Slashdot Mirror
Ten Gaming Myths Debunked
ThinSkin writes "The Playstation 3 will fail. Video games are too violent. Copy protection is the beginning of the end for gaming. These myths and others are the target for Loyd Case over at ExtremeTech as he takes ten gaming myths apart and debunks them. From the article:
'Rumors are partly due to the nature of the overheated coverage that's the rule of the day on Internet sites. Rumors spread, become accepted as fact and remain embedded in people's belief systems long after the actual facts have emerged. There also seems to be relatively little historical perspective among some writers, which can alleviate breathless hype, either positive or negative.'"
Since when is blog commentary considered myth debunking?
I'm happy to say that with Javascript disabled I didn't give him any ad impressions for that drivel apparently deemed Slashdot-worthy. I have a vertical scrollbar for a reason -- and that reason certainly isn't to click "Next page".
It's a no-brainer that the PS3 *will* sell. But with its high price tag, lackluster performance (to date), and late release, it's not going to be anything special. The PS3 fanboys will be good little consumer whores and run out and buy it as soon as it hits the shelves, just like the Nintendo and MS fanboys.
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
... but for US$600, I'm sure as hell not buying one.
...but it will sure as hell not do very well. When seriously hardcore gamers, like the Penny Arcade guys, says that no way will they buy it at launch, you have a problem. Sure, the initial batch of consoles will sell out, they always do, but there is no way it can threaten the 360 in dominance. The Xboxs online stuff alone will probably make it more popular (and yes, I know Sony is launching its own thing (PS HUB, is it? or have they changed it?) but I doubt that it will be as good as Micrsofts).
True, the Playstation brand has some cachet in Japan, and even some in the states and Europe. But weighing that against $600 (and even more in Europe) will ensure it a perpetual second or third place in the rankings. I guarantee it.
Blerg.
So on the first page I read this.
I've been following interactive games for nearly two decades now, both as a gamer and as someone who writes about gear that PC gamers use.
Than I get to the second page and read this.
I'm not much of a Sony fan, and never owned a Playstation 2.
That is where I stopped reading. How am I suppose to take someone opinion seriously when they aren't even a serious counsel gamer. No offense, but there is a very different world between that of a counsel and that of a PC, and a very fine line as well. A fine line that has long been crossed with a 600 dollar price tag and a trail of broken promises. It is very hard to take this artical seriously whatsoever.
This entire article reads like "Here is something no one really believes in the first place, and here is why it isn't true." This isn't "debunking myths", this is taking things that MAY have been true about gaming 10 years ago, and listing common sense exceptions that anyone reading the games section of
From TFA:
I don't know about you, but I've never thought of gaming as an embarrassment. Especially when today, the game industry does more in sales than Hollywood. How many people are embarrassed about enjoying movies (certain prequels of certain sci-fi trilogies notwithstanding)? I, for one, am embarrassed I took the time to read this.
...is not a myth. It's a personal opinion.
For some people, no video game is too violent; for others, even Pac-Man is way too 62% violent.
If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
If failure means 'fail to utterly dominate the market like PS and PS2', which is certainly a valid criteria, then it does seem like PS3 is definitely going to fail. Note that you can get a 51% market share, which would be plenty good for any companies not named Sony, and still be considered a failure relative to the PS and PS2.
BTW, I find it disturbing that this fellow feels that there's no way Sony will lose third party support. It's already happening *before* the console is launched. If they lose much more *after* the console's launch, the console may very well "fail".
As a sweeping statement, I agree that it's too broad. However, I feel compelled to argue that PC Games lack a lot of the popularity and developer support that once existed. Rather than having titles that are uniquely suited to the PC, we're instead faced with titles that are designed to be ported to consoles. The result is that the PC Platform is missing all the fresh titles that would push gaming into new realms. PCs are quickly falling back into business and communications machines with Indie, Web Based, and Casual titles providing less sweeping amusements.
Where did he pull this one from? Hardcore gamers want a $500 graphics card, but I've never seen it advertised that you need a $500 graphics card for your inexpensive gaming machine. NVidia and ATI have budget lines for the occasional gamer.
