Life After the Videogame Crash

Clark Hall writes "Is it 1983 all over again? E3 is over and millions of gamers are realizing they can't afford a PS3, or an HDTV. Is it time for a steep and painful correction in the gaming market? Pointlesswasteoftime has been tracking what is looking like a Hindenburg voyage for console gaming, with HDTV playing the role of Hydrogen." From the article: "There's going to be a lot of money lost the next few years, a lot of articles written, a lot of panic, a lot of changes. And when gaming comes back, it will hopefully be different and innovative and based on something other than eye candy and the shock value of blood and guts and hookers. Hopefully it will allow for creativity from the players, and room for small, independent game makers to create content. Hopefully it will be something every working person can afford. "

Comments

You can afford HDTV and video consoles

[WillAffleckUW]

Seriously, you can buy an HDTV for about $500 now if you look around, it will be $300 by Christmas 2007 or shortly thereafter, and you can even get a 1080p version right now for $500 (check out the NY Times electronic reviews a couple of weeks back, and in the Wall Street Journal two weekends ago in the Saturday issue).

And you can buy a Nintendo Wii by about Presidents Day 2007 for a reasonable price at Costco - maybe even by Christmas 2006.

The world isn't over. Your old TV works fine with a cable box, you don't need a 64 inch screen HDTV, you can settle for a 32 inch or 40 inch one.

Re:You can afford HDTV and video consoles

[duffbeer703]

Most people live paycheck to paycheck in the US... expecting parents to dole out $1,000+ so they can shell out $70 for their kid to play videogames is a little absurd.

HDTV is a solution looking for a problem. TV was fine the way it is.

Re:You can afford HDTV and video consoles

[badasscat]

Most people live paycheck to paycheck in the US...

Two things:

a) This is not true, as any basic check of median income would have told you ("median" being the key word, because it's not as skewed by rich folks as "average" income would be).

b) Even if it were true, the conditions for the industry now are still better than they were from 1977-1980, when video gaming first exploded in this country.

The Atari VCS cost $249 when it was first launched. That's more than $800 in today's dollars. You were lucky to find a 19" TV set for $500 - about $1,500 in today's dollars. And that at a time when unemployment was more than 10%. Yet still, the industry flourished.

There is no economic reason whatsoever why the average American couldn't afford a $400 console and a $500 TV today if they could afford the equivalent of an $800 console and a $1,500 TV in 1977. All this bitching about price is just a lot of whining, nothing more.

I'm not saying everyone can afford it, but if you can't, then you've got bigger problems to solve anyway. There's no use crying about game consoles - work on getting some food on your table and a roof over your head first if you're poor enough that $1,000 for five years or more worth of entertainment is unaffordable. (Remember, TV's can entertain just fine even without a game console hooked up...)

The only difference between now and 1977 is that there is more competition for our disposable income. But why is this something to bitch and moan about? So because you just bought a $300 cell phone or a $1,000 laptop PC or a stack of DVD movies, the electronics and video game industries have to lower their prices for you? To a large extent, they have - adjusted for inflation, everything game-related is cheaper than it used to be (including games). But there's only so far they can go.

I'm not being elitist - I'm saying that most people do have the money, they just don't know how to prioritize their purchases. They act like it's the manufacturers' responsibility to just make everything so cheap that they can afford to buy everything they'd ever want. And those that really don't have the money really need to be concentrating on things other than game consoles anyway.

I don't see any cost parallel between now and 1983. Cost wasn't the reason for the crash anyway - in 1983, there were systems at every price point from about $75 up to $275. And in fact, one of the main reasons for the crash was the exodus from game consoles to more expensive computers that played more advanced games. People would have rather paid $400 for a C64 or $800 for an Apple II than $100 for an Intellivision or $150 for a Coleco Vision. So I don't see that affordability really has anything to do with either era, or anything to do with any possible crash, past or present.

Re:You can afford HDTV and video consoles

[ivan256]

I'm not being elitist - I'm saying that most people do have the money, they just don't know how to prioritize their purchases.

They just don't prioritize them the same way you do.

HDTV isn't a priority for most people with perfectly functional SD sets already in their living room. The problem is worse for gamers, because a signifigant percentage of consoles are likely connected to hand-me-down sets that used to be a family's main set.

The industry needed to go HD at some point, but HD gaming will be irrelevant this generation other than as laying the groundwork for when a signifigant percentage of TVs are HD... perhaps 6 years from now?

Re:You can afford HDTV and video consoles

[porcupine8]

work on getting some food on your table and a roof over your head first if you're poor enough that $1,000 for five years or more worth of entertainment is unaffordable.

