|
Anyone that rationalizes the (potential) price for the PS3 based on Blu-Ray technology has been drinking that Sony Kool-Aid for too long. Sure, stand-alone Blu-Ray players are expensive, but it is just another (unproven) Sony propriety format that really isn't paramount for games. I mean, does a game need that much space? I think the problem is that Sony and Microsoft keep pushing the graphics envelope, and, by doing so, keep raising the cost and difficulty of producing of games, which translates into more money for the end-user. Again, as important as graphics can be, game-play is king. Sony and Microsoft need to think about the user experience and "pushing the envelop" in that department, which Nintendo is, at the very least, attempting. I am not touting Nintendo, because I think they hold the panacea for gaming, but I do agree with their approach to certain things. I agree with them that gamer interaction hasn't evolved much in over twenty years. We still use the same input mechanism that companies like Atari used/introduced over twenty years ago. Games have gotten better in terms of graphics and production value, but very few have the replay value and/or staying power of a game like Pac-Man. 20+ years from now, how many of these games will have the staying power and/or replay value of a game like Tetris? I don't just want newer and more expensive technology, I also want new experiences.
__________________
Our truest life is when we are in our dreams awake.
|