He thinks Tomb Raider: Legends is an example of a non-twitch game? Um, Civilization? Sim City? The Sims? Methinks this is what is meant by "non-twitch" games. In any case, this idea died with the SNES. (Populous, Sim City, and several other good non-twitch games.) He needs to get with the program.
This "myth" is no longer a "myth". It's blindingly obvious that the PSP isn't targetted at 8 year old Jimmy.
Is it just me, or is this guy REALLY behind the curve? Again, PC Games and Console Games are the same games these days! There are very few PC exclusives anymore. So I don't know where he's getting this idea that people think this. Unless, that is, he's pulling from his 10-years-out-of-date knowledge on PCs vs. Consoles.
This isn't a myth. As games target higher age groups, they quickly gain a lot of "adult" content in the form of violence and sexuality. Max Payne pops to mind as a game that was quite disturbing. Similarly, the new 360 title Gears of War is full of disturbing imagery like corpses hanging from hooks. Just because he's playing the Sims doesn't mean that games aren't getting more violent. Then again, just because violent games exist, doesn't mean that games like The Sims don't exist. My only wish is that there'd be a bit more diversification than there is today. Far too many titles (especially for the 360) target "Mature" audiences.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
None of these are even remotely qualifiable as "myths."
The Playstation 3 will Fail - This is still wild speculation either way, until it is released and either does well or flops. Either way, speculation on the future is not a myth.
PC Games are Doomed - Groundless FUD, not a myth.
You Need a $500 Graphics Card - Not a myth for even the most basic Slashdotter with the slightest grasp on the subject.
Console Games are for Twitch Gamers - See above.
Handheld Games are for Kids - See above.
Console Games are Too Simple - See above.
PC Games are Too Complicated - See above.
PC Copy Protection is Too Onerous - Mostly a subjective argument, and too widely ranged a subject to debate in one chunk. It's an issue, not a myth.
Games are Too Violent - See above.
I'm Embarrassed About Gaming - See above.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
Examine the guys logic carefully:
The PS3 will not fail as long as it still has developers.
Developers will not jump ship because the PS3 will sell well.
Perfectly sound logic to me!
Because web backlash means almost nothing to the "mainstream" gamer. All it takes is for a sizable group of people that fall under these categories for the PS3 to succeed.
1. Want to own a gaming system.
2. See Sony as the brand name for gaming.
3. Have the $600 to drop on one.
4. Have a good impression of the PS3 (read as: not a big internet user)
Cynical Idealist
Are they trying to say anyone ever believed in these "myths"? I can't pick out anything that any normal person would actually believe.
1. The Playstation 3 will Fail
Huh? What's the difference between this playstation and the last one? This scenario is exactly like when the PS2 was introduced: nothing really ground-breaking, better graphics, new media options, better controllers... and people still bought the PS2. I see no reason the PS3 won't do just as well.
2. PC Games are Doomed
Who the hell ever said that? I can't even fathom where that idea came from.
3. You Need a $500 Graphics Card
When has that ever been true? You need a mid-range ($150-$200) video card for top-notch graphics and performance. That has been true for nearly a decade. As new games come out and need better graphics cards, new graphics cards come out and push down the price of the older ones.
4. Console Games are for Twitch Gamers
Huh? Consoles are for platformers, auto-aim shooters, and RPGs. Where does "twitch" come into play there? The console controller doesn't lend itself to 'twich gameplay' at all. A computer mouse, on the other (twitchy) hand...
5. Handheld Games are for Kids
I've heard "video games are for kids" but nothing about handheld games specifically. Why would handheld games (the majority of which are styled after, or are remakes of, old console games) be treated differently than a TV-based console game?
6. Console Games are Too Simple
Huh? You mean the few console-only games? Most games on consoles are ports of PC games, or vice versa.
7. PC Games are Too Complicated
How is this even it's own entry? Isn't this just the inverse for the last "myth"?
