During the initial PS3 madness, I had written an entry in my Gamespot Blog about not buying a PS3. Well, some four months later, and the world looks upsidedown. The market has corrected itself (yet again...) While shopping in BestBuy on Saturday morning (yesterday) for a copy of Supreme Commander, I stopped by the PS3, Xbox360, and Wii sections. No Wii's, stock of Xbox360's, and 15(!!!) PS3's. I emailed my friend about this, and he linked me to a Penny Aracade cartoon where one of the SCEA heads said he would put a $1,200 (or $1,600) bounty if anyone could find a PS3 on the shelves. I would have been a richer man yesterday. 15 times $1,200: you do the math. Would I like a PS3? Not sure, but probably yes. Will I pay $500/$600 for one? No. Will most people pay $500/$600 for one? Clearly, at of the end of February, 2007, the answer is "NO." I'm following this story (situation?) with interest because I am a "gamer" (*everyone who reads this wince here*), and I follow the markets as part of my living. I've been keeping track of SNE prices for the last several months. If the PS3 means salvation for Sony Electronics, I hope the Price of Salvation drops (i.e.: in the form of a PS3 price drop). The masses are speaking with their wallets, and they are saying that $500/$600 is too much. Only question I have left is, "When will the first price cut come?"

I arrived at a BestBuy around 11:30a.m. on Thursday morning. There was one person in line outside, so I asked the security man what the deal was. He informed me that the police had been chasing campers away because of loitering laws in the township. But he then went on to inform me that the police had just informed the salespeople that they were not going to chase anymore would-be PS3 owners away, and people could start waiting in line for as long as they wanted to. As I left the store, there were only two people in line. A few more were inside who hadn't heard the news, and would probably be joining them soon. So there I was, leaving the store, and leaving the chance behind to be the 3rd person in line to get a coveted PS3. And I drove home. Looking at Ebay.com tonight, and seeing how much I might have sold the system for, I feel somewhat stupid. True, I had no intetion of buying the first wave of PS3's for myself. But right there, I could have made a decision which would have earned me over $1,000. Very mixed feelings right now. Not that $1,000 is going to make or break my holiday season. But it would have been nice to help buy my next computer with that money. Or to pay off about a year's worth of car insurance. You get the drift. Non-Buyer's remorse indeed...

I enjoy my privacy, I enjoy my time alone, and I enjoy being a private citizen as opposed to a public figure. Many people (for sake of job, position, elected office, or celebrity) MUST be a public figures to some degree. For example, all Gamespot staffers who do reviews, podcasts, and videocasts must necessarily be public figures in one way or another. We see their faces, hear their voices, and usually can read about their backgrounds and thoughts in their Blogs. Where the line is between the public and the private self is then the issue of speculation and debate (not whether there should be a public or a private self). What has recently started to fascinate me is willingness of people to become public figures when they have no pressing need to do so. I'm specificially talking about people making available information on their date of birth, age, name, family trees, schooling, pictures, work background, etc. on Blogs, and self-made webpages (even on Gamespot). I must add a disclaimer here: Each person has the right and freedom to say whatever they want about themselves, or to divulge any information he/she so desires. On the flipside of this, each person has the right, in a public forum, to withhold any information that he/she feels is private and is not for general knowledge. There is always a balance to be found somewhere for each individual (or at least that is what I believe). As we approach 2007, it is difficult for me to remember a time when every 17 or 18-year-old did not have a digital camera/phone, access to the internet, and the capability to find out information by simply doing a 'Google' on a subject. Are we losing our private lives? And if so, to what degree, and for what price? How much do we even value our private lives anymore?

After reading many posts, and many blogs, and after talking to a few close friends who are gaming freaks, I think I have a preliminary idea of what the Wii will mean to me as we prepare for E3: I agree with my friend Joe (see previous blog entry): I don't believe the Nintendo Wii is being marketed to me. And before I would think about buying one, I want to make sure I have an idea of the software support it will have, and what people who have played the system think of how it functions, and what it's advantages and disadvantages are. The wildcard in all of this is the selection of classic games for download. But the more I think of this, the more I can't help of asking the question: "How much time am I really going to spend on the good old games?" Xbox Live Arcade is fun, but I don't play the 6 or 7 games I have for Aracade very much. Will it be the same with Nintendo? Mind you: I went from an Atari 2600 to the Dreamcast (basically missing how many years of Nintendo games?) Zelda and Mario are not a matter of gaming life and death to me at this point. Bottom line: The name "Wii" means nothing to me. I want to see that Nintendo is marketing to me in ways other than the classic games it will offer. If it doesn't show value, I'll wait until the head-to-head-to-head reviews of the X360/Wii/PS3 come out before making a purchase in 2007. The Wii and PS3 will be here for the next 4.5 to 5.5 years. What's the rush? Plenty of time to see what each party has to bring to the table. And I already own my X360, which I am very happy with in terms of software/hardware support.

My feelings on the Wii are mixed at best. I feel somewhat letdown by Nintendo after GC support pretty much died shortly after I bought my system about 10.5 months ago. I guess my friend Joe summed up what Nintendo is doing probably much better than I could have. So I will quote my friend Joe (who is a developer/programmer/producer in the gaming industry): "My thoughts on Wii are that Nintendo is getting off of the existing game thinking bandwagon, and I think it's a good thing. Nintendo doesn't care about the hardcore gamer anymore, and I think they're going the right direction. Gamers like you are going to think it's stupid, because they're not aiming games at you anymore. The fact that your sister plays games like Katamari, Animal Crossing, and Nintendogs (2 out of 3 Nintendo games, all 3 Japanese games) speaks VOLUMES about finding a new market. Looking at the Wii controller, I haven't necessarily gotten it yet, but I have to say that if ANY company designs their systems starting with the interface, it's Nintendo. They know what they're doing where ergonomics and interface are concerned. I can't say the same for a company (cough...Micro$oft...cough) that puts out menus that say 'Keyboard not detected, press F1 to continue.' At the end of the day, what they're saying with this is what Apple said with the iPod. Style + functionality will get you a long way. Add in a lower price point (in Nintendo's case) and you've got something. In his keynote address at GDC, Iwata had some pretty choice quotes about Nintendo's thinking (quite a bit of reading). But what it shows, time and time again, was that they weren't just pandering to the gamer core, because they knew the market was stagnant." Is he right? Is Nintendo not interested in aiming at the hardcore gamer? Only time will tell. I'm still confused by who this is aimed at. Is it the casual gamer? Is it the 'Lost Audience' the industry has wanted for so long? Is this all going to be a horrible, horrible mistake, or will the Wii finish #2 behind the PS3? Or will they finish #1??? *needs more time to ponder this one...opinions more than welcome...*

It used to be that console games had to be nearly "bullet proof" in order to be released. After all, there was never enough storage to patch or update a game sufficiently, even with the original Xbox (changes were always for multi-player, or were minimal in size). With the release of MLB 2006 by 2K Games, the age of PC gaming patching is coming to a console near you. I have just started playing the game, and it came to my attention last night that rep's for 2K have admitted there is a "technical issue" with the game, and a patch is in the works. Great. So does that mean I shouldn't probably play the game for another few weeks until they rush out a patch? Do I even want to start playing the game without a patch again? Are my save files still going to be playable after the patch? After I left PC gaming (for lack of sufficient computer power and money), I thought the days of massive bug patches were over. I guess I was wrong. And MLB 2006 and 2K games is going to take a BIG hit on this one. And they know it (just read the 2K statement from Friday April 14th, 2006). One giant step forward, and 2 or 3 (or 50?) steps backwards? I hope this is NOT the direction of the console gaming industry.

So we finally have an answer. The PS3 will be out in November, just as everyone predicted. Good. Now let's move on. "How much will it cost?" As it often has been said, "If you have to ask how much it costs, it's probably not for you." Even if you have to wait until 2007 to buy it, that gives you 9+ months to save up enough money. So I will end my PS3 fixation there. Now let's see the games for every system. And E3 will give us a better idea. Although I have to add that with the release of the Revolution in Fall as well, I can only imagine what decisions will be ahead (buying 2 systems within a couple of months of each other?) Note to Nintendo: holding up "Zelda: Twilight Princess" until the Revolution releases has done nothing but alienate lots of Gamecube owners. I have 2 or 3 games I want to play on the GC in the next couple of months. But I can't find much else interesting with the GC that I can't get on the Xbox or the PS2. The Revolution: the last console from Nintendo? Now there's the new question worth considering. Maybe Nintendo should focus on dominating the handheld market after this last release in November? I wonder what is going on in the minds of the Nintendo exec's as they anticipate a full-on confrontation with the PS3 in November?

Frustration is growing after conflicting reports of the PS3 costs and pricing recently came out over the past several days. Although there are enough issues to hash out here, there's only one that's important. When is it coming out, and what is the price-point? The Xbox360 has already been released and priced. Nintendo already has announced a fall debut, with a reasonable price range. But Sony: why is it so hard to come out with an official price range so industry insiders don't have to guess and through your stock price into chaos? If it's going to be over $499.99, just say it. If it's going to fall between $299.99 and $499.99, just say it. And a release date might be helpful. Spring? Seeing that we're half-way through winter, and March is 8 days away, a realistic launch date would be nice (if it is going to launch this year). I'm posting this as a reference point for myself. My prediction: the PS3 will be priced between $299.99 and $499.99. The release will also be in the summer or fall (somewhere between the end of August and the end of November 2006). If the price is over $500, Sony is gambling. If it breaks $600 (as some reports suggest), try selling that to anyone's parents who have kids under the age of 17. $600 can buy a lot of things more useful and valuable than a PS3 for a kid getting ready to go to college. Oh yeah, a Nintendo Revolution under $300 might reinforce the above...go figure.

So I finally broke down and bought a GameCube a little over a month ago. The deal was great. Target was offering the GC for $99.99 WITH a copy of Metroid Prime 2: Echoes thrown in. Basically I got the GC for $50, and the game for $50. Along with a memory card, the whole deal cost me under $140.

For those who question the value of the GameCube, I would have to say that 4 titles pretty much define why you should own one if you do not:

Metroid Prime 2, The Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker, Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem, and Resident Evil

I also recently picked up Alien Hominid (which is also a PS2 title) which I am really enjoying as well.

I'm pretty much a hardcore Xbox guy. But after the Xbox, I would rather play with my GameCube than my PS2. Why? Because of the Nintendo exclusives (esp. the 4 titles I mentioned above). Most popular games for the Xbox can be found on the PS2 anyway. So there is not much point for me (I'm not very into the PS2 exclusives).

IMO, there is great value here, and I *LOVE* my GameCube. :) And with the upcoming next-gen cycle on the way, there is a firesale literally EVERYWHERE I go these days. I have not paid more than $18 for a GC title (not counting the Metroid Prime 2 deal with the GC system itself).

I do fear for the future of Nintendo. The 3rd party games which are ports do not seem so great, and many games have been passed over for the GameCube. And probably for the best. I think Nintendo does exist on its unique lineup. As far as I am aware, Zelda will NOT be coming to an Xbox or PS2 near you. And Twilight Princess looks like its going to be one of the best selling games this year.

The only negative comment I would have to make about the system is the lack of camera freedom (e.g.: free-roaming camera views) that most of the Xbox games I've played seem to have. But that is a game design decision, and not necessarily a terrible flaw. It would have helped in Metroid Prime 2, but the game was great regardless.

Wow, Lemming, Sheep, Cow, and Hermit. And I do have a Sega Dreamcast as well. Is there a name for those people too??? ;)

I decided yesterday that I was going to get a GameCube soon. As I had stated in a previous post, I have never owned a Nintendo system, but I am planning on picking up a Revolution next year. So what changed my mind?

After much thought about intellectual property, and a conversation with a close friend, it became clear that I am going to miss out on at least 8 to 10 games which: a) will NEVER be ported and b) which falls into the category of some of the best games available. That's it. Very simple.

I have a list. I just need a GameCube. $99.99 new? Preplayed, probably $89.99??? It's a deal I can't pass up.

It's very strange to look back at the gap in my gaming. Between my Atari 2600 and my 286 12MHz PC, there was an extreme gap until I bought my first Gateway Pentium 133MHz in 1995. My next console after the Atari 2600 was the Dreamcast in 2000.

So why no Nintendo? I guess it was because of college. I didn't have the money. Simple as that. I'm still amazed at some of the people on here younger than 17 and who have gamed more than I have. But then again, maybe I shouldn't be. I didn't list every Atari 2600 game I owned on here (I wonder if I even can?), and some of the early PC games I place on my original IBM 8086 don't exist in any system. Maybe I'm severely underestimating here.

Nevertheless, onward and forward!