Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

lpj8 · 05-22-2005, 07:50 AM

First, I'm not paying $500 for a videogame machine itself. I have the money, but its out of my behavioral regularity to spend that much cash on something that would primarily play videogames. The extra multimedia features will supposedly be nice, but most likely not enough to sway my decision. Now, I WOULD be willing to pay $500 for a system launch. That is, I'd get the system, an accessory or two, and a couple of games for $500. I'd feel somehow justified that the $500 was well spent (don't ask me why).

My second point goes beyond the intentions of the original thread starter, but I think that the point has shown itself in the preceding posts. I think that is interesting how people pledge allegiance to particular companies (Microsoft, Sony) rather than the actual systems (Xbox, PS2). People who have owned an Xbox, seem to want to get an Xbox360, people who have a PS2 seem to want to get a PS3. However, all we have to go on is a few screens. Few of us, if any, have ever been afforded the opportunity to see any Xbox360 or PS3 games being played in real time (not trailers), let alone play them yourself. I guess when people make decisions that have some stakes tied to it (spending some serious money, and spending time researching game systems) they feel that in order justify the decision, they must follow the company they bought from, rather than the actual products. I feel that a companies past success does not equal a must buy for the next generation. I think the same dynamics are in place with the Apple vs. PC discussions. I love my iBook, and when I purchase a new laptop, I'll feel compelled to get an Apple again, without taking a look at what else is out there.

My third point is more of an observation: I've been playing video games since Mario Brothers. I know that videogames were played before my time, but I'm not that old. The way I see it, no company as of yet has dominated the market for more than two generations. Nintendo owned the NES, and the SNES generation (arguably). Sony has owned the PS and PS2 generation (arguably). Its tough to stay on top. If the short history of videogames repeats itself, then there may be a new champion for this generation.

Finally,
My decision process is pretty simple.
If the Xbox360 is around $300-350 at launch and the games bring something to the table that I can't experience in the systems I already own, I'll most likely get one.

If the PS3 is around $300-350 at launch, and by buying it, I have can experience quality games that I can't play on my Xbox360, I'll probably buy it. If its around $500 at launch. The system will have to prove itself to me convincingly before I shell out that kind of dough.

If the Revolution is truly backwards compatible with Nintendo's back catalog, I may have to get one for nostalgias sake.

05-22-2005, 07:50 AM	#36 (permalink)
lpj8 Crazy Location: U.S.A	First, I'm not paying $500 for a videogame machine itself. I have the money, but its out of my behavioral regularity to spend that much cash on something that would primarily play videogames. The extra multimedia features will supposedly be nice, but most likely not enough to sway my decision. Now, I WOULD be willing to pay $500 for a system launch. That is, I'd get the system, an accessory or two, and a couple of games for $500. I'd feel somehow justified that the $500 was well spent (don't ask me why). My second point goes beyond the intentions of the original thread starter, but I think that the point has shown itself in the preceding posts. I think that is interesting how people pledge allegiance to particular companies (Microsoft, Sony) rather than the actual systems (Xbox, PS2). People who have owned an Xbox, seem to want to get an Xbox360, people who have a PS2 seem to want to get a PS3. However, all we have to go on is a few screens. Few of us, if any, have ever been afforded the opportunity to see any Xbox360 or PS3 games being played in real time (not trailers), let alone play them yourself. I guess when people make decisions that have some stakes tied to it (spending some serious money, and spending time researching game systems) they feel that in order justify the decision, they must follow the company they bought from, rather than the actual products. I feel that a companies past success does not equal a must buy for the next generation. I think the same dynamics are in place with the Apple vs. PC discussions. I love my iBook, and when I purchase a new laptop, I'll feel compelled to get an Apple again, without taking a look at what else is out there. My third point is more of an observation: I've been playing video games since Mario Brothers. I know that videogames were played before my time, but I'm not that old. The way I see it, no company as of yet has dominated the market for more than two generations. Nintendo owned the NES, and the SNES generation (arguably). Sony has owned the PS and PS2 generation (arguably). Its tough to stay on top. If the short history of videogames repeats itself, then there may be a new champion for this generation. Finally, My decision process is pretty simple. If the Xbox360 is around $300-350 at launch and the games bring something to the table that I can't experience in the systems I already own, I'll most likely get one. If the PS3 is around $300-350 at launch, and by buying it, I have can experience quality games that I can't play on my Xbox360, I'll probably buy it. If its around $500 at launch. The system will have to prove itself to me convincingly before I shell out that kind of dough. If the Revolution is truly backwards compatible with Nintendo's back catalog, I may have to get one for nostalgias sake.