The New Console Wars 411 Roundtable: Part I
Posted by Armando Rodriguez on 10.16.2006
In Part I on our exclusive feature, 411 Games writers tackle a series of questions about the little things that can make or break the new consoles.
Welcome to Part I of 411mania’s newest feature: The Console Wars. With the Xbox 360 going strong and the PS3 and Wii on the horizon, the greatest gaming minds in the world(or at least the site) have gathered to throw in our two cents on the whole deal. Part I will focus on general thoughts about gaming in the next generation. What are the things that matter and the little things that can make or break a console.
Part II will focus on the three consoles themselves, with a complete breakdown of what each of us think. And finally, Part III is where you can immortalize yourself in a 411mania article! That’s right, Part III is all about reader feedback with the most intelligent responses and/or analysis being shown in the column!
But who has attended this meeting? We have Steve McHugh, game reviewer and writer of retro reviews! Our resident Nintendophile, Theo Fraser! Vincent Chiucci from Gaming Trends and the Select and Start News Report! Damian Sarcuni of Angry Gaming! Sean Gamer from the Games Roundtable! Game Reviewer D.W. (who gets extra love for the short name!)! Mathew Sforcina from the wrestling section(and avid gamer) Jordan “Ogre” Williams from Working Title! Caleb Newby our editor(and boss) Tommy Coloma from The Negative Edge News Reports and Fact or Fiction Games! Andrew Mellick(who does way to many things to count) Joshua Richey from Pressing Buttons! Sean McCabe from The Retrospective! Sean Struck from The Code News Report! And yours truly, the master of the Preview and (sometimes) author of Cheap Gaming 101(which is loooooong overdue) Armando Rodriguez! Truly one awesome collection of geniuses…..
Like I mentioned above, Part I is all about the little things that can make or break a console. Let’s press the start button and get this on the way!
Q: Is console pricing a critical factor for purchase?
Damian Sarcuni: Show me the person who is not concerned with saving money and I'll show you a dirty commie red. One of the great things about video games as a hobby is that a little bit of money can last a very long time. Gamers seek value and no one wants to give away their life savings to the largest companies in the world. With many exclusive titles coming out for each individual console, people have begun to realize that with enough demand, they can have it all. I would say that in this generation, pricing is the most critical factor of all in most purchase decisions.
Vincent Chiucci For me it is. Any console being sold for $300 or more needs to have something worthwhile for me to purchase it. When the PS2 came out it was 99% backwards compatible with PS1 games, and it was also a DVD player which was important since DVD players beginning to rise back then, so it was definitely worth it. Xbox 360's Premium Package may sound good, but why is it that you can't play 99% of your Xbox games on it? And why can't you transfer your save files? And who exactly is going to buy the really lousy core package? PS3 is going be $600 mostly because of the Blu-Ray playback. Since Blu-Ray players are a $1000 right now, that's a bargain. But the big problem is Blu-Ray is not the official next generation format, so it becomes as obsolete as Beta, suddenly that bargain is going to disappear. Wii is going to launch for $250, but for the first time in a long time, it's actually coming with a game included. Therefore I can just buy the system and not have to worry so much about what games to buy along with my system. Overall, based on the pricing, Wii is best.
Caleb Newby Most definitely. I’m sure there are a few that don’t care one way or another for the price point but the majority do. If you listen to the hype surrounding the consoles out there, much of the media focus is on the price point. And right now when people talk about next gen console prices one of two things come to mind, either the low, low price of the Nintendo Wii or the high $600 price tag to the PS3. Consider the family that has a few kids and not a load of disposable income and little Johnny wants to play new games. It won’t take parents long to figure out the value of the Wii compared to the PS3 or, to a lesser extent, the Xbox 360. Price is and will always continue to be one of (if not the) leading factor in purchases.
Jordan Williams Yes, I don't exactly have -too- much money to spend on games, so when I make a purchase, I want to make sure it's the sure thing and I am going to have some fun with it. 600 bucks is too much of a risk, and where the Xbox 360 isn't exactly cheap itself, I know there’s a ton of titles I already like and have played, and like I said, the Wii's pricepoint is so low that you don't run much of a risk. Just take it back.
Sean McCabe Absolutely. Most people are only willing to spend so much on entertainment products. Parents will only spend so much on their kids at Christmas. In fact, the steepness of the PS3's price is really the sole reason I have no intention of buying it at the moment. It's just not worth it to me.
D.W. Absolutely, and I think that stands true for just about anyone but the most wealthy. Before games, technical specs, or anything else come into play, you have to be able to afford the system you want, otherwise, it's you and your Colecovision for the next 20 years.
Sean Gamer Yes it is, most gamers have limited incomes whether they make the money themselves or get it from the parents. They can’t just go buy every new system that comes out on the market. If you are going to charge $600 for something, it better be warranted. Parents especially, will be looking to buy the cheapest thing possible and Nintendo is probably capitalizing on that. There are many people hating the PS3 as much as there are people that love it, and the former number seems to be rising thanks to the crazy price point. Blu-Ray might be a bargain with the system, but considering that Blu-Ray might not be the dominant thing that the DVD was, it might not be worth the purchase. Microsoft also charged a high price for their system, but, at least Sony knows that people are gonna be playing their old PS2 games for a while. Price point matters, especially if you can get a lot of bang for the buck.
