Does it always have to be about the new games?

[Red Dragon]

Re: Does it always have to be about the new games?

said it before.

http://pavilionboards.com/forum/showthread.php?t=21582

For whatever reason you forgot to add in the last part.

yes, i'm totally jealous that you guys have more money than I do.

And I play mostly an MMO and maybe a new game if I was looking forward to it for a long while. Or if there is some huge sale going on.

And I still want to get through Persona 3 without being bored to death. Too bad my Ps3 doesn't have PS2 backwards compatibility and I don't feel like hooking up my PS2 to be bored a couple hours later.

[Hrafn]

Re: Does it always have to be about the new games?

FF IX is going to give people mass fits of ecstasy? I played through that game about three or four years ago. Ecstasy was not a sensation experienced.

[Jehuty]

Re: Does it always have to be about the new games?

This generation needs a Lunar, or Legend Of Legaia.

I miss good ole fashioned RPGs.

[Hrafn]

Re: Does it always have to be about the new games?

Well, there's no shortage of quality RPGs (though few in an old-fashioned grain, to be sure; last really good retro throwback RPG I played was DQ8 on the PS2). But they're pretty much all from our side of the pond. Which is still a weird notion, given how before last gen, the console RPG market was utterly dominated by the Japs, who now seem to be too mired in their old formulas, unable to adapt (except for Level 5, in general they're good, although what I saw of that White Knight game seem surprisingly boring for one of their offerings).

[Sampson]

Re: Does it always have to be about the new games?

The idea behind the cheap nights out for a few hours' entertainment is that you can still do those without having to buy an expensive piece of home equipment every three years just to keep up. And they're an excuse to get out of the house when you're bored with staying in and playing or watching **** from your couch-potato vantage. And the vacation correlation has almost no bearing on the rest of the comparisons. And people more commonly (and I'm referring to "people" as a blanket term meaning the general population that this economy and country are built upon) have $30 of extra cash after a work week to blow on instant gratification than have $300 they had to save up over a month or two (in some cases this extra savings takes people over a year from their garden variety jobs).

Whether or not people have the self control to save a few bucks for a couple weeks or not is irrelevant. If you have to blow all your extra money on instant gratification right when you get your paycheck...you have problems.

I'm talking purely from a $/hr perspective.

New movie =$5 hr
Going out to the bar =$10 hr+

I'm only listing these two because I feel that they are the most relatable to the people on this forum. But I could include other forms of entertainment such as hunting, boating, gambling, etc. which can cost hundreds of dollars per hour.

Anyway, let's say you bought a 360 at launch in 2005. You've had almost five years of entertainment. Let's say you played it for about 5 hours per week every week for 4 years (I think thats a gross underestimate given the type of gamers on this forum). That's 1040 hours of entertainment, or $.29 per hour. Again, that's a bargain. Even if you figure in the cost of games, its still a bargain, especially when you're comparing the cost of current gen gaming to past gen gaming--you still have to buy the old games and sometimes they're even more expensive than current gen games.

[Denmo]

Re: Does it always have to be about the new games?

For whatever reason you forgot to add in the last part.

because people could read it then, and can still read it now. I provided a link, therefore omitting nothing.

Yes, I'm dirt poor. But I see advantages to being frugal and picky about video games.

[orius]

Re: Does it always have to be about the new games?

Which is still a weird notion, given how before last gen, the console RPG market was utterly dominated by the Japs, who now seem to be too mired in their old formulas, unable to adapt (except for Level 5, in general they're good, although what I saw of that White Knight game seem surprisingly boring for one of their offerings).

Problem for the Japanese developers is that they're dividing their efforts among a lot of different platforms, so some games go to the PSP and some go to the DS. If they want to take the time to develop it, they make something for the PS3, though they way I understand developing for the PS3 isn't that easy and it's somewhat expensive. For some reason they aren't bothering a great deal with the Wii, the only JRPGs I know of for that system are Monster Hunter 3, and supposedly DQX will be developed for the Wii. There've been a few releases on the 360, but since the Japanese consumers largely turn their noses up at foreign consoles, there's not really a lot of effort going there.

I don't really disagree too much with Denmo, coming late into a console generation means the prices are a bit better, and there's a clear idea of which games are worth getting. I didn't get the PS2 until 2007, and I've been able to built a modest but fairly decent library of games. Mostly, I've done some research on the system's library, so I know what games to look for, and I've been largely satisfied with the results. Downside is that coming in late means some earlier gems that didn't seel huge numbers are harder to find.

Also, I'm not going to be able to afford to support both the 360 and the PS3, so I'm waiting to see which one eventually will come out on top. Can the 360 keep going strong despite the problems with hardware failures, or will PS3 eventually come out on top too late to make any real difference?

[Hrafn]

Re: Does it always have to be about the new games?

Well, the 360's already beaten the PS3. I'm not sure why that would matter to you as far as which one to buy, though. Just base it on whose exclusives seem more appealing, or whose controller seems preferable to you (seems small, but you have to consider how many hours you'll have the thing in your hand; if you have a major preference of one over the other, it's definitely a factor to keep in mind).

[Red Dragon]

Re: Does it always have to be about the new games?

because people could read it then, and can still read it now. I provided a link, therefore omitting nothing.

Yes, I'm dirt poor. But I see advantages to being frugal and picky about video games.

T'was a joke my Denmo friend. Let us be off and scour the stores for the best coupons and marked-down prices!