Video games: why the bleeding edge isn’t always the way to go
Aug 17, 2007 Geek
This one’s been sitting in my blog drafts since May, just hadn’t written the article for it.
Ben Kuchera posts on Ars Technica’s “Opposable Thumbs” blog about how, on many fronts, but definitely cost, the more effective way to purchase games isn’t the new stuff, it’s the old stuff.
We know from sales numbers that the PlayStation 2 still sells in ridiculous numbers, and we hear about people buying older systems for the first time on a regular basis. Why not? The game library is huge, the price is low, and it’s easy to find out which games are good. $100 could buy you a six-pack and a PlayStation 3 game, or it could buy you a stack of PS2 or GameCube games.
The newest console system I have is a Sega Dreamcast; I also own a Nintendo 64. The last four PC games I’ve purchased are Max Payne ($10), Grand Theft Auto Vice City ($20), Grand Theft Auto San Andreas ($30), and Doom 3 ($20). Granted, my PC is too old to play the last two (they’re waiting on my shelf for my next computer… Mmmmm MacBook Pro….), but buying them now when they’ve gotten cheaper beats buying them new for $40-50 or more brand-new. Prices come down, and if you don’t have top-of-the-line hardware, it’s better to wait on games anyway. Then you’ll get the best playing experience for less money.
The only downside I have on this, on the console front, anyway, is that I can’t get games in stores anymore, as no one markets them, even used. eBay has become my new friend on this front.
Oh, and anyone who wants to come over and play GoldenEye on N64, lemme know. 