Joshua Richey Of course it is. The only way that I am dealing $600.00 for a brand new console is if it has 1-2 games that are 'can't miss' at launch. Otherwise, I'll sit back and wait for the console to lower in price. Doing this also allows even more great games to come out for the system so that when you do in fact purchase the console – you’ll have quite the selection. I’m not going to spend that much money on a console unless I feel as though that I’m getting my money’s worth. That’s just common sense.
Andrew Mellick I think now more than ever. Look at what the big three are offering. The innovation in Nintendo’s latest console is astounding and it carries an amazingly low price tag. While Sony does have its share of bad press right now, I feel there is little doubt that in the future when developers are able to harness the full capacity of the PS3 it will be a force to be reckoned with. With that price tag though, will gamers want to put down a month of rent for a system that may not show its true value for a few years? Then there is Microsoft who has a leg up on the competition and with games like Dead Rising they have already established themselves as a viable competitor in the next generation. Very few gamers can afford buying all three as in the previous incarnation of consoles. The price may be the most critical factor in establishing who is at the top of the heap come new years.
Steve McHugh Yes very much so. I think that whilst consoles have always been expensive they have to be realistic about the amount of disposable income people have. On top of that you have to think that people who will be buying these for gifts are not going to always want to spend an enormous amount of money on it. There is a bar that I think people won't go too far over. The Neo Geo proved that in the early 90s. Great games but a machine that was hugely expensive.
Matthew Sforcina: Well obviously. If it's way too much of course I'm not going to get it. The cheaper the console, the more likely I'll get it, even if the games are pricey. I prefer slow cuts, delayed bleeding, rather than hacking off a limb up front.
Theo Fraser: I wouldn't necessarily deem it a 'critical factor'; it's more of a bonus. Personally speaking, I have always intended to buy a Wii, no matter the cost. Hell, if it was THAT expensive I'd probably just steal one. So no, price is not a critical factor for me. However, I must point out that the PS3 price tag is a strong deterrent for me, and I imagine there are many others in my position. Your average Playstation gamer tends to be a little older than the Nintendo market (grossly stereotypical there, but that's the general consensus)...say, students for example. Students on a budget, perhaps? They're not going to be able to fork out the cash for a PS3, but a Wii or maybe even a 360 at a push seems a little more practical. Console pricing hasn’t been of major importance in the past, but for this generation where there is such a huge gap in price between systems, it could very well come into play. Just not for me.
Tommy Coloma A little. If there is a game that I absolutely must play (and the only one that comes close would be Street Fighter 4 if Capcom ever decides to make it), then the price will not matter. However, if the same game came out for multiple systems, I would get the one for the cheapest system. Also, I can always sell the system once I get tired of it.
Sean Struck Yes. I can't get a system if I can't afford it. While all three systems have games that look well-done and interesting, if the price point is a above a certain point, I'm just not going to be getting it. The PS3 price point doesn't seem so bad when you factor in the fact that you're getting backwards compatibility and Blu-Ray built in, but 500 bucks before a game is just more than we can afford right now.
Armando Rodriguez Of course it is. I mean, the great majority of gamers are kids who need their parents to buy them the system, or young adults who have college to take care off and very limited income. To make an example, I have been working and studying for two years and if I wanted to get the PS3, I would need to shell out my entire life savings! That is a big fat no-no. I think that the mistake most companies are making is that they are forgetting consoles are for gaming. If I wanted something to play movies or to multi-task, I will get some sort of DVD/HD-DVD/Blu-Ray or whatever player and/or a PC. I want a console to play games and only that. If they concentrated on the games only, price points would be cheaper and we would all be one happy family.
Q: Are the price of launch games($60 on 360 and PS3, $50 on Wii) a deciding factor for purchase?
Damian Sarcuni: No. $60 is close enough to $50 and one or two launch games are enough to satisfy most people and gives us plenty of room to enjoy our new consoles. Plus, let's be realistic...game prices depreciate in value. Not the other way around.
Vincent Chiucci Not necessarily. I remember in previous generations that I'd buy some games for $70. $50 is the basic standard. $60 is a bit higher but not really a bad price. Any game beyond that price, however, is going to need a SERIOUSLY good reason for warranting a purchase. If I start seeing $80 and $100 games, I just might stop buying games for good.
Caleb Newby No. At least not significantly. If you are getting a system you know you’re locked in for roughly $50 a pop for a game. $10 extra isn’t going to keep me from getting the 360 over the Wii if that’s what I really want. $10 isn’t going to keep me from getting Grand Theft Auto 4. Another angle to remember is that most active gamers rent a fair portion of their games. So say I only but my short list of “must have” games for the year, but rent the rest of the titles that would be interesting for a week or two. The purchase price difference for games won’t be enough to sway me one side over another.
Jordan Williams Not a big one. Only a ten buck difference, I've grown accustom to game pricing, although I am an avid Used/Pre-owned buyer.
