How long would you keep buying games on consoles with a power somwhere between the PS2 and the Wii?

[Arbre]

I think I'm going to launch this thread with a simple question, and possibly bad english:

Under what conditions are you willing to continue to invest in more or less outdated gaming systems?

To know how long you'd keep buying old gen consoles, you'd probably need to know what would actually make you stop buying such consoles, I think.

- Thirst for shinier graphics, more horsepower, greater physics and AI.
- Ego concerns. Sorry, I don't buy old stuff, it's for loosers. Don't laugh, I'm sure many think that way.
- Too expensive for what it is.
- No first/third party game support for old gen consoles.
- Lack of new multimedia functions added to old hardware.

Would you buy a console, handheld or not, with the power of the PS2 (for example), if it was sold at incredibly low prices?

For example, look at the Gamecube. It's still sold at $99. Would you buy it if interesting and exclusive games kept being released on this console, if the console was only $20-40 and each game $10-15?

Would it be a good example to look at the success of the God of War franchise on the PS2, for example?
Sure, the PS3 is not working, and Sony still support the PS2, and this were the conditions during which the GoWs were released.
But the Xbox360 was already there, with its load of hits. Ok, the PS2 market, with more than 119 million consoles, was largely implanted, but that could be the case for other consoles as well.
A spinoff of the GoW franchise comes on what is nothing more than a PS2 Lite, and people are more than willing to grab it. However, the PSP is the... err, "next gen" in handhelddom.

As a whole, the trend that was followed by the builders in the industry was that they would let their older consoles die, stop the services and the production of new games on them, and focus most ressources to favour the growth of their newer products.

This kind of mindset would have to change as well. But is it worth it?
Can a secondary or even tertiary old gen and, above all, low cost business be generated on this basis?

Are people really wanting to have various technological plateaus and have access to various levels of hardware, or is it just some passing trend?

 

[Lightbulb]

So long as its fun.

Next question?

I don't change system because i want shinier graphics i change because they stop making games for it.

---

The other issue this raises is WHY do console makers produce new consoles?

Its easier to gain market share with a new product that improving an existing one. Nothing was going to make the Xbox become mroe popular than the PS2 so why bother? Bring out a new model and rope the suckers in...

 

[xbeaker]

I?ll be surprised if anyone posts that they will only buy games for the top systems. You buy the games you want for the systems you have. It is that simple. If a game is out on the PS2, 360, and PS3.. yeah, I buy the 360 version. But I have no problems buying a PS2 game if it isn?t out on the other systems. The PS2 will be supported for a while to come because of its user base. My girlfriend?s PS2 is broken (sort of.. everything looks washed out for some reason like the brightness is jacked off the scale) and I am thinking of getting her a new one for Xmas because she still plays it, and there are PS2 games she never played that she wants, like God of War.

$20 Game Cube? Sign me up! It would make a great kids system. And the graphics leap from previous generation to current, while noticeable, is not as dramatic as it has been in previous generations. There are some good looking games on the last gen systems. So if someone didn?t have a Wii and missed the Cube a few years back it would be a great way to play some of the exclusives. Would also make for an easy way to get a lot of quality systems for Childs-play.

 

[MrKeroChan]

Under what conditions are you willing to continue to invest in more or less outdated gaming systems?

As long I can find games for it that i WANT to play ( there is the rub however ).... I'd buy a copy of Swordquest: Waterworld for my 2600 if I could find one....

 

[xbeaker]

If you get a line on Waterworld, tell me. I am looking for it too.

I just picked up Adventure II for the 5200.... now I need to get an Atari 5200.

 

[bonaparte]

They don't even need to lower the price, the mass market is far more accepting of low rez graphics than hardcore gamers. People just want to have fun. If it's fun, does it really matter whether the graphics are normal mapped or not? Most people still have sdtvs so don't see a dramatic difference between the "next gen" and "old gen" consoles.

Look at the PS2 it's still selling well at $130, despite the "next gen" competition.

Look at the wii, technically it's a modestly upgraded gamecube but people are buying it in droves.

The <a href=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_100/555-Curt-Vendel-The-Escapist-Interview>atari flashback sold nearly 1 million units last year with atari 2600 games!

