GreenMonkey

I've never understood the one system mentality. When they are still expensive - OK, I get it. But at the end of the lifespan when the console costs only a little more than one new game? Why not pick it up? That's how I got the original Xbox (for about $100).

Then again I don't do brand names. They mean very little to me. I don't buy any one brand of anything (OK, my PCs are always AMD/ATI -but then again my next box is going to be Intel).

For a while I had the NES, SNES, Saturn, JVC X'eye (Sega gen/CD combo), PS2, Xbox and Gamecube hooked up. That's videogaming heaven right there I only weeded consoles out because with children I don't have enough time any more - and the Wii VC and Xbox game downloads have filled a lot of my oldschool gaming needs

Spiderbite

For me, it is not only about time & money but also I prefer to play the latest and greatest games. If it is a two year old game and I can play it on my current console, then great, I may check it out (just bought Call of Duty 2 the other day).

I just don't have any interest in going back and playing old games on old hardware. If it is a download like the Arcade Live or the Wii offer, then I might consider it but only if I really really like the game (demos on Live are a wonderful thing). I know people may say I am missing out on some great games but I just don't care enough to put the effort or time into playing them. I prefer to put that toward the new stuff.

GreenMonkey

So only the newest, latest and greatest games are worth playing? That's like saying you only watch the newest movies in the theater and pass up those you happened to miss last year.

Spiderbite

Wow, you completely twisted what I said.

I said that I prefer to play the newest and latest games over putting the time and effort into playing an old game. I never said the old games aren't worth playing. They just aren't worth my time and effort when there are so many new games I would rather invest my time, effort and money in. It may not make sense to you but it works for me. Not everyone has to play every highly rated game ever.

Comparing it to watching a movie is just silly. The average movie is around 1 hour 45 minutes. The average game...jeez who knows...but if it is a good game it will take up a hell of a lot more time than 2 hrs. It also requires to own different hardware, have it hooked up (when I already have most of my inputs taken) and you usually have to buy the older game and not rent it. Add in inferior graphics, sound, and ancient gameplay and what I already stated above and it is not worth it b]to me[/b] (unless it is Ms. Pac-man).

Oh yeah, and I do like to only watch the newest movies in the theater. Old movies from last year don't show up at my local cineplex.

Anything else I said that you would like to misconstrue?

GreenMonkey

But we're not talking about ancient systems here - I was talking about buying the modern consoles at the end of their lifespan, and you were talking about why you only get one of the main consoles.

Why not pick up a $100 console for its great games towards the end of its lifespan? Those games are still "new". You can still rent PS2/Xbox/GC games.

xmiyux

I'm with Spider. There are entirely too many great games out there that i can't play them all. If i can't play them all then i would rather skew my time towards playing something new that hopefully has either great graphics, fresh concepts, or great multiplayer. Being an avid online gamer means i need to play the new games while they are popular and there is an active community.

I realize the PS2 had some incredible games and it would make sense for me to buy one sometime and check them out. But for every great older RPG i could spend time with i could put that money towards a new Bioware title. Time is my biggest constraint.

GreenMonkey

I have time as a major constraint too, but I instead skew my time to the best games (either well-reviewed or occasionally good feedback on messageboards) regardless of platform. New =! best.

I do get for online titles you have to play 'em while they're new - there is definitely a userbase problem there for niche online games.

BTW: Good luck with the Bioware titles now that they've been absorbed by EA.

xmiyux

And i keep an eye out for well-reviewed classics but i don't dig into the back catalog much. Mostly because i have been a gamer for so long if i skipped it or missed it when it came out... no looking back. Keeping up with the present is rough enough.

I assume most people are like that. No matter how many times i rant about how awesome Loom was on the PC i know nobody will check it out. I can wax about the brilliance of Samba de Amigo or Seaman and unless they show up as a new version (like Samba on the Wii) or as a VC downloadable title nobody will care.

And yes, Bioware being bought by EA was like a stake to the heart. They along with Blizzard were two companies that i think could do no wrong and i would happily buy anything released by them sight unseen, they were consistently that good. Unfortunately with the EA oversight now, Bioware will have to re-earn that status.

GreenMonkey

Loom. I played a good hunk of that.

I don't expect people do dig back to EGA/VGA PC or NES era...(although they're missing some good games) but the PS2 era? That's practically still going on!

RichC2

Because YOUR FACE. That's why.

xmiyux

Yeah, but the good ones will get ported to the DS or something. I'll wait till then.