If everyone could afford to own all the consoles, would fanboyism still exist? Would people still hate a console just because of its name? If so, they could probably use some enlightenment from this guy:
Costs aside, is there any reason for fanboyism?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
That comic kinda stole the thunder away from this topic. Comic wasn't that funny, either.
I think it all comes down to pride. When you go ahead and make the decision to buy a console, you want it to be a good thing, you want it to work out. It becomes an investment. Therefore, you invest your money, and time playing the console. You also invest your bias because you want your decision to be the right decision.
You're not going to buy one thing and support another thing, lol!
Manticores are foolish. Your arguement is no different than the short-sighted "what if we all had all the money in the world, scarcity didn't exist, we could have anything we wanted?" There is always the limitation of time, and there would always be games, activities, and platforms we enjoyed more.
I don't hate the PS3 because $600 is too much money for me to drop, I dislike it because it doesn't have games that appeal to me, it has an uncomfortable controller, the system interface was ripped from a handheld, and it has problems with both my 720p HDTV and my sound system. Optical and HDMI at the same time? Blasphemy! (says the PS3).
My sentiments towards the Wii are simply that it doesn't offer many games that appeal to me, the graphics and sound are dated (especially the sound - this bothers me more than anything) and I don't particularly like the Wiimote in games other than Twilight Princess. Tilt controlled games like Sonic and the Secret Rings feel imprecise, and I prefer the DS stylus to the Wiimote for any of your Brain Age, Cooking Mama, Trauma Center type games.
So - my opinion on platforms is based on interface and library - hmm - cost is a non-issue. Frankly, the gamers who promote "manticore-ism" hold back the industry. Change, evolution, and progress all come at a cost. That cost is that quality products, better interfaces, games and hardware that are superior will drive lower quality product off the market.
Tossing your money at a manufacturer simply "because they make gaming hardware" is idiotic, without value judgements, consoles like the 3D0 would still exist, Virtual Boy would have sold, and we'd all be wandering around blind (virtual boy eye damage) and broke (3D0)... what's the point of that?
What happens with fanboyism, what happens with products flopping, happens for a reason - capitalism - and despite what naysayers want to shout from the rooftops, it is a good thing. The Game Gear had to lose to the Gameboy so that handheld manufacturers learned that battery life, durability, and library were more important than graphics on a portable device. The Virtual Boy had to fail because the future of 3D was in graphics cards, not in optical illusions. And the PS3 will have to lose to the 360 and Wii simply because the market (us, the consumer) is teaching Sony that brand names, new standards, and commercial cool don't make your $600 product any more palatable when the competition has more games, a lower cost, and a better attitude.
That comic kinda stole the thunder away from this topic. Comic wasn't that funny, either.
I think it all comes down to pride. When you go ahead and make the decision to buy a console, you want it to be a good thing, you want it to work out. It becomes an investment. Therefore, you invest your money, and time playing the console. You also invest your bias because you want your decision to be the right decision.
You're not going to buy one thing and support another thing, lol!
TheGrossPervert
Yea it really did but I agree if money wasnt an issue SWs wouldnt exsist, well actually even if people owned all 3 then sale numbers would be the only thing everyone would fight for.
Manticores are foolish. Your arguement is no different than the short-sighted "what if we all had all the money in the world, scarcity didn't exist, we could have anything we wanted?" There is always the limitation of time, and there would always be games, activities, and platforms we enjoyed more.
I don't hate the PS3 because $600 is too much money for me to drop, I dislike it because it doesn't have games that appeal to me, it has an uncomfortable controller, the system interface was ripped from a handheld, and it has problems with both my 720p HDTV and my sound system. Optical and HDMI at the same time? Blasphemy! (says the PS3).My sentiments towards the Wii are simply that it doesn't offer many games that appeal to me, the graphics and sound are dated (especially the sound - this bothers me more than anything) and I don't particularly like the Wiimote in games other than Twilight Princess. Tilt controlled games like Sonic and the Secret Rings feel imprecise, and I prefer the DS stylus to the Wiimote for any of your Brain Age, Cooking Mama, Trauma Center type games.
So - my opinion on platforms is based on interface and library - hmm - cost is a non-issue. Frankly, the gamers who promote "manticore-ism" hold back the industry. Change, evolution, and progress all come at a cost. That cost is that quality products, better interfaces, games and hardware that are superior will drive lower quality product off the market.
