PixlBit

The whole disposability of games has been a huge concern of mine this generation, too, mostly due to the nature of digital distribution and the inability of license holders to see the big picture.  For the latter, everybody wants their cut, from the voice actors to the musicians (which is understandable), but their demands are too high and it's blocking the release of older works.  I've seen this happen far too many times with DVD releases (look up The Odd Couple or Batman with Adam West for good examples) and it's doing a tremendous disservice to their preservation.  It's tragic that so many old/classic shows and broadcasts are forever lost, and the same thing is going to happen to games (well, it already has happened with games like Princess Crown and the Game Boy Mega Man) if something isn't done.

Of course, the nature of video games does make preservation harder than it has to be.  I don't like that being used an excuse, though.  If enthusiasts and studios alike can build accurate emulators, there is no reason for games to be lost.  Software emulation should have become a major point of interest for every company, hardware designer or not.  As for hardware-based compatibility, if the PS3 was able to include components for three separate consoles, there's no reason why the PS4 couldn't have kept going.  At least for the PS3, anyway.  The power of the new console should be more than enough to properly emulate the PS2, while providing the hardware just for the previous generation.  Yet, if they don't care enough to do it, then it is their loss.  All these companies want to complain about piracy and the theft of their back catalogs, but do little in the way to stop it.  If it's too much work and too much trouble for them to keep their games available, then they should let the games go.

Anyway, now that we know that backwards compatibility is being axed for the next generation of consoles (except for the Wii U, 3DS, and somewhat for the Vita), it stinks for the industry, newcomers, and those who want the convenience.  Backwards compatibility makes it easier for customers to adopt new hardware while continuing to push the sales of older releases.  Despite Microsoft's statement on the matter, producing hardware that can play the games of the previous generation allows them to discontinue the older hardware faster and sell their new games.

Finally, I want to say that the absence of used games will hurt the industry.  Still, let Microsoft (and possibly Sony) carry out their little experiment so they can get proof of that.

I saw enough to see the price announcement.  I guess MS wants to try and get their cut after all, even though the market for a console of that price is incredibly limited.  I'm sure they'll move a few units to collectors and first adopters, but I don't see the mass market buying into it.  I mean, by the time you add in a game and taxes, you're pushing $600!  That's a bit much.

I've been thinking about getting this game for a while now, but the controls have been a major issue for me.  Now that you've put a significant amount of time into both this and God Eater, how would you rate the gunplay controls between the two games?  Is 3rd Birthday better or worse?  I'm only asking because I remember watching some videos months ago of some hectic gunfights.  The controls looked cumbersome (of course, the possibility of player error exists) and I was wondering if the game balances the player's health/defense to make up for this.

I see Mega Man for the Game Gear!  I shouldn't be so suprised to see that, though, considering how many rare games you own.  By the way, do you have the Wonderswan and any of its Rockman games?

As for those GBA games, I see the two imports, but I only recognize Starfy 3.  I can't even attempt a guess as to what the other one is.  I do see an English reproduction cart of Mother 3, though.

Anyway, looking at your GBA games makes me want to photograph my own collection.  Actually, it makes me wish I had the time to play my own games (GBA or otherwise).  At the very least I have played through Car Battler Joe (I picked it up soon after buying Metroid Fusion over a decade ago).  That was a fun, though highly repetitive, game.  Too bad it didn't continue on past the first game, because it had some interesting ideas that could have been expanded on.

So, have you played through all of those NGPC games?  Or, were they something you just wanted to collect?

We're kind of in the same position, because I really don't need anymore games, either.  But, there are a few more I would like to own, too.

Even though I recently picked up two costly games, as well as a bunch of cheaper titles, I still need a few more games - Mega Man games specifically - to round out my set.  Right now I'm looking at several odds and ends, like Mega Man X5, X6, and Mega Man 7.  The first two are relatively cheap, but I don't want to overpay for them.  Meanwhile, Mega Man 7 is outside the realm of reason, so I'm looking to buy the cheaper import version.  That would be it for a while, though; I've hit the end of my current shopping list and I need to take some time to repopulate it (if possible).

As for your games, good luck with Might & Magic III and Trip World.  Between the cost and availability of either game, I imagine you'll need to be both lucky and ready with your money should they show up.

Dungeon Siege III has a ton of gameplay depth.  I had the opportunity to really dig into the game over the course of several playthroughs (I played couch co-op with my brother to help him get the Platinum trophy), before buying the game for myself and doing it all over again.  All told, I played through Dungeon Siege III twelve times - I even went through hardcore by myself - and I still wasn't tired of it.  It's a true-to-form action-rpg (especially when played on hardcore) that places a greater emphasis on player skill and the ability to dodge and counterattack.  That's my favorite type of gameplay system, and I was lucky that everything else in the game enhanced it.

Those are some heavy hitters on your list.  I do find it humorous that you listed both Ar tonelico 1 & 2 in the same spot, but considering how the whole trilogy is linked (you need to play Qoga) it does make sense.

Anyway, my top 10 list is a bit of a mess and changes all the time.  I simply enjoy too many games, which makes it hard for me to stick to a definitive list.  I can give you an idea of my interests, though (which is mostly action rpgs).  In no particular order, my top 10 rpgs would include:

Soul Blazer
Castlevania: Symphony of the Night
King's Field
Shining Soul II
Crystalis
Ys I & II Chronicles
Ys III: Wanderers from Ys
Ys VI: The Ark of Napishtim
Dungeon Siege III
Zelda II: The Adventure of Link

You're stuck in a bad position.  I'll try to explain.  Your desire to build a game collection is at odds with your desire to play new releases.  If you don't have the money to do the latter, you have to eat away at your game collection to buy new games.  Yet, you seem to be far more interested in playing new games over the games you already own.  Of the games you've traded in - say from the PS1, PS2, and 360 - how many of them did you play through?  If you did play through most of them, and you felt that you got as much as you could out of them, then it makes sense to convert them into something new.  Yet, if most of the games were unplayed/unfinished, perhaps you didn't need them in the first place.

Of course, the flipside to all of this is that the new releases are too much of a distraction, and they are drawing focus away from your collection.  I mean, you did buy these games for a reason, and I'm pretty sure it wasn't to resell them (especially to GameStop).  According to your Backloggery page, you have over 100 PS2 and 360 that you've marked as unfinished.  That's a great deal of games to work through, so perhaps it's time to start playing them.  As you do that, you could create a game budget to figure out how and when to get the new releases that catch your eye (without using your games as currency).

Still, this isn't an easy problem to sort out.  Time is the main resource being spent here, and it's your decision to use it towards past or present releases.

At this point in time, consumers want more and more content for less and less money.  Having two new consoles available at $400+ with limited software libraries is a disaster waiting to happen.  Yes, the Christmas rush will sell units; it always does.  But, without backwards compatibility available on either unit, there is a good possibility many more shoppers will go with the cheaper consoles with the cheaper games.  The situation is so different than what it was in 2005 and 2006, and I'm also concerned that the new systems, especially the X1, will be far too complicated for most consumers (how is MS going to explain the daily online check and its "advantage" to consumers?).

Anyway, I think a price point between $400 and $500 is fair for both consoles (I wouldn't pay that much, though).  Both MS and Sony know what people are spending on the various devices and tablets out in the market, and they want their cut.  Whether or not they get it is a different story, though.

Yeah, I've been reading this, too.  From the looks of it, Microsoft wants to create an illusion that the PS4 has less games than it actually does.  They know their console's image is as low as it can be right now, and they want to impress those who don't know anything about either system.