Sean McCabe I would say the differences are a bit small to make any real difference, and whatever console someone buys, they'll have resigned themselves to paying however much it costs for the games, be it $50 or $60
Andrew Mellick This question goes hand in hand with the last. If you are will to plop down the scratch to get a PS3 or a 360 then you are most likely willing to cover the extra 10 bucks for games. It’s a factor but not a big one.
D.W. Yes and no. Buying the system itself is the hardest part. Once you get over that hurdle, you just need to be smart about your purchases and you'll be fine. Yeah, I'd be pissed if I dropped $60 on That's So Raven for the PS3, but common sense prevails in most cases, not to mention that games, unlike DVD movies or music, drop in price rather quickly, especially if used.
Sean Gamer To me, that doesn’t really matter because the work the developers and staff do on these games warrants the $10 raise. Also, I remember when Nintendo 64 games cost $70 sometimes. I think it matters more on the systems because you have to make a big decision just to get the system, that might put you down the money hole. Games always go down in price at some point, and then presto, the game is cheaper. Really, the next-gen systems are all spiffy and the games will be too. It’s not like we are really talking a big dramatic raise in prices. If $70 or $80 becomes the norm, then we may have a problem.
Joshua Riley The $10 difference isn’t going to sway me much. You have to assume that the cost of making games have to on the rise, and it’s only logical that the cost of games raise along with it.
Steve McHugh Yes and no. On the one hand most Xbox 360 games are now £45-50 (about $80) which, whilst expensive, is manageable. But some shops are reporting that PS3 games will be £60 (about $100) which is a ludicrous amount of money for a game. It's one thing to have to spend a lot on a machine but the games themselves shouldn't break the bank too.
Matthew Sforcina Less so, although for me, being an Aussie, prices are different. But not really, I don't mind paying more for games if the upfront is less.
Theo FraserNo, I really don’t think the price of the games matter at all. Maybe it’ll affect how often you buy a game, but it won’t be a determining factor in purchasing the console itself.
Tommy ColomaNo. As I said, price is not a factor when it comes to a game that I really want to play. I can always sell the game once I get tired of it.
Shawn Struck For me? Not especially, since I rarely buy games that aren't pre-owned anyhow.
Armando Rodriguez It all depends. When a game is really good, I don’t mind the price tag. But when they expect you to shell out $60 for a lousy game, then I have a problem. Specially when said game costs $10 less in current gen consoles with the same features.
Q: Are technical specs a deciding factor for purchase?
Damian Sarcuni Absolutely. Tech specs aren't the most critical factor in purchases, but they go a long way in assuring gamers that their new $300+ investment won't be obsolete by next year. Plus, hardware goes a long way in game development and creativity, and creativity is what gamers are looking for this time around.
Vincent ChiucciI really don't pay much attention to those kinds of things. Do I think the new looks of graphics are cool? Yeah. Do I care deeply about them? No. So yeah, I don't care for technical mumbo jumbo.
Caleb Newby Ehhh… I guess somewhat. As long as I don’t hear cries from developers and analysts that a console is made out of tinfoil and hairpins, I don’t care. I know enough about the tech talk to understand half of it, and that’s good enough for me. If it can do what it is supposed to do and there aren’t red flags in the industry… then party on.
Jordan WilliamsOutside of graphical power, I could really care less what else is in the console.
Sean McCabe For some, for the tech heads, the ones who always need the latest, most powerful gadget. For the average consumer? Only those with money to burn and nothing better to spend it on.
Andrew MellickYes, with the Wii you get amazing innovation but only a slight step up in graphics. With the 360 you get improved graphics and proven online gaming. With the PS3 you get a crazy price tag but a quantum leap in graphical capability. These options make being a gamer right now, one of the greatest times in history; never have the big three offered such vastly unique and different features
D.W. No, because usually the differences are usually so insignificant that only the biggest techhead will notice.
Sean Gamer No I don’t really pay attention to that stuff. If the graphics are improved that’s a plus, I really mostly care about the gameplay in video games. It may look really pretty, but if it plays awful, people aren’t going to want it.
Joshua RicheyThings change with these things clear until these things go into production. So I’ve never invested too much into a system’s specs. A lot of companies can say were going to ‘do this’ or ‘do that’ but until it’s actually a reality – I’m not sold.
Steve McHugh Not really as I’m more interested in what games are actually coming out for the machine and who is supporting it.
Matthew Sforcina Not unless they are noticeable. If I look at two consoles side by side and I can see a difference with my relatively untrained eye, I'll take the better one. But 675 Googlescwaerzters vs. 627 Googlescwaerzters + A ROM-RAM Overdrive system stuff is meaningless to me. Well, obviously that last bit was meaningless since it's gibberish, but you get my point, right?
Theo Fraser For a lot of people, yes I’m sure they are. A ton of my friends are what I like to call “graphics whores.” Any game released that has improved graphics over various predecessors automatically becomes “The Best Game Ever” ™. And I find that a little disheartening, as they ultimately miss out on some top notch gaming experiences, simply because “the graphics aren’t that good.” Obviously, technical specs covers a much wider area than just graphics, but your average gamer mainly focuses on graphical horsepower. I mean, seriously, who’s looked at a PS3 and said “My God, I HAVE to get this; the sound is amazing!” But I digress.
Of course, looking at it another way (from Nintendo’s standpoint), yes, technical specs are THE deciding factor. People are buying a Wii because it’s motion-sensitive. The very concept of the Wii is a ‘technical spec’, and so in that respect, I would say that it’s a big deciding factor. The only people who don’t care about tech specs are the gamers who enjoy gaming simply for fun gameplay, and a bit of escapism. For those people, technical specs would never be a deciding factor.
Tommy Coloma Hell no! As long as the gameplay is the same or better for the system that I buy a game for and as long as the game publisher didn’t half-ass said game, I don’t care.
Shawn Struck Not so much as "having games I want to play". Enjoyment is the most important to me-- after all, I still fire up NesterDC every so often and play Contra or Super Mario Brothers 3.
Armando Rodriguez This is very hard for me to answer. When I get a new console, I want it and expect it to wow people. That it looks and sounds so amazing that people will just drool and that it will leave me in amazement. But after the initial wow factor fades away, it’s all about the games. So I am going with a “yes and no” answer here. It depends on what type of gamer you are and what is that you truly expect from a system.
Q: Is online gaming a factor for purchase?
Damian Sarcuni For now, yes. Online support means replay value, and its nice to get some socialization to go along with your new console. Eventually the online fad will fade, but for now its part of the total package. Good games, good graphics and nice new fiber optic internet connection...what more can you ask for this holiday season?
Vincent Chiucci Only if it's for free. I don't like playing online games where you have to pay more money a month, especially when after all you've paid to play, the game becomes obsolete in a couple years. When I play online games, it's usually for games that offer quick versus matches, and even then I don't even do that as much.
Caleb Newby:Only very slightly. But I imagine that will change once I get a 360 and try Xbox Live. Until that point I’ve been able to have loads of fun with single player games or co-op or versus against my buddies at my place. That being said, I want to have the ability to use online components with my system easily and readily, even if I don’t ever use it.
Jordan Williams:Yes and No. While I am with Newbs on the whole "I hate paying for a game I paid for already" idea, some services, like Nintendo Wi-Fi and Xbox Live I DO like, only because it's a basis for ALL games online, not just one. If I had to, I'd rather pay a base fee to play all of my games online, not 50 separate ones at different prices.
Sean McCabeFor me, not really, but it's become undeniably popular with many people, and the fact that all three companies are pushing online play heavily on their console says a lot about how important it is these days.
Andrew Mellick This depends largely on the games you like to play. However, Nintendo’s back catalog of classics available online will definitely win gamers over to the house that Mario built. Microsoft is already the established front runner in online gaming and Sony is a virtual wild card in this category going either way.
D.W. For me personally? No. I have and always will be a fan of the single player experience.
Sean Gamer I guess for some it may be, since online gaming seems more popular today, then before. For me, I’ve never been an online gamer and I don’t play PC games so it doesn’t matter to me.
Joshua Richey: I believe that online gaming has become more than just an ‘fun extra’. These days, games not having an online component could crush a game's potential itself. I believe that more and more gamers are beginning to finally see the benefits of online play; whether that is through multi-player, game patches, demos, or updates. It is definitely a factor.
Steve McHugh Not even slightly as i don't play games online. However I do very much like the idea of being able to download additional content for games.
Matthew Sforcina I want it to be. Right now I don't have the system set up, but I want to go online. Ease of set up is probably the key here.
Theo Fraser: Hmmm…again, I’ll say no. To be honest, if you are purely playing games for the online experience, you’re better off on a PC. It’s usually more reliable, user-friendly, and the games at your disposal are nigh-on endless. Sure, Xbox Live has a nice ranking system and such, but that can easily be duplicated on the internet. Whilst online gaming is tremendous fun, it’s available on all systems in some form, so I don’t think anyone would choose one particular console over another purely because of their online capabilities.
Tommy ColomaYes. Two of my most played games this generation are online-enabled games (Phantasy Star Online and Capcom vs. SNK 2 if you had to ask). If the same game came out for all three systems, I would select the version that gives me the most joy for the least amount of cash.
Shawn Struck For a console? No, not a deal breaker. It's nice to know that it's available, but until we can get a stable wireless connection our area, I'll stick to Diablo II and The Kingdom of Loathing on PC.
Armando Rodriguez Once again a yes and no answer. I do play a lot online on my PC, Battlefield 2, Neverwinter Nights and so on. But I never got into online gaming on my PS2 at all, outside of the odd Star Wars Battlefront match. It all depends what games come out with online capability. I do think I will play Wii online if they truly come out with a fully functional Pokemon game. Trading and fighting trainers from around the world? Sold! Yeah and if they make Smash Bros. Brawl online……*drools*.
Q: Is charging for online gaming a plus or a con?
Damian Sarcuni This depends on the online service. I hate to pay for an individual game, but I don't mind paying for an overall service like XBox live. However, the more we pay, the more we want. If I see one hacker in my Need For Speed Carbon games on Xbox 360, I'm going to go all Guy Fawkes on EA's multiplayer servers.
Vincent Chiucci A big con on this. Like I said, I don't like the idea of paying a monthly fee for a game that suddenly nobody plays anymore, and then that games becomes obsolete. Look at Phantasy Star Online for the Dreamcast. Yeah it was fun for a few years, but once the Dreamcast died, the game eventually came to an end. Now it just sits there on my shelf collecting dust. The only time I can see where charging for online gaming as a plus is when you can optionally add nifty stuff to your characters and whatever.
Caleb Newby I hate the idea of continual cost for something I’ve already purchased though, so you’ll never see me running around as a half-dragon/half-nymph warlock on World of Warcraft. Sure it makes the developer big bucks but I refuse to play out of principle. One time up front purchases are my motto in my gaming life. Fight the man!!
Jordan Williams Yes and No. While I am with Newbs on the whole "I hate paying for a game I paid for already" idea, some services, like Nintendo Wi-Fi and Xbox Live I DO like, only because it's a basis for ALL games online, not just one. If I had to, I'd rather pay a base fee to play all of my games online, not 50 separate ones at different prices.
Sean McCabe Con, of course, why pay for something if there's a chance you could get it for free? Nintendo could very much benefit from their stance, as well as the Wii's user-friendliness.
Andrew Mellick It seems to be a pro seeing as Xbox live costs 49.99 a year and it is the most successful of all three systems. I always like to see any extra feature free but it seems like the money is well worth it. Also, charging a mere 5-10 dollars to get your hands on classic Nintendo games is more than worth it.
D.W.: It depends on the extra features that online brings with it sometimes, but in most cases, it should be free, plain and simple, especially if the game was designed to be played almost exclusively online (Phantasy Star Online, FFXI for example). You spent money on the game, you spent money on the system, you spent two and a half hours waiting for the damn thing to install, you should be able to play it online no charge.
Sean Gamer Con, I only mean that if you start charging for individual games. If its something like XBOX Live then I don’t mind, because you pay one flat monthly or yearly fee, then get to play how ever many games you want. I mean people already have to pay the 50-60 bucks for the game, and then they have to pay 10 bucks a month too to play? That’s a rip-off. Imagine if you have two or three games you are playing intermittently, that’s a lot of money going down the drain, on a ridiculous fee. If all the gaming companies want to start charging extra for their games to be online, then all the systems should be like XBOX LIVE, I’d rather it be free, but if you got to charge, at least make it reasonable.
Joshua Richey It’s something that I can see both sides of. Gamers have to buy increasingly expensive consoles, and spend more money on games, so not a lot of them are going to be willing to dish out even more money for their gaming experience. However, causing people to pay for their online activities should result in less cheaters and less immature 12 year olds with live mics.
Steve McHugh i would say it was a con because it's one thing to pay Xbox live to have the extras that come with online play but that's just one monthly fee. Games that charge extra themselves (FF11) just strike me as being a bit of a con. When you buy a game you shouldn't have to pay extra to play it.
Matthew Sforcina Both. It depends on if you want to play online. For those that don't, I can see how not having to pay for something you don't use is a good thing. For those that do, it's a con. Depends on the user. But since more and more people are going online, it's becoming more and more conish.
Theo Fraser Big con. I realize the need for the cost; someone has to be responsible for maintaining servers and acting as admins etc, but come on! I’ve already handed over £30 of my hard earned money…but that isn’t enough to play it? I am desperate to play World of Warcraft, but I just refuse to pay a subscription fee. I guess I’ll just keep my online gaming exploits to Counter Strike and Battlefield 1942.
Tommy Coloma it’s a con of course. Sometimes I want to play online and sometimes I don’t. I don’t want to pay for a month and then be forced to have fun for that month just so that I can get my money’s worth. I should be able to have fun whenever I want to.
Shawn Struck If you're going to charge me an extra 15-20 bucks a month, you game had damn well better be worth it. I think the only game I ever paid to play monthly was Puzzle Pirates, and since I have more important priorities, online game fees would be the first thing I'd cut from the budget in lean times.
Armando Rodriguez It all depends. If you are giving me a really user friendly system and a ton of games I can play, then a flat monthly or yearly fee doesn’t bother me. But if you charge me for a lackluster system, or expect me to pay to play each game(I am looking at you World of Warcraft’s of the world) then I wont play the game. It is that simple. The same thing with all of this “downloadable content” that you can pay for. If it is something that could have been placed in the game before, then why are you charging me for it now? I consider it exploitation!
Q: Do you think a game needs great graphics to be enjoyed? (Your opinion)
Damian Sarcuni: Need? Nah, look at Tetris. As gamers get older we are getting past the whole "I can't believe how real this looks" phase and looking to get more interactivity out of our systems. Graphics are always nice and are a huge part of playability, but they aren't an absolute necessity.
Vincent Chiucci: Holy crap no. Yeah it's really good when a game has great graphics, but that isn't why I play games. I don't recall any game where I saw how great the graphics were and thought "Damn! I need to purchase this game based on just the graphics!". Of course, that doesn't mean I won't mind really bad graphics either. If the graphics get to the point where the game looks really bland, I'm probably going to pass it up because it's likely that the gameplay is going to be even blander.
Caleb Newby: Not in the least. I still now and then go back to old classics from growing up or try to hunt down other classics I’ve missed. Graphics sure are fun to look at, but awesome gameplay beats graphics every time. That being said, it’s hard for me to want to pay top dollar for something that doesn’t have eye popping graphics. If the title is going to be sub par in that department, I expect to get it for much less.
