are Videogames the Rock N Roll of the 21st Century?

[Tater Totts]

When will we udnerstand that people like different things? Playing down the relevance of videogames in this day and age just because we think they ar enot as cool as other stuff is ridiculous. It's obvious that it has become a mass phenomenon and it's one of the sector that makes more money. And obviously the people making them are living the good life as a result. This is a fact. Not seeing the appealing of videogames, it's just an opinion.

Where have you perceived someone to be playing down their relevance?

Videogames are just an advanced version of those little games where you tilt the little game thing to get the little silver balls into their little holes, its nothing.

Downplaying their relevance a little there

[Guest Len B'stard]

Not really, thats downplaying their entertainment value for me, not their relevance as a phenomena.

[Dazey]

Games are fuckin' dear mind. £40-50 for a new release! How does one fund such a hobby?

There's these things called jobs? Not sure they've made it as far as Geordie Land like.

Also £50 isn't really that expensive for a decent game is it?

Not really the RRP has been £50 for a while with many new releases being that much. In fact games have been one of the few things that have been untouched by inflation and it was only a matter of time before it caught up. In 2002 a new game cost £45 quid and 10 years later it cost the same, only a matter of time before prices increased.

Besides if you're paying £50 for a new game at release you aren't looking hard enough, always been able to find deals on them and find them cheaper.

I remember paying £90 for a Japanese import of ISS64 (precursor to Pro Evo) back in 1997 so £50 for GTAV 17 years later isn't really that bad of a deal. Likewise I paid £65 for Street Fighter II on the SNES back in 93 or 94 so prices are pretty fucking good these days as far as I can tell.

[Tater Totts]

Games are fuckin' dear mind. £40-50 for a new release! How does one fund such a hobby?

There's these things called jobs? Not sure they've made it as far as Geordie Land like.

Also £50 isn't really that expensive for a decent game is it?

Not really the RRP has been £50 for a while with many new releases being that much. In fact games have been one of the few things that have been untouched by inflation and it was only a matter of time before it caught up. In 2002 a new game cost £45 quid and 10 years later it cost the same, only a matter of time before prices increased.

Besides if you're paying £50 for a new game at release you aren't looking hard enough, always been able to find deals on them and find them cheaper.

I remember paying £90 for a Japanese import of ISS64 (precursor to Pro Evo) back in 1997 so £50 for GTAV 17 years later isn't really that bad of a deal. Likewise I paid £65 for Street Fighter II on the SNES back in 93 or 94 so prices are pretty fucking good these days as far as I can tell.

Indeed, N64 carts were much more expensive and once the switch to discs happened the prices went down before naturally coming back up as you would expect. If we look at how concert tickets and movie tickets have gone up over the last 15-20 years then the increases in the prices of gaming are very reasonable.

[Dazey]

Oh, about the pricing. You have little brats who want the latest games to be like their friends. A parent might be spending £100 just to buy two games. I would say that is very expensive, as, when I was younger, my big luxury was cassettes/CDs (£10-15) and VHSs (£10-15). Big difference! Why are games much dearer than albums and films, when, just as much effort (and far more emotion) goes in to producing those two? A good album will also keep one amused for a lifetime whereas a game, you merely complete the thing in about a month and you are finished with it - you might put it up for second hand.

Well I'd only buy 'em one game at a time but I see your point. To me though I might get anything from 20-100 hours from a good game and I'd spend more than that on a night out so it's all relative. Spend £50 or more on a night on the piss and not bat an eyelid but feel wounded for dropping that on a copy of FIFA?

[GivenToFly]

They are alright as something to kill the time I suppose but I went off video games when my balls dropped. Honestly, you cannot compare them to music which contains emotive power.

Some contain emotive power (some are made like interactive movies, some give you interesting choices to make, some immerse you in a fascinating world etc.). But hey don't need to. What kind of emotive power does club music have? It's just something to dance to.

Games are fuckin' dear mind. £40-50 for a new release! How does one fund such a hobby? Kids are really bratty over them also, wanting the new games.

Say you pay £45 per game on average, and you play it for 30 hours, also on average. That gives you a price of £1.5 per hour of entertainment. Compare it to going to a movie that'll cost something like £5 per hour.

[Thin White Duke]

Not really, thats downplaying their entertainment value for me, not their relevance as a phenomena.

Fair enough.

(Though people saying "no" to the thread question are kind of denying its relevance, at least from my perception)

It's also ridiculous to down play certain types of mass entertainment just because we don't see the appelaing of it. Maybe for some people videogames are as powerful as music, movies or darts. Tastes are like ass holes, we always think the other people's one is horrible.