8. PC Copy Protection is Too Onerous
That is true. Just being there is too onerous for my tastes. Strangely though, there's no mention of the extraordinarily more onerous 'console game copy protection'.
9. Games are Too Violent
Is Jack Thompson still alive?
10. I'm Embarrassed About Gaming
I can't imagine anyone being embarrassed about playing video games. Perhaps there's some shame in 14-hour WoW sessions, but with the general "coolness" regarded to video games over the last five years or so, I can't see anyone hiding the fact that they play Mario on occasion.
Unless they meant "myths" like 'believed by a few crackpots who have no idea what their talking about', then yes - these certainly ARE myths.
Whoo, signature!
DesireCampbell.com
What did the "Web Hype" do for Snakes on a Plane, oh thats right, NOTHING. Just like some bad press will not kill the PS3. Believe it or not (gasp), there are a lot of people that don't read Slashdot, and don't troll gaming message boards.
There are 106 million people who have a PS2, thats a pretty large customer base. Maybe some of them can't afford 500 at launch, but I guarantee there are a couple million who can and will. Later on down the road when the price comes down and availability increases, the rest of the 100 million can get one, its called Price Discrimination. Why should Sony sell you a PS3 for 400 when I'll pay 600.
//TODO: Insert catchy phrase
I'm referring to Extreme Tech, who doltishly puts two or three paragraphs per page in a fifty page article that can fit in a single page and be read in a minute or two, if only slashdot would link the fucking printable version.
Am I the only one who hates this greedy advertising shit that, like DRM, only offends and inconvieniences the user? There is no need whatever for a fine site like slashdot to go along with this crap.
Now to the actual FA and its "myths".
Myth: The Playstation 3 will Fail
I think the author's right and hope he's wrong. I hate Sony with a passion and wish they would die a horrible death, with all their stockholders reduced to abject poverty.
Yeah, I'm the guy who got bitten by their rootkit.
PC Games are Doomed
Well, they are and have been since 1993!
You Need a $500 Graphics Card
Er, "These range in price from $250 - $400". Ok, you need a $400 card. Still too Goddamned expensive.
Console Games are for Twitch Gamers
Of COURSE they are. So are PC games. They're not ONLY for twitch gamers, of course.
Handheld Games are for Kids
Well, they are. They're for adults, too.
Console Games are Too Simple
Ok, I'll buy that; it's a myth. Or I suck.
PC Games are Too Complicated
Well, they are. Some are also too simple.
PC Copy Protection is Too Onerous
OK, this guy lost me completely here. ANY copy protection is too onerous! There was a slashdot comment in a thread just today where a guy was pissed at some game company because of its intrusive DRM that wanted an internet connection to play single player. THIS IS TOO ONEROUS. I suppose the author doesn't conesider a root canal to bee too onerous, either. You kids will put up with anything your corporate masters throw at you, won't you? We killed game copy protection back in the 80s by not buying copy protected games, now listen to you dumbass punks. Shit.
Games are Too Violent
Well, GTA is too violent for a five year old. They're too violent for that Jackass Thompson. Me, I like violent games; the more violent the better. YMMV.
I'm Embarrassed About Gaming
It's a myth that the author, who I never heard of, is embarrassed by gaming? Or does he mean everybody is embarrassed by gaming? I'm sure some people are.
Summary: nonsense designed to serve advertising to suckers. Nothing to see here, move along.
Maybe Some of them???!!!! Some of them?! How about MOST of them. I'm a diehard Sony gamer. My gaming world centers are Japanese RPGs, which are solidly in Sony's domain, I loved the Playstation and Playstation 2, I'm a huge Final Fantasy fan, I even have a pretty good job (for someone my age: 25), and could actually afford throwing down $600. Am I going to do it? Hell no! Not out of spite, but I just don't want to pay that much! I figure, if someone like ME isn't going to buy it, how the hell is the rest of the gaming community? Especially seeing as though a large percentage of the gaming community is under 20 years old, and maybe making $8/h part-time at the local McDonald's. The PS3 is priced for fanatics... and even then (like me), they're pushing it.
Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.
Even if you have people in there with 4 or 5 PS2s that is a metric butt load of households with PS2s.
The name Playstation is always going to be associated with gaming by non gamers... and parents will buy there children a PS3 to replace/upgrade a PS2 because it makes sense from a non informed consumers perspective.
The only thing that could realy hurt Sony is snooty EB clerks regurgitating things they read on the internet and I am sure consumers will just go to Best Buy (once someone wants to buy something it is best not to argue or try to change there mind... if you want the sale.).
Will it be another PS2... I doubt it.
Did people bitch on the internet leading up to the PS2 launch and after... Yes, we have such short memories.
I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way.
Mark Twain
- A console's livelihood can't be based souly on sales to fanboys. Fanboys are a VERY small part of the market, the PS3 is priced for fanboys, yes, and that's what they'll get, nothing else. 80% of their gaming market... GONE. This seems like a no-brainer to me.
- They're losing fanboys like CRAZY, do to not being able to keep promises and devaluing the "game system" aspect of the console in favor of "home entertainment system".
So, their pricing is aimed at fanboys, and their marketting is aimed at all-encompassing (even outside of gaming)... yeah, this sounds like a GREAT idea to me! So no, I do not see good things for Sony this round. Launch will be painfull to watch. Prediction: fanboys hold off buying it until they can first play it at their friends' house... only problem is, their friends are doing the same thing!Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.
The same parents who paid $800 for their 4th grader's laptop will buy the $600 PS3.
My now departed mother's 3rd grade students had plenty of buying power and parents do *not* pay enough attention to kids' gaming. One of her kids spent all his free time playing Vice City. I don't believe that game restrictions need to be draconian but if the line be drawn, 3rd graders don't make it by a long shot.
I just found out there's no such thing as the real world. It's just a lie you've got to rise above. - John Mayer
"Although the user interface was tailored well for PC first person shooter fans, you could whip through Halo in about half the time it took many console players. The UI conversion may have been too good."
... we should instead cripple the PC ports by forcing them to "play at the same level" as the consoles? I don't think I understand what the author is trying to imply with that assertion. It's a fact: PCs have a more robust control scheme barring applications that benefit greatly from analog input (joystick games such as flight sims aside--I'm talking about "tilt stick to walk" applications). If your game is hard on consoles but easy on the PC, then you've likely developed a game that's hampered by a poor control layout or simply wasn't meant to be played on a gamepad.
So, instead of either:
a) Taking advantage of the unique features of a PC to "enhance" a console-game experience with added content--and I DON'T mean just a multiplayer mode OR
b) Porting fewer games and instead focusing on developing games that play off of the strengths of their systems
I'm no economics expert, but if a guy could find a way to emulate mouse control on a gamepad, he'd probably have his idea ripped off by Sony and make them a ton of money. Wiimote, I'm not looking at you because I'm unconvinced, based on what I've observed of your mode of operation, that you'll be any good for FPS.
"First thought I had too. I'm not sure how someone can see the backlash against the PS3 on the web, and not conclude that the PS3 is on shaky groud well before launch..."
I suspect that the negative hype around the PS3 will be another manifestation of the Snakes on a Plane effect, in which a small core of dedicated fanatics voicing their opinion ad nauseum is misunderstood as a widespread grassroots movement. I suspect that the small group of hardcore "Wii60" fans will, like their SoaP brethren, turn out to be a mostly inconsequential factor in the overall performance of the PS3.
The games-related discourse on the web is dominated by the voices of hardcore gamers and (to a greater extent in the case of hardware releases) system-specific fanboys. However, time and time again, these groups have been shown to be an imperfect reflection of the overall market. Take Castlevania: Symphony of the Night, for example. It was a critical darling and holds a hallowed place on many gamers lists of the all-time greatest games, yet it still sold terribly. Another good example is Madden. Each release meets with a flurry of "Roster Update: 200x" criticisms from the online community, yet the series is a top-seller in the US every year.
The majority of gamers aren't keeping with the bad press on the PS3. What they do know is that the Playstation 1 and 2 were excellent systems. They're also likely to see the PS3's higher price as meaning that it really is leaps and bounds ahead of the 360. As much as you may hate to acknowledge Sony's arrogant statements that they don't need a killer app and that the PS3 will sell out on sheer brand recognition, they are probably correct. The real question on PS3's future is whether the manufacturing costs of Blu-Ray and Cell will drop at a fast enough pace that they can lower the price to a more mainstream-friendly level after the initial shipments have sold out. The real question of whether or not the PS3 can become a market success will be determined next holiday season, not this one.
Apart from the PS3 "myth", they all seem made up. I mean, who says console games are too simple? Who says PC games are doomed? Who says you need a $500 video card? Nobody I know. It's all just a bunch of waffle. Oh, and the PS3 is going to fail. Too expensive, and no way are the developers going to be releasing games as quickly as they will on the 360. Sony has focused too much on complicated hardware and left the developers out to dry.
Even if you have people in there with 4 or 5 SNESs that is a metric butt load of households with SNESs.
The name Nintendo is always going to be associated with gaming by non gamers... and parents will buy there children a N64 to replace/upgrade a SNES because it makes sense from a non informed consumers perspective.
(could also replace PS2/Sony with 2600/Atari for similar results, an established market means something, but it far from means as much as people give it credit for).
Fact of the matter is that for the most part people aren't just sheep. More so than they should be, but when asked to shell out 600 bucks for something, they will consider it more thoroughly and not automatically buy it for their kids just because they had a PS2 and their kid liked the PS2.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Regarding their myth 8: PC Copy Protection They're wrong about TotalGaming.net. You need a valid login to install/update the games, but not to play the games. Also they try to draw the parallel that nobody complains about inserting the CD into a Playstation, but people complain about PCs. How about because I've already installed the program onto my harddrive. The only reason (in many, many cases) to insert the CD is to "verify" the license. Nobody would be complaining if the content actually resided on the CD (for reasons other than to simply require the CD to be present). I remember Civ II did this. If you had the CD in the drive, you got CD audio tracks for background music. No CD, no music. On a Playstation, you insert the CD because that's where your program is.
And why not? I'd say the Genesis was a pretty big smash hit, Sega had a lot of momentum coming off of it, and they blew it on the Saturn, partially because they were concentrating on the wrong functionality (2D graphics) when other, more adgile developers (the Sony gaming division, at the time) were innovating, and looking ahead to what was coming next in the gaming market.
Let's get it straight, the DreamCast failed because of the Saturn. No question about it, Sega dropped the ball on that one and were never able to return. They got their act together on the DreamCast, but by that time, it was too late. So no, a comparison can't be made, because the failour of the PS3 will not be do to lackluster results of the PS2.
As I've said before: previous success, in itself, is NOT a good enough reason to assume continued success. This is practically the only strong defense I'm hearing about the PS3, "because the PS2 did so well". Well, the Genesis did really well, The SNES did incredibly well, SUVs did really well during the early 00s... and GMs laying off thousands for assuming their continued success. The scale is a little different now, but there are SOME parallels that can be drawn between Sony and Sega. I don't think its entirely unreasonable.
So, if someone can come up with an arguement other than, "because the PS2 had a huge fanbase/developer base", let's hear it, because I haven't heard it yet. Audiences and developers, alike, are very fickle, it wouldn't be unthinkable for a large percentage of each to suddenly abandon their previous attitudes toward a product when the boat starts a'rockin.
Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.
>> "I'm not much of a Sony fan, and never owned a Playstation 2. But I think the Playstation 3 will do just fine."
Direct translation:
>> "I am an idiot."
Now go click on the sidebar ads, and the pop-ups, and flips through all the pages of that crap so he can get more hits.
Heh. I was at my brother's friend house the other day, the two of them were playing a PS2. The mom yelled for them to "Stop playing Nintendo and get down here".
Nintendo is a lot more synonymous with gaming than "Playstation" will ever be.