What was the last "REAL" game console?

[Eltigro]

I have no problem with a game system having extra functions. I've used them only rarely in the past, though. I tried the web browsing on the Wii, for example, just to see how it handled it. I don't have a Netflix account, so I haven't used that on any of the four or five consoles that I own that you can watch Netflix on. And as I said before, I changed the question from "real game system" to "pure game system" because I thought it would be easier to define and answer. Just thought the definition of "real" was a bit too much open to interpretation. But I thought the word "pure" would be a little more cut and dried.

 

I agree with Bill in that not everything in the past was better. Even just looking at controllers. Ergonomics have come a LONG way. I can play Xbox for hours. I can barely last 30 min on an Intellivison. Games themselves are more subjective. I will say that the consoles, although certainly more advanced, seem more prone to failure in part because of those advances. Tons more moving parts, gears, pulleys, belts... overheating issues... you all know the issues...

 

Oh and... 1. Plug in cartridge 2. Turn it on 3. Play... that reminds me of something... cough cough chameleon cough....

[+GoldenWheels]

 

Not to go too far down this rabbit hole, but digital ownership being temporary is only a problem for some of the past generations of players who grew up with the concept of physical ownership. Most of the current generation of players has no such concept so there's no issue whatsoever for them with digital possibly being temporary.

 

I think it has less to do with the concept of physical vs. digital ownership and more to do with the fact that the games that may/will disappear aren't yet old enough for anyone to be particularly nostalgic for them. The true weakness of digital ownership has yet to be potentially exposed. Give it 10-15 more years.

[Bill Loguidice]

 

I think it has less to do with the concept of physical vs. digital ownership and more to do with the fact that the games that may/will disappear aren't yet old enough for anyone to be particularly nostalgic for them. The true weakness of digital ownership has yet to be potentially exposed. Give it 10-15 more years.

 

Preservation is always an issue, though, even with many physical things. Not everything can be preserved, so losses are to be expected. It's probably more about acceptable losses. 10%? Probably OK. 25%? Probably not.

 

I have no doubt that the preservation issue will be "reasonably" solved on the digital side, even in the cases where digital stuff is tied to a proprietary system. The question is do we lose anything really important in the inevitable percentage of losses? Maybe, but that may not be avoidable.

[+GoldenWheels]

 

Preservation is always an issue, though, even with many physical things. Not everything can be preserved, so losses are to be expected. It's probably more about acceptable losses. 10%? Probably OK. 25%? Probably not.

 

I have no doubt that the preservation issue will be "reasonably" solved on the digital side, even in the cases where digital stuff is tied to a proprietary system. The question is do we lose anything really important in the inevitable percentage of losses? Maybe, but that may not be avoidable.

Hard to say I think, though "reasonably" is of course a judgement call. Some things will get saved, some wont, there'll be some % of loss in any case as you say. It's going to take a certain amount of people (or an uber dedicated minority) truly dedicated to preservation for it viable, and I do think that population exists..but with that being said, what people think is important to preserve now is not always what ends up being worth preserving for later.

 

What has then not been preserved becomes the holy grail of hindsight--maybe just because you can't have it, I'll admit that, but it can also be simply because no one saw it being "missed" in the future. So I think while what falls by the wayside will be mostly junk...there will be some regrettable losses.

[pacman000]

I get that this is not most people's points on here, but I'm curious what's wrong with having features beyond gaming in these boxes hooked up to our nice TVs and sound systems? If they're already there and already have the power, then why not let it do other things? (and of course, other things of our choosing - very few features or apps are forced on us) I can't think of very many powerful devices purposely limited to single functions. And these consoles obviously need all that extra power to play the kinds of games modern gamers demand. So again, why not put it to use for other things? It's literally already there next to our TVs and we're unlikely to play games 100% of the time.

I usually connect the console when I want to play with it then disconnect it when I'm done.

[zzip]

I think it has less to do with the concept of physical vs. digital ownership and more to do with the fact that the games that may/will disappear aren't yet old enough for anyone to be particularly nostalgic for them. The true weakness of digital ownership has yet to be potentially exposed. Give it 10-15 more years.

The bigger issue for preservation is multiplayer games which become useless if there's nobody online to play with.

[Eltigro]

The bigger issue for preservation is multiplayer games which become useless if there's nobody online to play with.

 

 

Or when the servers shut down and the company takes legal action against anyone who tries to set up their own server...

[DJ Clae]

Every one of my NES-owning friends went through this often and it usually took them more than two tries to get it working.

I wasn't considering the NES. The cartridge loading mechanism was a design flaw that can be corrected. A popular console, but an exeption to the rule.