Fight the Future

[Glorb]

First things first: 1,000 nerd points to anyone who gets the joke in the title of this thread. But on to a more important matter; I am the proud owner of both a PS2 and GameCube, along with a bunch of old systems. I am beginning to grudgingly admit that both are beginning to wither away (the GameCube much faster, unfortunately), and to keep with the times, I'm gonna have to get a next-gen (or, as it's now called, current-gen) system. I've gotten over the fact that the PS3 and 360 are crazy-expensive, but one thing still bothers me: game formats. And no, I'm not talking about Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD or whatever.

Back in 1995, the PlayStation changed the world, more or less, by being the first hugely popular CD-based console. CDs were easier, cheaper and faster to manufacture, and were less bulky and more standardized than cartridges. I was born in '92, so I grew up with both CDs and cartridges, neither of which I had a preference for. As time went on, I became more partial to those little silvery discs, like pretty much everyone else, and now they're used for pretty much everything. But one thing I'm NOT ready for is downloadable content.

I have two main problems with downloadable content. First of all, this will, and already has, lead to developers shipping mostly incomplete games (i.e., one or two multiplayer maps, no cars in racing games, etc.) for $50 or $60, and then offering the missing stuff for $5 when, back in the day, we would've gotten all that for free (not counting the $30 for the game, of course). Totally optional stuff like the Nights of the Nine and horse armor crap in Oblivion is fine with me, since I'd never download it, but if I bought an FPS with no weapons or a racing game with no cars, I'd feel really ripped off.

The other problem is that, and this might seem absolutely crazy, not all people have Internet connections. Furthermore, not all people have broadband (or Wi-Fi or whatever...I'm not getting into that again) connections, which is neccessary for downloading the content. This means that people out in Hicksville, Kansas could walk home with a $60 game that's missing fundamental content and not be able to play it at all, or at least not with the stuff other people would have.

So, in short, I don't know what to do. No matter what console I get, downloadable content is most likely going to be a neccessity, and I'm not exactly rich. The future of gaming is looking pretty bleak, in my opinion.

[Mr. Wiggles]

Downloadable content is overrated.

High speed internet isn't, unfortunately.

[Chupperson Weird]

The incomplete game problem is, I hope, not representative of the whole gaming future. That's just lazy developers who should be removed from game development.
On the other side of your argument, however, people in "Hicksville" may have a broadband internet connection, and in some cases there are whole games downloadable via the internet, and those people may not like driving to the nearest store when they can just download a game. And I can't be sure about this, but it makes sense to me that if they have enough money to buy a current-gen system, they would have enough to maintain a broadband connection, unless they lived in an area incapable of supporting one.
I don't particularly favor "downloadable content", but it is good for some things. But I think you're vastly overestimating its part in all this at this point in time.
Eventually, I think most games will be downloadable, however. I don't really like this either.

[Glorb]

I think you're missing my point: There are a small percentage of people, whether they're in Hicksville or Silicon Valley, that, somehow, who don't have any Internet access, either because of the circumstances they live in, or just because they don't want to. This makes it impossible for them to "fill in" the missing content for their games. For example, the new Gran Turismo coming out for PS3 has only a handfull of cars and tracks, and you're expected to buy the rest. I mean, this, in the future, could escalate to the point where huge chunks of the game (say, parts of the city in a GTA game) can only be unlocked if you pay for it, or even where every single game everywhere must be downloaded. What if we stop playing the games, and the games plays us (like in Soviet Russia), directly linking our precious brainmeats into a gigantic Overlord-Computer and forcing us to be its zombie slaves?

On a lighter note, I see no one's figured out my in-joke. Am I that nerdy?

[The Chef]

I'm kind of hoping that the future will bring us something like this: www.nintendoon.com

Yes, it's old, but it's still a good concept.

[Chupperson Weird]

And Glorb, I think you're missing the first thing I said in my last post.
P.S. I know the topic title. And I don't even know why.

[Glorb]

Then 1,000 nerd points to you. Don't spend 'em all in one place.

But I think that, as long as downloadable content is absolutely optional and only slightly enhances the game experience (stuff like major new weapons or missions, super-fast cars, and huge new maps should be avoided), and is either free or very cheap, then it's okay. For example, I should be able to play start up a game from the beginning and play it from start to finish without downloading a single set of horse armor or new missions, and not feel like I've missed out on anything.
To be fair, the vast majority of Xbox 360 games are completely fine without downloadable junk, but a lot of PS3 games seem to be practically centered around downloading new maps, weapons, etc. However, I think it's safe to say that the Wii won't suffer from this problem, since the only good Wii games are going to come from Nintendo and they seem pretty indifferent to the issue.

[Chupperson Weird]

There are other good Wii games not from Nintendo, and they aren't incomplete either.
And does anyone really care about PS3?

[Glorb]

What does that mean? Generally, if someone gets shot during the launch of a system, it means at least someone cares about it. Enough to, y'know, shoot someone.

[Chupperson Weird]

It means when a new console is on store shelves across the nation without being bought, it looks like people don't really care about it. Is "caring" the right word to describe someone who shoots another guy because they don't have enough money to buy a PS3 themselves?

[Glorb]

Are you saying no one bought the PS3? So, GameStop, EB Games and Wal-Mart are all out of PS3s and won't get any until March 2089 because no one bought them? And I'd at least say that the guy who shot that guy was at least passionate. But anyway, can we go back on topic? Too many of my threads devolve into arguments...

Note: Don't bring it up, please. I know what your're thinking; don't.

[Chupperson Weird]

Passionate, try insane.
And places have PS3s.

[Lizard Dude]

The infamous PS3 shooters were not after PS3s! They just demanded money from those in line, like regular gunmen are apt to do. People get this fact wrong often!

There was a separate GameStop armed robbery with no shooting, I believe.

[The Chef]

The question is, what were they going to buy with the money they stole? ;)

[Robert]

The question is, what were they going to buy with the money they stole? ;)

A Nintendo Wii.