Edited May 8, 2014 by Thin White Duke

[Guest Len B'stard]

Not really, thats downplaying their entertainment value for me, not their relevance as a phenomena.

Fair enough.

(Though people saying "no" to the thread answer are kind of denying its relevance, at least from my perception)

It's also ridiculous to down play certain types of mass entertainment just because we don't see the appelaing of it. Maybe for some people videogames are as powerful as music, movies or darts. Tastes are like ass holes, we always think the other people's one is horrible.

So how else does one convey an opposing opinion...and whats the point in the question if the only permissable answer is affirmative?

[Tater Totts]

Not really, thats downplaying their entertainment value for me, not their relevance as a phenomena.

Fair enough.

(Though people saying "no" to the thread answer are kind of denying its relevance, at least from my perception)

It's also ridiculous to down play certain types of mass entertainment just because we don't see the appelaing of it. Maybe for some people videogames are as powerful as music, movies or darts. Tastes are like ass holes, we always think the other people's one is horrible.

So how else does one convey an opposing opinion...and whats the point in the question if the only permissable answer is affirmative?

Agreed.

I don't agree with Len on this subject but it always nice to see the other side of the coin so you can understand where they come from.

Life would be fucking boring if we all agreed with each other, liked the same stuff and never debated anything.

[DieselDaisy]

I was less concerned with adults with disposable incomes buying games for themselves, and more, bratty children demanding the latest games from their parents. You have to remember there are the consoles also, at £300ish. The real mega brats have to have all of them, xboxes, playstations. When I was growing up, yes I had a megadrive but I did not play on it nearly as much as good honest activities like playing football and listening to music. Games are just a load of bollocks at the end of the day, things created by nerds to turn people into zombies.

[Dazey]

Indeed, N64 carts were much more expensive and once the switch to discs happened the prices went down before naturally coming back up as you would expect. If we look at how concert tickets and movie tickets have gone up over the last 15-20 years then the increases in the prices of gaming are very reasonable.

I think theres a multitude of reasons to be honest. First of all as you quite rightly say the costs of manufacturing games fell drastically with the proliferation of CD and DVD based machines starting with the original Playstation.

Prior to that publishers not only had to pay a lot for the manufacture of cartridges but with Nintendo at least they had to buy a set amount from the platform holder themselves.

Basically if you had a new N64 game coming out you had to decide how many it was going to sell then have them made by Nintendo paid for upfront.

People were losing money hand over fist if they got their numbers even slightly wrong. Junking half a million CDs if they dont sell doesnt bankrupt you in quite the same way.

Second main reason as I see it is economies of scale. Back in the 16 bit days the SNES sold about 50 million worldwide and that was unheard of whereas now (Playstation 2 - 120 million and counting) theres a much wider audience for potential releases.

Lastly the average gamer now is in their 20s with much greater disposable income than kids and teens therefore rather than each gamer having 4 or 5 games theyre more likely to have 10 or 20.

Edited May 8, 2014 by Dazey

[Guest Len B'stard]

And how is saying that games aint the equivalent of rock n roll saying that its not relevant? Lots of things are relevant that aren't the cultural equivalent of rock n roll.

[Tater Totts]

Games are just a load of bollocks at the end of the day, things created by nerds to turn people into zombies.

I thought the flouride they put in water was supposed to do that...

[Thin White Duke]

So how else does one convey an opposing opinion...and whats the point in the question if the only permissable answer is affirmative?

If you're conveying an opposing opinion just for the sake of it, I am wasting my time. If you really think the asnwer is no, then the business numbers and the evident social/cultural relevance disagree with you. And that's a fact, not an opinion. If someone makes a thread asking the result of 2+2, then you can't convery an opposing opinion without being ridiculous.

[Tater Totts]

So how else does one convey an opposing opinion...and whats the point in the question if the only permissable answer is affirmative?

If you're conveying an opposing opinion just for the sake of it, I am wasting my time. If you really think the asnwer is no, then the business numbers and the evident social/cultural relevance disagree with you. And that's a fact, not an opinion. If someone makes a thread asking the result of 2+2, then you can't convery an opposing opinion without being ridiculous.

How are you not getting that Len isn't understating the importance of games as a whole, rather that they aren't the new rock n roll?

Edited May 8, 2014 by Tater Totts

[Guest Len B'stard]

So how else does one convey an opposing opinion...and whats the point in the question if the only permissable answer is affirmative?

If you're conveying an opposing opinion just for the sake of it, I am wasting my time. If you really think the asnwer is no, then the business numbers and the evident social/cultural relevance disagree with you. And that's a fact, not an opinion. If someone makes a thread asking the result of 2+2, then you can't convery an opposing opinion without being ridiculous.

What gave you the impression i was only doing it for the sake of it? And also, money is not the only way in which cultural phenomenons are relevant...what are the evident social/cultural relevances?

And even if it was AS relevant, look at the question, does that make it the equivalent of rock n roll, does it serve the same needs, purposes, do they even have the same intent?

[Thin White Duke]

So how else does one convey an opposing opinion...and whats the point in the question if the only permissable answer is affirmative?

If you're conveying an opposing opinion just for the sake of it, I am wasting my time. If you really think the asnwer is no, then the business numbers and the evident social/cultural relevance disagree with you. And that's a fact, not an opinion. If someone makes a thread asking the result of 2+2, then you can't convery an opposing opinion without being ridiculous.

How are you not getting that Len isn't understating the importance of games as a whole, rather that they aren't the new rock n roll?

But, they are.

And even if it was AS relevant, look at the question, does that make it the equivalent of rock n roll, does it serve the same needs, purposes, do they even have the same intent?

For millions of people? Sure they serve the same everything.

And btw, buddy, I didn't even read your posts about this, I made that post after reading another poster. But ok.

Edited May 8, 2014 by Thin White Duke

[Dazey]

But, they are.

But they aren't. Not even slightly.

[Guest NGOG]

I find them to be a waste of time really - and not all that engaging to the mind. Yes I'll complete the story of the latest GTA, but my PS3 rarely gets turned on.

[DieselDaisy]

I was in my games shop recently - only for the second hand DVDs understand - and there was a mother in there with her 10 year old brat asking for Grand Theft Auto V. The guy selling it said, '' a word of warning - it is very violent'', which did not seem to perturb her much as she then replied, ''oh, he already had it but he broke it''. And what is shooting up a load of people and picking up prostitutes going to do to his head?

It is a greedy bratty industry. A field, a ball and a few coats for goalposts would give infinite more enjoyment than zombiefying yourself infront of, the latest Call of Duty.

[Tater Totts]

So how else does one convey an opposing opinion...and whats the point in the question if the only permissable answer is affirmative?

If you're conveying an opposing opinion just for the sake of it, I am wasting my time. If you really think the asnwer is no, then the business numbers and the evident social/cultural relevance disagree with you. And that's a fact, not an opinion. If someone makes a thread asking the result of 2+2, then you can't convery an opposing opinion without being ridiculous.

How are you not getting that Len isn't understating the importance of games as a whole, rather that they aren't the new rock n roll?

But, they are.

But they really aren't. They are a completely new medium that is completely separate from the whole ideal of rock n roll.

Some game developers may act like they are rock n roll stars but that doesn't hide the fact that they aren't and they never will be. Rather they are acting like most people do when they come into large amounts of money.

Are movies the new rock n roll when actors and executives have Ferrari's, do coke and party? How about authors? Software designers? Athletes and people involved in sports? No they aren't and this is coming from someone who is into gaming.

[Thin White Duke]

But, they are.

But they aren't. Not even slightly.

Why not? Tell me.

[Tater Totts]

I was in my games shop recently - only for the second hand DVDs understand - and there was a mother in there with her 10 year old brat asking for Grand Theft Auto V. The guy selling it said, '' a word of warning - it is very violent'', which did not seem to perturb her much as she then replied, ''oh, he already had it but he broke it''. And what is shooting up a load of people and picking up prostitutes going to do to his head?

It is a greedy bratty industry. A field, a ball and a few coats for goalposts would give infinite more enjoyment than zombiefying yourself infront of, the latest Call of Duty.

Shitty parenting, much easier to stick a kid in front of a TV with a game than taking them out to the park and actually having to look after them.

[Guest NGOG]

I played GTA San Andreas when I was 9, and I'm a wonderful person.

[Thin White Duke]

But they really aren't. They are a completely new medium that is completely separate from the whole ideal of rock n roll.

Yeah...videogames is not music as football is not baseball, however, the meaning of it, the purpose, the feeling can be exactly the same for many people.

Of course videogames are not the new rock and roll if we take it strictly as they don't play guitars and sold out stadiums, Then no, they are not the new rock and roll.

About the creators going on Ferraris or whatever but not being rockstars, yeah, well, they are not Mick Jagger no.

Edit: I type like an idiot.

Edited May 8, 2014 by Thin White Duke