Tossing your money at a manufacturer simply "because they make gaming hardware" is idiotic, without value judgements, consoles like the 3D0 would still exist, Virtual Boy would have sold, and we'd all be wandering around blind (virtual boy eye damage) and broke (3D0)... what's the point of that?What happens with fanboyism, what happens with products flopping, happens for a reason - capitalism - and despite what naysayers want to shout from the rooftops, it is a good thing. The Game Gear had to lose to the Gameboy so that handheld manufacturers learned that battery life, durability, and library were more important than graphics on a portable device. The Virtual Boy had to fail because the future of 3D was in graphics cards, not in optical illusions. And the PS3 will have to lose to the 360 and Wii simply because the market (us, the consumer) is teaching Sony that brand names, new standards, and commercial cool don't make your $600 product any more palatable when the competition has more games, a lower cost, and a better attitude.
subrosian
I believe this is the greatest post I have ever witnessed
Wonderful post. You have any views on the 360? 8)Manticores are foolish. Your arguement is no different than the short-sighted "what if we all had all the money in the world, scarcity didn't exist, we could have anything we wanted?" There is always the limitation of time, and there would always be games, activities, and platforms we enjoyed more.
I don't hate the PS3 because $600 is too much money for me to drop, I dislike it because it doesn't have games that appeal to me, it has an uncomfortable controller, the system interface was ripped from a handheld, and it has problems with both my 720p HDTV and my sound system. Optical and HDMI at the same time? Blasphemy! (says the PS3).My sentiments towards the Wii are simply that it doesn't offer many games that appeal to me, the graphics and sound are dated (especially the sound - this bothers me more than anything) and I don't particularly like the Wiimote in games other than Twilight Princess. Tilt controlled games like Sonic and the Secret Rings feel imprecise, and I prefer the DS stylus to the Wiimote for any of your Brain Age, Cooking Mama, Trauma Center type games.
So - my opinion on platforms is based on interface and library - hmm - cost is a non-issue. Frankly, the gamers who promote "manticore-ism" hold back the industry. Change, evolution, and progress all come at a cost. That cost is that quality products, better interfaces, games and hardware that are superior will drive lower quality product off the market.
Tossing your money at a manufacturer simply "because they make gaming hardware" is idiotic, without value judgements, consoles like the 3D0 would still exist, Virtual Boy would have sold, and we'd all be wandering around blind (virtual boy eye damage) and broke (3D0)... what's the point of that?What happens with fanboyism, what happens with products flopping, happens for a reason - capitalism - and despite what naysayers want to shout from the rooftops, it is a good thing. The Game Gear had to lose to the Gameboy so that handheld manufacturers learned that battery life, durability, and library were more important than graphics on a portable device. The Virtual Boy had to fail because the future of 3D was in graphics cards, not in optical illusions. And the PS3 will have to lose to the 360 and Wii simply because the market (us, the consumer) is teaching Sony that brand names, new standards, and commercial cool don't make your $600 product any more palatable when the competition has more games, a lower cost, and a better attitude.
subrosian
Manticores are foolish. Your arguement is no different than the short-sighted "what if we all had all the money in the world, scarcity didn't exist, we could have anything we wanted?" There is always the limitation of time, and there would always be games, activities, and platforms we enjoyed more.
I don't hate the PS3 because $600 is too much money for me to drop, I dislike it because it doesn't have games that appeal to me, it has an uncomfortable controller, the system interface was ripped from a handheld, and it has problems with both my 720p HDTV and my sound system. Optical and HDMI at the same time? Blasphemy! (says the PS3).My sentiments towards the Wii are simply that it doesn't offer many games that appeal to me, the graphics and sound are dated (especially the sound - this bothers me more than anything) and I don't particularly like the Wiimote in games other than Twilight Princess. Tilt controlled games like Sonic and the Secret Rings feel imprecise, and I prefer the DS stylus to the Wiimote for any of your Brain Age, Cooking Mama, Trauma Center type games.
So - my opinion on platforms is based on interface and library - hmm - cost is a non-issue. Frankly, the gamers who promote "manticore-ism" hold back the industry. Change, evolution, and progress all come at a cost. That cost is that quality products, better interfaces, games and hardware that are superior will drive lower quality product off the market.