Ultimately it comes down to manufacturer support, price and the games. If the games are fun and the price acceptable to the mass market, then a console will sell for as long as the manufacturer is willing to make it and market it. Lower end consoles are often bought by parents for their children, and there's a new batch of them every year....

 

[k[haos]]

I wouldn't buy a PS3 for multiple reasons, not just because of the price. The Xbox360 might be my next investment (that or a GameCube). It has some good games, but it's still lacking a few games that are just made for fun. Graphics don't really entice me to buy a system if it means sacrificing the fun factor.

For the time being, I'll stick to my PS2 and mooch off my friends and work for a little X360 action.

 

[Arbre]

So long as its fun.

Next question?

I don't change system because i want shinier graphics i change because they stop making games for it.

This part may be very obvious to you, and the people who post here in general, but I just got to see my fair load of consumers who'd disagree with you. And damn, they can be really hard to convince that they're missing something.
There are probably more of them than you think. How many were selling their PS2 to buy a Wii or 360, while they had not play Okami, Shadow of the Colossus or God of War?

On the Xbox: this console was just a beginning, an intro. It did wonders in the US for a start, and quite well in the Europe, but that's above all true from the perspective that it was Microsoft's first solo attempt.

The examples I picked concerned hardwares that proved highly marketable worldwide, which had sold a lot, and which many people loved, and still do.



To Bonaparte:

Interesting points, but there are problems with them. The PS2 is still supported, and far from being that old. Above all, the PS3 is not really in yet.
The Wii is Nintendo's new thing, not a late one. Besides, it is more than a slightly enhanced Gamecube, when you consider the somehow new market and the advertising campaign.

As for the Atari Flashbacks... flashback is the key term. They owe a lot to nostalgia. The first AF only had old games. The new one has a plus, because it includes a few homebrews, but I'm fairly convinced that it sold because it, once again, stroke the nostalgia cord, especially with a design close to the 2600's.

Do you think an Atari Flashback would work if it was made into a handheld, integrated MP3 and all sorts of stuff, and featured many homebrews?
Mobile phones are nearly doing that, and yet, their 2D graphics are already well rounded.

If you want an example that speaks - well, I hope it will - would people buy a mini-NES (though that may be too modern for my example), with new games, or at least plenty of games they didn't play yet? Would they even bother? Could new games made with, and limited by technologies being tens of years old, still be sold on systems which couldn't really play on the nostalgia value (no design that reminds you of a console that you loved)?

Or, another one. You people buy a handheld console as light as a credit card, that would actually be a black & white (green & yellow) gameboy with homebrews on it?

I'm sure may of you would say yes, but do you think you would be representing something more than a very minor niche here, one that would have enough money value?

Don't you think that as a whole, people want to move on?

 

[LordLocke]

I'll buy whatever systems are putting games out worth playing. If the PS2 keeps getting quality support, I'll continue to buy games put out on it- especially ones released at the budget price compared to what the 360 and PS3 consider 'cheap.' Good games are not exclusive to a console released in the last five years, after all.

That said, when I can get the same game on a new system (well, one I have, which is limited to X360 for now until the Wii or PS3 finally win me over) with a boost in performance and barely any additional hit in the wallet... well, I'm gonna support my new hotness. I've had a few chances to buy a title on the PS2 or X360, and went with the latter just because it runs better, has better integrated online options, looks way nicer, etc. So it mostly comes down to if a) There's no real reason to get the newer, better technology and b) the system in question keeps getting quality stuff to keep it worth playing. I sat out a whole generation for the most part because what sampling I had from it made me feel like I was wasting my time compared to what my PC could be doing (the PSX/Saturn/N64 era) once the SNES went and finally kicked the bucket, so not even 'current date' systems are assured to be able to keep my attention if all they're putting out are crap.

I'm not so full of myself to be unable to admit that odds of me going back and giving a look at new stuff released on old technology are not terribly high- most of the technology of the past has had it's limitations found, re-evaluated, and struck against repeatedly as new technology rolled out- but if I hear enough good words and the price is right, I might give it a whirl. Cave Story, a freeware homebrew that looks like something off the NES and feels like some bastard cross between Metroid and Kid Icarus, is one of the best side-scrolling platformers I've ever played. But then again, it's freeware, so it was easy to convince me to give it a try in the first place with absolutely no financial cost. Trying to sell the same game to me at $20... I'd pay it now, but I'm not sure if I could say the same after taking my first look at it.

 

[xenxander]

I always work with what I have rather than what I can upgrade to, until I am financially ready for an upgrade. In earlier times, getting the ?next? gen console really meant something. The difference from NES to SNES was just too shocking not to get one ? same with the Sega Saturn over the Genesis. Just like getting the next, top of the line PC hardware really meant something, back when B&W displays, 256K of ram with an 8086 processor just didn?t have it compared to the 80486, 2megs of ram, and a TANDY display.

But now that hardware improvements drastically outpace software implementations, it?s pretty much a moot point to say that old(er) consoles never fully get exploited before something ?better? rolls off the shelf. Initially I didn?t even buy an Xbox or Gamecube, because my PSX was still working and still being supported, plus there were a plethora of games I had never purchased or played, and the later PSX games really did shine and were comparable to the new releases for the PS2 (at the time).
Not to mention that first releases of any console are usually riddled with glitches, patches, later editions, hardware issues, and bugs that just seem to warp your console into a phallic device and rams it up your bum without Vaseline.

Anyway, considering the mistakes and successes of previous consoles, I think back to what Sega did right and wrong. They kept introducing ?upgrades? and ?extensions? for their system, to turn Sega and Genesis into ?sega master system? or ?sega32X?, or ?SegaCD?. It was all well and good, but that type of tech either hadn?t been perfected or properly integrated and so never really caught on. Most of us know that the PSX was originally designed as an upgrade for the SNES before Nintendo told Sony to wank off, so they released it as a stand-alone, and eventually had Nintendo lamenting what they had done.

Having said all of this, I would enjoy upgrades for existing consoles rather than have another console to plug into my T.V. It?s bad enough that I enjoy playing games that keep some consoles set up, but having a new one push its way into shelf-space is rather annoying even if it ?is? better. This would also allow me to play those old games I actually still find entertaining while being able to play new releases without having to first pay $400 for a new console when an ?add-on? could run $150 and give you the exact same thing.

So to be perfectly clear, the conditions in which I will continue to buy outdated devices instead of upgrading to the latest is if I?m still content and having fun with what I have. Besides, looking at the new games, I see no real difference in Xbox over Xbox360 or from PS2 to PS3. As stated in other areas, Graphics are about as good as they are going to get, so flashy, fully rendered 3d environments are GREAT but they alone will not make me cream my briefs and empty my bank account.

 

[Chilango2]

I got a PS2 for Christmas last year that I asked for, and have had lots of fun with it, and have never been disappointed by the "subpar graphics." I can see myself buying games for that thing for quite a few years still too, be they new games that are released or old games that came out and I never played. Generally, I stop playing a console when it simply gets too difficult to even buy games for it. I stopped playing the SNES after you basically could not buy games for it anymore (that was, of course, before the real rise of the internet, which lengthens the shelf life of any console, IMHO). One of the sub-reasons I got a PS2 was because the PC gaming section, where I had found my games ever since I left the SNES, had shrunk to a sickly thing.

Thing is, even with the internet, real life shopping is necessary, I think. The internet is very good at finding specific things, but not as good for browsing a random selection of stuff.

 

[bonaparte]

Interesting points, but there are problems with them. The PS2 is still supported, and far from being that old. Above all, the PS3 is not really in yet.

Manufacturer support in some form is key, if you can't walk into toys r us or circuit city and pick up the console and games then it won't be a mass market phenomenon. Hunting for classic titles in second hand stores and on ebay will always be a niche pursuit for the enthusiast. I understood your question to be under what circumstances can "outdated" game tech continue in the marketplace.

Do you think an Atari Flashback would work if it was made into a handheld, integrated MP3 and all sorts of stuff, and featured many homebrews? Mobile phones are nearly doing that, and yet, their 2D graphics are already well rounded.

Even the cheapest mobile cpu would give better graphics than the atari 2600, but yes I think it would work if sold at the right price. The problem with phones is that game control using most mobile keypads is just too fiddly to be enjoyable.

Would people buy a mini-NES (though that may be too modern for my example), with new games, or at least plenty of games they didn't play yet?

They already do. There are many tv game units on sale with old NES or SNES games. The <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FC_Twin_Video_Game_System>FC Twin console enjoys healthy sales.

Could new games made with, and limited by technologies being tens of years old, still be sold on systems which couldn't really play on the nostalgia value (no design that reminds you of a console that you loved)?

New games are more problematic - Manufacturers have been afraid of supporting new games development on old technology for fear of cannibalizing sales of their new systems. Instead we've seen an explosion of titles in the spirit of the older consoles (such as geometry wars), developed cheaply and sold as download titles.

Don't you think that as a whole, people want to move on?

"The new" will always have a certain attraction but that doesn't cancel out what has come before, Citizen Kane doesn't get worse as the years go by. Similarly, people will still be playing Super Mario Bros many years from now.

 

[Arbre]

Interesting points, but there are problems with them. The PS2 is still supported, and far from being that old. Above all, the PS3 is not really in yet.

Manufacturer support in some form is key, if you can't walk into toys r us or circuit city and pick up the console and games then it won't be a mass market phenomenon. Hunting for classic titles in second hand stores and on ebay will always be a niche pursuit for the enthusiast. I understood your question to be under what circumstances can "outdated" game tech continue in the marketplace.

Yes, it's pretty much the question, though again, we could go round on what outdated means, if people still play said machine. Let's understand it by "far far from next-gen stuff".
That's why I don't take the PS2 as a good example right now. It's far too active, and the PS3 is not implanted enough.
By the end of 2008, we'll start to be able to get a more tangible foresight in what will happen.

Do you think an Atari Flashback would work if it was made into a handheld, integrated MP3 and all sorts of stuff, and featured many homebrews? Mobile phones are nearly doing that, and yet, their 2D graphics are already well rounded.

Even the cheapest mobile cpu would give better graphics than the atari 2600, but yes I think it would work if sold at the right price. The problem with phones is that game control using most mobile keypads is just too fiddly to be enjoyable.

Damn right. That said, the games on mobile phones are very cheap, and some of them already have smooth 2D animations with good graphics.
Just how could one expect to get a profitable business by devlopping 2600-like new games, if you have to sell them in spades of ten at half the price of a top range 2D game?
With inflation and all that, the pennies mean less and less.
Besides, do you think the 2600-like graphics would appeal to the masses?

Would people buy a mini-NES (though that may be too modern for my example), with new games, or at least plenty of games they didn't play yet?

They already do. There are many tv game units on sale with old NES or SNES games. The <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FC_Twin_Video_Game_System>FC Twin console enjoys healthy sales.

Interesting! I didn't even know it existed... I might buy a couple of them for my family! ^-^
However, regarding the topic, this machine fails on several points:

- It's still big.
- It has no extra functions.
- It relies a lot on nostalgia.
- It uses cartridge models which aren't produced anymore, so that sucks for homebrew (unless you directly hack the hardware by adding extra equipment).
- It provides no new game.

Could new games made with, and limited by technologies being tens of years old, still be sold on systems which couldn't really play on the nostalgia value (no design that reminds you of a console that you loved)?

New games are more problematic - Manufacturers have been afraid of supporting new games development on old technology for fear of cannibalizing sales of their new systems. Instead we've seen an explosion of titles in the spirit of the older consoles (such as geometry wars), developed cheaply and sold as download titles.

Precisely, though Microsoft does ask the devs for such titles to look polished and next gen enough, no matter if they're *just* XBLA games.
It would be interesting to see if one can sell a new game with purely old graphics, but still perfectly integrated into the Live system.

Don't you think that as a whole, people want to move on?

"The new" will always have a certain attraction but that doesn't cancel out what has come before, Citizen Kane doesn't get worse as the years go by. Similarly, people will still be playing Super Mario Bros many years from now.

Citizen Kane and Super Mario Bros are good, but they're hardly new.

Would people go to the theater or buy a PSP to watch a film such as Transformers now, if it was filmed with the techniques worth of the silent period, and lasted more than one hour and a half?

I figure that the game is at an adventage in that its gameplay's richness can compensate for the outdated display and sound technologies, but I don't think it can fill the gap sufficiently.

 

[The Irrelevant Gamer]

I follow the games. I don't care about hardware at all. As long as good games come out for a system I will buy them, but I also wait until a system has half a dozen games I absolutely have to play before purchasing it.

 

[blackadvent]

As long as there are still good games for those systems that I can still buy.

I bought a PS2 a year ago in October, so yes, I bought an "outdated" system. I then proceeded to buy a series of 'used' games, trying to catch up on all the great stuff I missed.

Price is definitely a factor- I'm a few bucks short of a Wii, a hundred from a 360, and several bones away from the PS3.

Graphics are less of a factor in supporting the previous gen than they are in choosing which 'next-gen' or 'new-gen' system to buy. Haven't been disappointed graphically with any of the PS2 games I bought, and won't for a while.

Games are another factor- the 360's got enough to get me interested in it (Halo 3, Mass Effect soon), the Wii's just now getting stuff to buy the system for (Mario Galazy, Metroid, Zelda, SSBB next year), but the PS3 (IMHO) doesn't have the killer app released yet (MGS4, FFXIII).

The PS2's still got good games coming down the pipe, and with 100% backwards compatability, I'm gonna be supporting it for a long, long time.

 

[kusarigama [deprecated]]

It all depends on the games, for me. Hardware capabilities don't have any indication on the success of a console,just look at history:
PSone devastates the nintendo 64, the PSone being a lower quality 32-bit system and the 64 obviously being 64 bit.
The PS2 dominates both the xbox and gamecube, both having significantly greater power than the PS2.
The Wii has an enormous lead after a short period of time over the PS3 and xbox 360, each system having better online support and hardware capabilities several times greater than nintendo's machine.
I guess the wii is slightly different, though. While the ps3 gets a lot of shit for not having any games, I think the wii is really where the quality game drought is. It may have mario, zelda, metroid and whatever, but beyond that, it doesn't have much. I've got both systems and I play my ps3 regularly, while until galaxy came out my wii was collecting dust. It's by no means a bad system, but it seems to be getting a lot of free passes because of it's ridiculous sales.
The ps2, though, has an enourmous intalled user base, and I don't think it's going to be slowing down within the next year, even with the ps3 gaining the pace as it is.
In the end, the price and games are what the average consumer cares about

 

[propertyofcobra]

Well, as long as the games are fun of course.
Our PS2 died, which was the main reason we got a PS3 instead of spend more money repairing it for a second time.
Luckily, the PS3 has fantastic emulation, emulating all PS2 titles we ever tried, and all PSX titles too, absolutely perfectly.
Heck, if I find a PSX title that's priceworthy and I don't have, I'll buy that too.

If a game is fun, I don't turn my nose at it. Simple as that.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

Lets see 360/PS3 over priced bloated fluff
PC:at least I can try before I buy and its alil cheaper
WII:not bad but not worth the price

GC/PS2/PSX:Cheap,alot of games I can use cheats to make games more fun WIN WIN WIN

Xbox:cheap.........

Saturn/DC:a few worth while games some cheap some 100+ WTF!?
Saturn swap trick FTW!

If I can emulate it I wont have to buy it unless its a 20-30$ classic that I want.

propertyofcobra
Only the 40GB unit dosent and the 80GB unit dose it less so.

 

[KurtNiisan]

Well, as long as the games are fun of course.
Our PS2 died, which was the main reason we got a PS3 instead of spend more money repairing it for a second time.
Luckily, the PS3 has fantastic emulation, emulating all PS2 titles we ever tried, and all PSX titles too, absolutely perfectly.
Heck, if I find a PSX title that's priceworthy and I don't have, I'll buy that too.
If a game is fun, I don't turn my nose at it. Simple as that.

- I bought a 60gb when it first came out and can't get enough of it. I've also had no trouble at all trying to play any of my PS2 or PS1 games on my PS3 and although it's disappointing to see the number of people (in NZ at least) bitching about the drop of the PS2 Backwards Compatability, not many people realise that it's now cheaper to buy a PS3 and PS2 seperately than getting the original 60gb.

As for game purchasing, since I have both a 360 and a PS3 I don't actually choose which version to get depending on which one looks better, but on how many other people I know are going to be playing it. If it's a game with long-lasting Multiplayer (e.g Halo 3, Call of Duty 4) then I'll get it on the 360 purely because I know that lots of existing people on my friends list will be getting the game. If it's a game that wouldn't require lots of multiplayer gaming then I'd buy it on PS3. But that may change of people start buying more PS3s...