Jordan Williams: No, but barely. Graphics usually draw people into games, it's a fact. If the game isn't living up to the graphical standards that the console is capable of, it's going to rub me the wrong way. Outside of that, as long as it doesn’t look like it was developed for the Sega Saturn, I don't mind.
Sean McCabe:A game needs graphics that get the job done, that's all it really needs to be enjoyable. Whether it be a recent game like Yakuza that has a basic look but is a very fun game, or a NES game, a game just has to be fun, and the graphics just have to not get in the way of that. An artistically imagined game however can benefit greatly from having spectacular graphics.
Andrew Mellick: I may get some disagreement on this, but yes. Just pop in one of your favorite old games, barring a few of you, the vast majority will be saying “this hasn’t aged well”. How good do the graphics have to be, that is the question. Nintendo is offering slightly improved graphics but a much cheaper price and tremendous innovation. I think Nintendo will definitely succeed in the next incarnation of the console wars. I think Microsoft has already proven it can survive, with great graphics and quality games starting to surface. Sony I think will be like a kid with a gun for developers. Lots of misfires but in a few years when the 3rd party companies learn the full capacity of the PS3, it will do major damage.
D.W. Of course not, but in the new generation, everyone's going to be looking to top the other. Personally, I can't wait until we hit the graphical "glass ceiling", so that developers can go devote more of their time to the game itself.
Sean Gamer: No and I say No again. I think many kids of this new generation have been spoiled with great graphics, so they expect every game to be up to those standards, and will easily dismiss a game if it doesn’t look pretty. Gameplay is what matters, if the graphics are passable, then I don’t care. I still play SNES and Nintendo games, the graphics may be outdated, but, the gameplay is still as great as ever.
Joshua Richey: I don’t think so. A game could have amazing graphics, yet lacking gameplay will lead to its demise. So I think that it’s very possible to go the other way. Just look at some of the hits on the Nintendo DS, or the earlier consoles. All a game needs is a ‘fun factor’ in some way, and it’ll be enjoyed.
Steve McHugh No not at all, I still enjoy plenty of 16 bit games and love that you can download old games through Xbox live. Graphics are important in that the hardware being used should be used well. So if they released a new game on the PS3 and it looks like an old C46 game then yeah that would be a problem because you're not getting your monies worth.
Matthew Sforcina HELL NO. If the game is good enough, then it can overcome ok graphics. Not to say bad graphics are fine, it's just that if the gameplay is of high enough quality, then the graphics can be less good, although both would be awesome. But I mean, Civ, GTA1, Most Lucasarts Point and Clickers, Bard's Tale...
Theo Fraser Ah. Well, see my response to the “technical specs” question. My opinion? No, not at all. It can help, by all means. But great graphics do not a great game make, as someone most likely didn’t ever say. Oblivion, case in point. Beautiful graphics, absolutely gorgeous. Shame it’s such a snooze-fest. And conversely, I’ve just spent the last month replaying Final Fantasy VII and loving it every bit as much as when I bought it 10 years ago.
Tommy Coloma I believe that a game does not need good graphics to be enjoyed. However, I also think that a game’s graphics should not suck.
Shawn Struck I think a game needs to be FUN to be enjoyed.
Armando Rodríguez God no. I love the Romance of the Three Kingdoms series and their graphics always suck. I love text based games and those barely have any graphics. What I am trying to say is that games need to be fun and graphics is just icing on the cake. If they look awesome, I won’t complain, but they DON’T need to.
Q: Is DVD playback support a deciding factor for purchase?
Damian Sarcuni HELL NO. Between the additional money being shelled out for DVD peripherals and the fact that most people have DVD players already, this is a no brainier.
Vincent Chiucci Now if this was the year 2000/2001, I'd say absolutely yes, because DVD players were going to become all the rage back then. But it's now 2006 and almost 2007. DVD players these days cost about $70, so if you still don't have one, you can go pick them up on the cheap. The Wii isn't going to play DVD's, and while it's a bit disappointing, I've got about five other devices that can do that now. Xbox 360 can play DVD's, but $400 - $70 still equals $330 for a crap system.
Caleb Newby Regular DVD? No. Everyone now has a DVD player or a PS2 that does the same. Next generation DVDs? Nope! Don’t care about that either. Give me a few years on that one and maybe I will then. For now I just want a top notch game system. Nothing more, nothing less.
Jordan WilliamsSeriously, DVD players are like 30 bucks now. Stop being cheap, everyone.
Sean McCabe I already have 5 items in my house that can play DVDs. So it's not.
Andrew Mellick It is funny how technology changes. When the PS2 came out, I was pumped that it had DVD playback. Now, I really don’t care at all.
D.W. It was last generation, but as the owner of a PS2, an XBox, a 360, a DVD-Rom drive on my PC, and a regular DVD player, I really don't need another DVD player, and the demand for it in game consoles is pretty much non-existent at this point.
Sean GamerNo, there are way too many things out now that can play DVD’s. So having a system that doesn’t play DVD’s is not going to hinder it at all. As cool as it is to have an all-in-one system, most people own a DVD player, and don’t need a next-gen system to do that for them.
