Slashdot Mirror
A Look Back At Expensive System Launches
As the launch for the Xbox 360 approaches, with incredibly expensive bundles up for offer, Joystiq takes a look back at expensive system launches of the past. From the article: "Commodore 64 - $1207.04 (originally valued at $595 in 1982) Despite being the most popular computer model of all time, selling between 17 and 25 million units, the Commodore 64 was a relatively expensive games machine by today's standards. However, it offered extremely good value for money by offering unprecedented sound and graphics quality."
i spent many an early '80s morning trudging through the snow delivering papers to come up with the $1,200 for it and it's external cassette drive!
I forgot what I wanted to say, but honestly, it was important.
The Apple II and C64 were not game machines. They were home computers that could be used to play games. I had a C64c growing up and my sister and I typed out all of my school stuff with it. My dad did spreadsheets for work.
Comparing the XBox 360 with the Commodore 64/Apple II is stupid. They aren't comparing the 360 vs. my home computer even though it plays games. Why? Because then their stupid article won't be taken seriously by the 16-year-olds who have never even seen an Apple II.
I'm waiting for the XBox 360 vs. graphing calculator articles. "The 360 is expensive but a great grpahing calculator can cost a fair amount of money. And really aren't all 3D games just complex math anyways?!"
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
I used the C64 for the longest time, the only reason I had to upgrade was for 80 column displays. Upgrading to a 128D gave me a couple more years of service, I could BBS at full screen, and work on papers.
Even when I got the Amiga, 80 column display and ANSI color wasnt perfected in terminal applications. Finally switching to a 486.
I use to goto the Spokane commodore users group, and seen people still using a c64 for reading news, writing news letters with spell checkers. Was cool to see how these old classic computers where still going strong. The only problem I ever had with the C64 was Floppy disk allignment, suckers would always get out of allignment.
Great little computer for its day.
Relatively speaking, technology gets both better and cheaper over time.
Some people have a way with words, and some people, um, thingy.
I don't know why everyone is making such a big deal about the xb360 bundles. Most consumers are just going to buy the core system and 1-2 games anyway.
Also the bundles arn't that expensive when you compare to previous console launches. By the time you buy all the add ons and games you want for any system, you would easily spend more than even the cost of these bundles.
The bundles are directed at the more hardcore gamers, who have no problems buying a lot up front.
Article summary: Historically, people have happily paid X-Box 360 prices for "gaming systems" that were actually multi-purpose computers. Sure, you could play Adventure or Breakout on them, but you could also do your taxes. Pure video game console systems at similar price points, however, have flopped. (Actually, though, looking at the historical chart at the end, the Atari 2600 seems to be an exception.)
How can anybody write about expensive video game systems and NOT mention the Neo Geo. In the early 90's, that sucker had *games* selling in the multiple of hundreds of dollars. It was the king of the hill in terms of $$$s (until the 360 came along)
And also, I don't think its fair to compare a video game console with full blown computers from the past.
These pretzels are making me thirsty.
A much better comparison would be the Vic-20 by Commodore.
The C64 was a home computer; the VIC-20 was a console computer. It was primarily used to play games, although it did have word-processing capability (though limited to 22 chars per line), etc. Its display was typically a TV, and IIRC, it came with a joystick.
Price at retail launch (Jan 1981) was $299, which is approximately $610 in today's dollars, making it about the same as the Xbox 360.
Of course, GTA4 in ANSI just doesn't seem as appealing.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
The best I can compare this launch to is the Neo Geo launch and games. Uber expensive system that brought unrivaled GRAPHICS into the home. The system was largely a failure overall. The 360 and PS3 are both Graphical powerhouses, but graphics alone fall flat in the face of limited releases and poor gameplay/design.
The "Gee-Whiz" factor of eye-candy is fairly powerful, but slow release schedules and high prices have historically been killers. The fact that the underlying accessibility and gameplay needs to be top-notch as well cannot be overlooked and nothing so far seems to be bringing anything new to the table.
With the average bundle cost hovering around $600 and the fact that most stores will be selling in bundle-only format, I actually predict that the sales will not match the PS2/Xbox/GC releases. I think there will be a lot of hype, and a lot of die-hard fanboy sales, but I just don't see either of these systems capturing the average game market in any meaningful way. And once the slow release schedule becomes apparent the sales numbers are going to drop off quite briskly. The only unknown in this launch is the Revolution, and I am keeping a keen eye for what it's future holds.
http://teasphere.wordpress.com - A little spot of tea
Paparback books have gone up in price 3x since I was a kid (I started buying them around 1988, if I recall they were roughly $2.50). Of course, a few years before they had been half that price.
I sit back and read all the posts concerning the pricing options of the 360 and possible future consoles and wonder why this did not occur to the same degree in the last round of releases. I would say that the current state of the economy as compared to the days of the previous releases tells part of the tale. We simply were in better shape in early 2000 and people had more flexible spending cash. Its true that the economy has recovered from the dismal state it was in around 2003, but with rising gas prices and worries about job exporting and the like, people do not feel as at ease with forking over large cash on luxury items. We had all simply hoped that the cost would not increase, since many of us are in far worse economic shape than we were after the great internet boom.
I don't have the numbers in front of me, but check consumer confidence summer 2000 and compare it to now. And without an increase in salaries, any price increase (especially an investment like a game system) can seem overwhelming and unfair.
In 1990 vending machines sold Coke for fifty cents. Was it even less in 1982? Movie ticket prices have more than doubled. Car prices kinda have, but perhaps the quality and durability of them have doubled?