Uh, maybe spread out over those five years. However, if I were going to drop $1000 on anything at once (whether it's a computer or a HDTV and console), it's going to take some saving up. I have no problem keeping a roof over my head, but I also don't have $1000 sitting there with no strings attached ready to be spent. Which leads to...

I'm saying that most people do have the money, they just don't know how to prioritize their purchases.

Out of context, this is one of the truest things ever said on Slashdot. In context, it is one of the silliest.

Maybe their priorities just don't include these items. I have no desire for an HDTV. I'd eventually like to replace my little 13" with something like a 30" (maybe even one with more than just coax input), but even that is low on my list of priorities. Sure, I *could* save up for an HDTV and PS3 in a few months, but right now that money is going into savings for travel, a house, pet care, a new laptop, among other things that are higher on my priority list than these.

Crash?

[Carlbunn]

What videogame crash? I can certainly afford an under 300usd Wii. Oh wait, you mean sony? They'll just have a wonderful future building cameras, and slapping rootkits on the wrong places

Myopic

[ObligatoryUserName]

I read this article earlier today, and the author just writes off the Wii completly. What he's not grokking, is that the Japanese game market already crashed a few years back. Microsoft and Sony were able to use the ever growing US market to write that off as an anomoly, but Nintendo took it to heart and came out with the DS and now the Wii in response.

So, yes, it's reasonable to say that Sony and Microsoft (and all their 3rd party developers) are in for a harsh awakening, but Nintendo is already on the other side of the crash and things are looking better than ever.

Bah...

[Richard Steiner]

Just relax, pull out that old copy of UT or TA or NFS III or Madden 2001, and ignore all of the gnashing of teeth by the hardware vendors. If it's fun, it's good. Who says it also has to be high tech?

Moronic article

[interiot]

This article is so full of statements that are a big stretch that's it's difficult to even discuss the core issue...

• all Wii games are going to do very poorly. Why is none of the other gaming press writing about this, why has only this guy has seen the light?
• the Wii controller is a cheap gimmick... true innovation won't come until we have sensory suits or neural inputs. True, but gamers aren't going to stop playing games just because the stuff we see on TV can't be bought right this instant.
• console hardware loses money. Yeah? And they make money back through royalties on each game sold.
• point #3: movies are more immersive than games. Huh?? And even if this is true, why has it not been constantly true, why does it mean that the gaming industry was doing well a couple years ago, but will crash any day now?

Re:PC Gaming

[joshsisk]

I think most people have the opposite opinion. I gave up on upgrading my PC to play the newest games, and I think many other people also prefer not to have to try and keep up.

With a console, you know that when you buy, you can play all the games for it.

And do you need an HDTV to play these new systems? I don't think any of them require it.

Re:And this is why...

[d3ac0n]

Maybe, but why would I want to spend somewhere between $200 - $600 US on a gaming-only machine, When I could spend that same amount on an upgraded video card, and an Athlon X2 Processor. Then I can play the latest PC games, AND word-process, spreadsheet, surf, e-mail, Dual-boot with the latest Linux Distro, run a few virtual machines with VM-Ware, Photoshop or Gimp some artwork, etc.

The point is, with the cost of HD TV's and these new consoles combined, there just isn't the justification to buy one. Many of the better games for the consoles are also out for the PC, and the PC is just so much more versatile that it makes console gaming nothing more than a waste of money.

Re:PC Gaming

[daveisfera]

Cause shelling out $400-500 just for a video card obviously makes a lot more sense.

Re:HDTV the Great Swindle

[egomaniac]

All the marketing hype behind HDTV has duped the general public into believing that a higher definition actually makes a difference. Unless you sit eighteen inch's away from your sixty inch screen, there is no difference between a traditional television and an HDTV.

I'm being completely serious: if you can't tell the difference between HDTV and standard def, you need to see an optometrist.

I sit about 12' away from my 50" plasma, and I can easily see a dramatic difference between HD content and standard-definition content. At one point I accidently set my cable box for 480p output, and for the next day or two happened to be watching only standard-definition programming so of course I didn't notice anything wrong. Then I tried to watch a high-definition show, and within five seconds I was hunting through the settings trying to figure out why the picture looked so blurry. It really is that dramatic. I also have a smaller plasma which is farther away from the viewing position (42" at 18') and I can easily tell on that one as well.

Have you actually seen HDTV and standard-definition on the same TV set? I doubt it, or you wouldn't be making claims like this. Or perhaps the set you were comparing on was marked "HDTV compatible" or something equivalent, which just means that it can accept a high-definition signal, but can't actually display it at its full resolution -- typical "EDTV" sets have 480 lines of vertical resolution just like standard-definition TVs do.