The Wii
- Thread starter slamelov
- Start date
Don't forget to read your Wii super safety manual!
Yeah what's the point with consoles anyway?
When they're new, they're too expensive.
They're getting cheaper...
...because another console, a better one, was released by another company.
You want it. But it's too expensive. So you decide to wait. Till another console is released.
Now adays consoles are way to expansive and outdated too quickly.
Remember the NES and the SNES.... Classics for years. No console prevails that long today.
It've simply become ANOTHER part of the spoiled and cruel game industry. Todays game industry. And I think, we, as fans of a certain game, know how fucked up the game industry has become.
Therefore:
CONSOLES ARE FOR FAT KIDS AND LOSERS.
When they're new, they're too expensive.
They're getting cheaper...
...because another console, a better one, was released by another company.
You want it. But it's too expensive. So you decide to wait. Till another console is released.
Now adays consoles are way to expansive and outdated too quickly.
Remember the NES and the SNES.... Classics for years. No console prevails that long today.
It've simply become ANOTHER part of the spoiled and cruel game industry. Todays game industry. And I think, we, as fans of a certain game, know how fucked up the game industry has become.
Therefore:
CONSOLES ARE FOR FAT KIDS AND LOSERS.
Arachnivore
First time out of the vault
Isn't that the way pretty much all electronic gear works? You get a new graphics card then five minutes later there's a better one out that makes yours obsolete.Vox said:
Actually, the console industy typically evolves in waves (or generations) that occure about every 5 years. Example:Vox said:
NINTENDO LAUNCH HISTORY
NES US launch: 10/1985
SNES US Launch: 8/1991 (about 6 years later)
N-64 US launch: 3/1997 (about 5 1/2 years later)
Game Cube US launch: 11/2001 (about 4 1/2 years later)
Wii US launch: 11/2006 (5 years later)
PLAYSTATION LAUNCH HISTORY
PS1 US launch: 9/1995
PS2 US launch: 10/2000 (5 years later)
PS3 US launch: 11/2006 (6 years later)
Hand held systems like the Gameboy or PSP might be staggered in-between generations but for the most part it's always been 5 years. Last generation Sony released the PS2 about a year before the others. This generation Microsoft released the 360 a year before the others. Aside from these deviations the launches of next-gen consoles are typically synchronized.
The only components of a PC that I can think of that would last five years without becoming "obsolete" are the monitor, the removable disk drive, the keyboard and the mouse. Besides, this bullshit about obsolescence is only a problem if you absolutely MUST have the newest shit all the time.
Vox said:
When you and a couple of friends are hanging out at someone's apartment don't you ever just pass around a few controllers and play Smash Bros. or Halo or whatever? To do that w/ a PC you'd need to have a LAN party or something (not exactly casual) and every one would need their own computer with decent hardware (not exactly cheap). Consoles have their place; you can't really compare them directly to PCs. Not everything is an incarnation of the Devil.
I understand the resentment towards consoles. There's a large market for console games and allot of developers go out of their way to bastardize good franchises to make them "console friendly". Fallout wouldn't work on a console. It wouldn't be Fallout. Super Smash Brothers wouldn't be the same on a PC. You have to be there, in the same room, with the people you're fighting.
but the waves aren't really synchronised, which was the point.Arachnivore said:
Sony, Mickeysoft & Nintendo don't release at the same moment (even though they often try, but your own list proves that it's more often not the case), and hence there is usually a new console within 1 to 2 years.
No, it doesn't make it obsolete. It makes it slightly less useful. You can still use it for several years to play pretty much any PC game you want.Arachnivore said:
Once a new console is released, however, it generally won't take that long before you won't be able to play any new games because there simply won't be any.
Arachnivore
First time out of the vault
Even though the three companies deviate a little in launch date, their consoles are still considered part of the same generation. The 360 isn't obsolete now just because there are newer consoles on the market. The consoles don't come out in order of progression. The Wii was released after the 360 and it is far less powerfull. The PS3 is potentially very powerfull but, at the moment, it's performance is equal to or less than that of the 360. Over all, the capabilities of the systems are close enough that it really comes down to which one has better games. Thats why they are all lumped into the same generation.SuAside said:
Sander said:
The PS2 didn't become obsolete when the Game Cube and XBox hit the market a year later. In fact, there are still a few games coming out for the PS2 like Guitar Hero 2 and Burnout '07. So even the arrival of the XBox 360 didn't mark the death of the PS2. A console's life is usually only cut short by the next iteration of that console. Which, again, takes about five years to happen. Is five years an unreasonably short amount of time?
You can always get around the whole obsolescence dilemma by staying one generation behind and being content with that. Console makers are going to keep coming out with new consoles, not because it's part of their master plan to destroy mankind but because they're running a business. Something is only obsolete when you think it's obsolete not because the console makers deemed it obsolete. Go buy an XBox or PS2, they’re cheap now and you won't even have to wait for all the games to come out.
That's the same generation, so by your logic of 'waves' that's a completely irrelevant issue.Arachnivore said:
The arrival of the X-Box360 did mark the death of the PS2, though. It's just slow to understand it. If a genuinely new 'generation' console is released, it'll take at most a yeare for the previous consoles to become completely obsolete.
That's an ass-tarded logic. People want to be able to play new, hopefully (but not probably) innovative, games. Not 5-year-old games they're playing just so that their console won't turn obsolete. This logic really makes no sense.Arachnivore said:
Also, don't preach to me about businesses being evil. I never said anything about that, because that too is an ass-tarded reasoning. Businesses put out new consoles when they feel it's profitable to. That doesn't make those consoles any more or less useless, though.
Arachnivore
First time out of the vault
Exactly. That's the point.Sander said:
Perhaps, but a good counter example would be the PS1 (a 32-bit system) which didn't die when the Nintendo 64 came out two years later or when the Dreamcast (a 128-bit system) came out four years later, it only died when the PS2 came out. So it would seem that your theory isn't quite bulletproof.Sander said:
Even if what you say is true. A system could be released a full year ahead of the other next gen consoles and because of this "delayed death" phenomenon you'll still get the full five years out of your old system.
Yeah, Obviously it isn't a win-win solution.Sander said:
If you can't afford or are otherwise too cheap to get the current generation system. Then you don't get the newest greatest games right when they come out. You get them eventually. Some people can live with that.
Look, if you think a brand new car is too expensive then you probably drive a USED CAR. Is that "ass-tarded" logic? No. You may want a new car with it's new and hopefully (but probably not) innovative features. That Lexus that parks itself sounds neat. Maybe in a few years you'll find one used and in your price range.
I apologize for directing that at you. It was meant to be aimed more at Vox's statement:Sander said:
Vox said: