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".
...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
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
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.
>> "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.