Joshua Richey It’s not a factor. 4-5 years ago, yeah, it was a factor. But you can get a DVD player for $20 bucks these days at a Circuit City. Add that to the fact that nearly everyone that is going to get a DVD player – has one. I think they even sell DVD players in Canada now.
Steve McHugh Important enough that if it has it, it should be a good one. I actually use my 360 for DVD because it's better then the DVD player we have but if I wanted a console I wouldn't be too bothered if it wasn't there so long as the price indicated that.
Matthew Sforcina Not really. Nowadays my toaster has a DVD player, so I don't really need it as much as I used to. I don't buy a game console and it's everything. It's now the main component, as well as the speakers and DVD recorder and media center and... (Although if this 2 brand DVD nonsense does become legit, then it may become needed. I'd rather buy a game console and DVD player of the other sort than just one or the other.)
Theo Fraser No. Seriously, who hasn’t got a DVD player these days? If you don’t have a standalone player, you’re bound to have one through your PC. You don’t buy a games console to watch DVDs, it’s that simple. It’s a nice bonus, but it’s unlikely to swing your vote.
Tommy Coloma No. I tend to avoid using my disc-based game machines for anything other than playing games. DVD-playback = shorter lifespan.
Shawn Struck It was for me back when the PS2 first came out, but now that DVD players are a lot cheaper, no, not so much.
Armando Rodriguez Not really. I have like six or seven items that can play DVD’s, plus, DVD players can be bought for $30 nowadays, which is less than a console game.
Q: Is HD support a deciding factor for purchase?
Damian Sarcuni HD support is not a deciding factor by any means and won't be until HD goes mainstream. Since that won't happen anytime soon, or at all, most gamers won't be looking for HD support unless they already have an HD TV.
Vincent Chiucci I'm going to say no because I have yet to get an HDTV. If I had one, I'd probably say yes. But really, I have a 20" TV in my room and I can see the picture perfectly clear, so I'm satisfied with that. Remember how I said I don't take graphics and other tech specs so seriously? Same with HD. But pretending I did have an HDTV, then I'd definitely take it as a supporting factor. So instead of the Wii, I'd buy the Xbox 360.
Caleb Newby No, but I don’t have a HD TV either. Now, I might be getting one soon and if that happens, I’ll want to have a system that supports it. But not playing a game on HD isn’t a deal breaker for me. With the small number of people that say they do have a HD TV I don’t imagine this would be critical for them either. I say wait two years and see where we’re at as a nation when it comes to HD. Maybe we’ll all care more then.
Jordan Williams Nope.
Sean McCabe Only for those with HD TVs, which isn't the great majority of people.
Andrew Mellick Well, unfortunately not yet. I am hoping to invest in an HDTV before I get a new system so I guess it will be important in the future yes. The way developers are talking, you would really be missing out if you don’t have one.
D.W. No, but I'm sure it will be in the future. As it stands now, Sony and Microsoft are just making sure that they're prepared for the time when all new televisions are HD.
Sean Gamer This one I’m iffy on because HDTV will eventually become the norm for America at some point. So maybe like three or four years down the road this will be a necessity, I don’t own an HDTV, and I can see the game fine right now. For those that have there big sound systems and TV’s, well I bet its important to them. I think overall for most of America right now, it is not a big deal.
Joshua Richey At this point in time… no. But I can very much see HD being a bigger factor in 2-3 years. There are still a lot of people that haven’t upgraded to HD; myself being one of them. So like I said, at this point it’s a non-factor.
Steve McHugh Not yet although when i get a HDTV I will. It's nice that they're thinking of the future with this.
Matthew Sforcina Ask me again in 5 years. Right now, no.
Theo Fraser Well I don’t have an HD TV, so it doesn’t bother me at all. But I guess the people who DO have HD are used to the clear, crisp picture their HD TVs provide, and thus would see a noticeable difference when playing a console that does not support HD. I would imagine. I really don’t know. But again, I think it really comes down to the thing I’ve been saying right the way through this; it’s a nice bonus, but it’s really not that important.
Tommy Coloma No. However, I would prefer a system that allows for at least a VGA monitor connection. If the Dreamcast and GameCube (with a modified component cable) could do it, every next-generation one should be able to do it. Fortunately, the Xbox 360 has a first party VGA option and the Wii and PS3 both have component cable options (which, with an adapter, can be plugged into a monitor).
Shawn Struck Absolutely not. I down own a flat screen TV, let alone an HD TV. My current TV works just fine, thank you. It's nice to know support is THERE, but it's not a console deal-breaker for me.
Armando Rodriguez I think not. HD TV is the future. We are five years or so away from it becoming standard. That’s why I think HD TV support is not important right now. What is the console’s average lifespan? 5 years. So HD TV will be important for the NEXT generation of consoles and not for the 360, Wii or PS3. It will for the PS4, 720 and Wii2 or whatever they come up with, but right now, it is just a nice extra for those who have shelled the big bucks for a HD TV.
Is Retro gaming and Backwards Compatibility a factor for purchase?
*Editor’s Note: This question was submitted to the participants at a later date and not everyone was available to answer it. We apologize for the limited answers.*
Sean McCabe A key factor? Perhaps not key, but it is definitely a factor, and a great advantage to the Wii in particular, which could perhaps be called the most backwards compatible console of all time. It does add to a console's flexibility to include features like that, and the Xbox 360's lack of decent backwards compatibility is an annoyance.
Vincent Chiucci Well now it seems that all three of the new-gen consoles are doing the retro gaming thing, so now it just depends on who offers the best retro games. Xbox Live Arcade looks great, we've yet to see from Sony, and Nintendo's Virtual Console also looks great. As for backwards compatibility, oh yeah, that's DEFINITELY important. As I said before, a reason I liked the PS2 was because it was compatible with 99% of PS1 games, and now the PS3 will be doing the same for all the PS2 and PS1 games as well. Wii is said to be backwards compatible with Gamecube games, and the Virtual Console has a back catalog of games going as far back to the NES days. Xbox 360, however, completely screwed things up. Why is it that I have to wait for new lists of games to come out every couple months when the PS2, FIVE YEARS BEFORE IT, was able to do it so easily? Overall I say the PS3 is doing the best job of backwards compatibility, giving it at least some kind of edge over the other two systems.
Andrew Mellick Hell yes it is. Final Fantasy 7, Castlevania Symphony of the Night, Metal Gear Solid. Three reasons I loved backward compatibility on the PS2.
Now with God of War, Resident Evil 4, Prince of Persia, Grand theft Auto, and MGS 3 there are plenty more reasons it will be great on the PS3.
Nintendo is in a whole other world with the retro thing. I don't see them having a problem attracting old school gamers.
The only one who lacks a bit is Microsoft and while there are plenty of good games for the Xbox it does not offer the same library as the PS2 or Nintendo's whole back catalog so it shouldn't hurt them too much to only offer backward compatibility with "hit games".
Sean Gamer Yes they are, especially for the launch of a new system. If the thing is backwards compatible then people can use their PS3’s or Wii’s and play their old games on them, while they build up their new library. Retro Gaming brings in all those old school gamers and is good for any system to have, without having to pay big bucks for a collection game. Nintendo has really hit the big one with their Retro deal, getting to play all those games for a small fee anytime I want, that’s awesome. Many people would buy the system just for that. The reason I didn’t want an XBOX 360 was that I still had to haul out my XBOX every time I wanted to play an old game, (and still do for the most part), when the PS2 came out, I loved that I could dispose of my PS1 and still play all of my old games. I think with any system that comes out nowadays backwards compatibility has to be included.
Caleb Newby Indeed it is. Backwards compatibility is great so you don't have to have even more consoles clutter up your living room. While to the right people it is very cool to see an Atari, NES, SNES, Genesis, Sega Saturn, N64, PS1, PS2, Xbox, Xbox 360, Gamecube, Wii, and PS3 in your living room... to most girls it just looks really, really lame. So put your old consoles in the closet and instead safely display your brand new next gen systems for the world to see. Then surprise that lucky lady when you boot up Super Mario 3 on the Wii.
The other end of this is access to rare titles. Suikoden 2 comes to mind immediately. While I'm not thrilled with the price point of some of the older titles, it's still not that unreasonable and the ability to play some of the classics you haven't been able to find (or don't work anymore) adds a ton of value to a next gen system.
Joshua Richey I’m not sure. I don’t usually play a lot of older games, but I’d definitely like the luxury of doing so if I were so inclined. I couldn’t say that I would fault a system for not having backwards compatibility, but it wouldn’t hurt them if they did.
Steve McHugh Of course as you don't want to have to get rid of your old games just because you've upgraded the machine. I'm glad that all three of the machines this time round seam to support this.
Theo Fraser Maybe for your hardcore, old-school gamers who are adamant that “they don’t make ‘em like they used to!” but in all honesty it’s not that big of a deal. All of the next-gen systems provide backwards capability, so it all depends on what appeals to you from Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft’s back catalogue. Whilst the PS3 can play ANY game from the PS1 AND PS2, it would require you to actually own the game beforehand (or borrow it from a friend). Nintendo are obviously onto something by giving gamers the chance to download games from their back catalogue, (potentially) allowing us westerners the chance to play games we may never have been able to before, such as Treasure’s Sin and Punishment from the N64. It’s great the Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft are keen to keep their ‘heritage’ alive, but if you’re that keen on retro gaming, you’d probably be better off scouring Ebay for most likely 1/100th of the price.
Tommy Coloma Only for games that are hard to find. In all honesty, I’d rather play the originals. I can easily tell the difference between an original game that I’ve played a lot and an emulated version of the game. They can usually get the graphics right, but the sound is almost always off.
Armando Rodriguez Hell yes. This is the first console generation in which I am a working man and I am the one with the money and the control to get what I want. Back in the day, I depended on my parents or whatever little odd job I could find to be able to purchase stuff. So I missed a lot of great games. Now is my time to catch up with greatness.
This has been Part I of our “New Console Wars” Roundtable. Remember to check our General Gaming Forums and replying to the New Console Wars topic to have a chance for your reply to show up in Part III of our feature.