Tossing your money at a manufacturer simply "because they make gaming hardware" is idiotic, without value judgements, consoles like the 3D0 would still exist, Virtual Boy would have sold, and we'd all be wandering around blind (virtual boy eye damage) and broke (3D0)... what's the point of that?What happens with fanboyism, what happens with products flopping, happens for a reason - capitalism - and despite what naysayers want to shout from the rooftops, it is a good thing. The Game Gear had to lose to the Gameboy so that handheld manufacturers learned that battery life, durability, and library were more important than graphics on a portable device. The Virtual Boy had to fail because the future of 3D was in graphics cards, not in optical illusions. And the PS3 will have to lose to the 360 and Wii simply because the market (us, the consumer) is teaching Sony that brand names, new standards, and commercial cool don't make your $600 product any more palatable when the competition has more games, a lower cost, and a better attitude.
subrosian
Mosses has come down from the mountain and this post is the tablets he carries. **FANBOY HITS POSTER IN HEAD WITH LARGE ROCK**. Oh Well nice try bringing some reason in here, unfortunately you're words of wisdom are lost on most people here.
It just so happens that the big three companies all see gaming very differently, making it unavoidable to take sides.
In the past gens, fanboyism may have seemed unnecessary, but now I think it's completely understandable.
Oooh this would get so interesting if FoamingPanda saw this. *Looks around for him* Good post never-the-less.Manticores are foolish. Your arguement is no different than the short-sighted "what if we all had all the money in the world, scarcity didn't exist, we could have anything we wanted?" There is always the limitation of time, and there would always be games, activities, and platforms we enjoyed more.
I don't hate the PS3 because $600 is too much money for me to drop, I dislike it because it doesn't have games that appeal to me, it has an uncomfortable controller, the system interface was ripped from a handheld, and it has problems with both my 720p HDTV and my sound system. Optical and HDMI at the same time? Blasphemy! (says the PS3).My sentiments towards the Wii are simply that it doesn't offer many games that appeal to me, the graphics and sound are dated (especially the sound - this bothers me more than anything) and I don't particularly like the Wiimote in games other than Twilight Princess. Tilt controlled games like Sonic and the Secret Rings feel imprecise, and I prefer the DS stylus to the Wiimote for any of your Brain Age, Cooking Mama, Trauma Center type games.
So - my opinion on platforms is based on interface and library - hmm - cost is a non-issue. Frankly, the gamers who promote "manticore-ism" hold back the industry. Change, evolution, and progress all come at a cost. That cost is that quality products, better interfaces, games and hardware that are superior will drive lower quality product off the market.
Tossing your money at a manufacturer simply "because they make gaming hardware" is idiotic, without value judgements, consoles like the 3D0 would still exist, Virtual Boy would have sold, and we'd all be wandering around blind (virtual boy eye damage) and broke (3D0)... what's the point of that?What happens with fanboyism, what happens with products flopping, happens for a reason - capitalism - and despite what naysayers want to shout from the rooftops, it is a good thing. The Game Gear had to lose to the Gameboy so that handheld manufacturers learned that battery life, durability, and library were more important than graphics on a portable device. The Virtual Boy had to fail because the future of 3D was in graphics cards, not in optical illusions. And the PS3 will have to lose to the 360 and Wii simply because the market (us, the consumer) is teaching Sony that brand names, new standards, and commercial cool don't make your $600 product any more palatable when the competition has more games, a lower cost, and a better attitude.
subrosian
Even if i owned all the consoles i would still prefer one, and money isnt an issue.-SoraThis is true. I "had" owned all three systems and have purchased a PS3 twice. The main reason for preferring a console is, just as subrosian noted, is simply because of the games and experience that different platforms provide. The 360 is clearly the winner in terms of sheer number of games provided.
[QUOTE="subrosian"]Wonderful post. You have any views on the 360? 8) The 360 is a good system right now because it offers games, that's it. You paid $400, you expect a return on investment. Whatever you pay for hardware is a fixed cost, and your games are a variable cost - the more games the system offers, the more distributed the cost of your system becomes over those games, and the better than system is.Manticores are foolish. Your arguement is no different than the short-sighted "what if we all had all the money in the world, scarcity didn't exist, we could have anything we wanted?" There is always the limitation of time, and there would always be games, activities, and platforms we enjoyed more.
I don't hate the PS3 because $600 is too much money for me to drop, I dislike it because it doesn't have games that appeal to me, it has an uncomfortable controller, the system interface was ripped from a handheld, and it has problems with both my 720p HDTV and my sound system. Optical and HDMI at the same time? Blasphemy! (says the PS3).My sentiments towards the Wii are simply that it doesn't offer many games that appeal to me, the graphics and sound are dated (especially the sound - this bothers me more than anything) and I don't particularly like the Wiimote in games other than Twilight Princess. Tilt controlled games like Sonic and the Secret Rings feel imprecise, and I prefer the DS stylus to the Wiimote for any of your Brain Age, Cooking Mama, Trauma Center type games.
So - my opinion on platforms is based on interface and library - hmm - cost is a non-issue. Frankly, the gamers who promote "manticore-ism" hold back the industry. Change, evolution, and progress all come at a cost. That cost is that quality products, better interfaces, games and hardware that are superior will drive lower quality product off the market.
Tossing your money at a manufacturer simply "because they make gaming hardware" is idiotic, without value judgements, consoles like the 3D0 would still exist, Virtual Boy would have sold, and we'd all be wandering around blind (virtual boy eye damage) and broke (3D0)... what's the point of that?What happens with fanboyism, what happens with products flopping, happens for a reason - capitalism - and despite what naysayers want to shout from the rooftops, it is a good thing. The Game Gear had to lose to the Gameboy so that handheld manufacturers learned that battery life, durability, and library were more important than graphics on a portable device. The Virtual Boy had to fail because the future of 3D was in graphics cards, not in optical illusions. And the PS3 will have to lose to the 360 and Wii simply because the market (us, the consumer) is teaching Sony that brand names, new standards, and commercial cool don't make your $600 product any more palatable when the competition has more games, a lower cost, and a better attitude.
Carmilla31
Using y = mx + b, where y = total cost, m = cost per game, x is number of games purchased, and b is the cost of the console. Divide y by x, and you have the cost per game for any console. You simply estimate the number of gamest that appeal to you on a console, and you're set.
Right now, the numbers on the 360 look spiffy - it's just giving access to a huge library, for quite a reasonable chunk of money. The other systems are a "wait and see" right now, both Sony and Nintendo are about to drop a lot at E3, so the worth of each of them is going to jump significantly over the next few months.
Manticores are foolish. Your arguement is no different than the short-sighted "what if we all had all the money in the world, scarcity didn't exist, we could have anything we wanted?" There is always the limitation of time, and there would always be games, activities, and platforms we enjoyed more.
I don't hate the PS3 because $600 is too much money for me to drop, I dislike it because it doesn't have games that appeal to me, it has an uncomfortable controller, the system interface was ripped from a handheld, and it has problems with both my 720p HDTV and my sound system. Optical and HDMI at the same time? Blasphemy! (says the PS3).My sentiments towards the Wii are simply that it doesn't offer many games that appeal to me, the graphics and sound are dated (especially the sound - this bothers me more than anything) and I don't particularly like the Wiimote in games other than Twilight Princess. Tilt controlled games like Sonic and the Secret Rings feel imprecise, and I prefer the DS stylus to the Wiimote for any of your Brain Age, Cooking Mama, Trauma Center type games.
So - my opinion on platforms is based on interface and library - hmm - cost is a non-issue. Frankly, the gamers who promote "manticore-ism" hold back the industry. Change, evolution, and progress all come at a cost. That cost is that quality products, better interfaces, games and hardware that are superior will drive lower quality product off the market.
Tossing your money at a manufacturer simply "because they make gaming hardware" is idiotic, without value judgements, consoles like the 3D0 would still exist, Virtual Boy would have sold, and we'd all be wandering around blind (virtual boy eye damage) and broke (3D0)... what's the point of that?What happens with fanboyism, what happens with products flopping, happens for a reason - capitalism - and despite what naysayers want to shout from the rooftops, it is a good thing. The Game Gear had to lose to the Gameboy so that handheld manufacturers learned that battery life, durability, and library were more important than graphics on a portable device. The Virtual Boy had to fail because the future of 3D was in graphics cards, not in optical illusions. And the PS3 will have to lose to the 360 and Wii simply because the market (us, the consumer) is teaching Sony that brand names, new standards, and commercial cool don't make your $600 product any more palatable when the competition has more games, a lower cost, and a better attitude.
subrosian
Very well written, thought provoking and on the mark!
VandalvideoOooh this would get so interesting if FoamingPanda saw this. *Looks around for him* Good post never-the-less.
Foaming Panda is no longer with us - he got banned over a couple of issues. Foaming Panda was someone who believed that games should be literature, without a lot of appreciation for why that never happened (he was aware of why it didn't happen, but it was like he hated the medium of videogaming ever since graphics replaced text). The market doesn't support that direction - if we look at the trends, all games are becoming more approachable, "art interface" has replaced "story interface", and real-time is more appealing than "stop and read". They're videogames, not textgames, and the sales reflect that.
I got into subtle debates with FP about games being art, not literature, I respect his viewpoint, which many people got upset about, but I was always left with the feeling that he hated the medium...
Plenty of people enjoy art games (okami, odin sphere, even wind waker) - there's just not the same following for "readng every book in Oblivion, instead of playing through the game"...
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment