy joke now.Anyway, the author uses poor logic throughout the article. Maybe new consoles came out with better graphics to ensure market share isn't stolen by other competitors? There's no evidence that people were abandoning their games.Think about it. If new games were still consistently coming out for Xbox, PS2, and Gamecube, wouldn't you still be buying them? I know I'll still be buying good Gamecube games while they come out. I'm by no way tired of the graphics or the "novelty". People play games because they're fun, not because they're novelties.
mousecircusMay 15, 2006
The video game market won't crash, but the PS3 might.I don't know about the rest of you, but I will be buying a Wii, a few games for it, and a few controllers. Sure, if I buy enough games for it from the get-go, I might end up spending as much as I would on a PS3, but I'd get more for my money. That's why I think the PS3 will flop.$250(estimate) for The Wii, $60-$80 for two extra controllers, and maybe another $100 for two games, and that's still less than the PS3. If I were to buy a PS3, I'd be out of $680 or so. The PS3, and one game. Obviously I'd be buying the $600 dollar version since you're pretty much forced to do so.Sony's just trying to push a crappy, DRM-filled format into the mainstream.I strongly believe the video game industry is not ready for HDTV. Why do I say that? Well, most HDTV's are back-lit. I don't want my HDTV to end up with burns from constantly playing video games. I'd hate seeing a health bar on my TV while I'm watching something else. Not only that, but HDTV's don't last that long.I have one, but I"m not going to sacrifice it so I can play a game that looks fine on a regular television. I can't afford to replace a TV every five years.Miyamoto said their next console will be HD enabled. This is what I like about Nintendo. They don't try to push any technology on you that you don't want/need. In five years, HDTV's will be more mainstream and hopefully, they'll last longer.
lycolocoMay 15, 2006
@GuyNextDoor - That's only if you include the TV-Based consoles. Look at the Nintendo DS. That's selling awesomely.
gremlinclrMay 15, 2006
Well there is a phenomenon, I can't remember what it's called, that states the closer you get to photo-realism the less immersed you can be because of bad animations.You're brain is expecting the person it sees on the screen to move and act human, if the mannerisms or movement is off it's much more jarring than more artistic renderings ala Psychonauts.I think graphics are moving along just fine, it's the animations that are lacking.
cyborg771May 15, 2006
I know first hand that Nintendo's new marketing strategy works. My dad is in his late 40's and has never touched a video game let alone bought one since I was born. And yet, a few weeks ago, he walked in the door with a copy of Brain Age in his hand. It wasn't for me, though I do use it quite often, it was for him and my mom. If Nintendo can sell anything to my dad who doesn't know the differance between WoW and Everquest then I have hope for them.
apoc06May 15, 2006
the kids want the games because they play the original. they like the original, but once you unlock the story and accomplish the major goals, you yearn for more from the game. back in the days, that would lead us to master games. how many times have you beaten the first super mario brothers? or super mario brothers3 for that matter? you go back and try to find all the hidden secrets. the gap between releases and game purchases forced us to take in all we could from the games that were in front of us. now kids can beat halo, and then instead of delving any deeper or playing through again on the additional difficulties, kids want to continue that game. usually they just go out and buy a game in the same genre, or they play the multiplayer version.whens the last time you heard on of your cousins play through a game multiple times? id bet never.
pfalstadMay 16, 2006
The info about the E.T. game is just wrong. The figure is 5 million cartridges, not 7, and they didn't "sit untouched on store shelves"; people bought the game, but returned it because it was so bad. I don't think that 2600's were sitting in closets by 1983. I remember playing both E.T. and Pac-Man at the time.
mos6507May 16, 2006
I don't think there is a game called 'Jet Goblins Attack' for the 2600. 2600 games didn't look great but only pong games like Video Olympics looked like his screenshot. I'm assuming he's going for humor, but the impact of his article is kind of compromised by these factual deviations.Also, I don't think people stopped playing videogames after the crash, they started playing more sophisticated games on home computers, which were getting cheap enough to veer into console territory. Back then, unlike now, home computers were static platforms so gaming was just as much plug and play as a console is today. Most of them even accepted cartridges. Today, even though desktop PCs are very inexpensive, it's harder to insure that a game you buy will run reliably on your PC than on a console. PC hardware constantly evolves. This explains the consumer appeal of consoles.Time will tell whether the author is correct or not about the industry, but I have a sneaky feeling that people have been so indoctrinated into the idea of disposable "movielike" console gaming that they will not burn out the way he's saying they will. Never underestimate the bad taste of the consumer.