The Problem: When buying a game system you have to take a few things into consideration. You have to think about the games it plays, and whether or not you can see yourself being satisfied with the selection. Perhaps you're interested in the technology, you like knowing that your system can do the latest and greatest effects. Or maybe you're just interested in the price, you look for the sweet deal and pounce only when it's hot enough. All these things affect system sales, but which of these three affects sales the most?

The Price: Let's start with price, since that's the one that would seem to be the biggest factor. After all, when a system is really cheap (like the GameCube) it tends to do well no matter what, and when a system is really expensive (like the 3DO or Neo*Geo) people will completely ignore you. So that must be the biggest factor when it comes to deciding a game system, right?

Not so fast! If that were true then the Sega 32X would have been a much biggest success than the Sega Saturn or PlayStation (two systems that were twice the price). If price mattered so much, then why was the PlayStation 2 selling so well at $80 more? And are there so many people that buy the system the day it comes out, when it's at its most expensive price? The truth is, the biggest factor can't be price, there has to be something bigger than cost alone.

The Technology: A lot of people would think the technology would be the biggest factor, yet I'd argue that it's probably the least important factor of the three. When was the last time the general public made the superior hardware the number one console? Is the Xbox or PS2 doing better in this generation? Or how about the Nintendo 64 vs. the PlayStation. Even the Super NES and Genesis battle was too close to call. So if there's anything we can take from our past, it doesn't pay to be the best system on the block.

The Games: There is little doubt in my mind that most people will buy a system for specific games, and that factor will outweigh price or technology for most consumers. It only proves my point when sales go up around the time of big releases. Remember how many people bought the Super NES just for Street Fighter II?

Looking back in our history, it's easy to see that systems sell well when good games are being released, but slump if there's a lull in the quality of titles. The Nintendo 64 posted huge numbers when Mario 64 was released, but didn't do nearly as well when the only titles were Cruis'n USA or Quest 64. This has been demonstrated time and time again through just about every console known to man.

People will do whatever they need to do to get the money to buy a game system if it has the games they are looking for. If a game system doesn't have the games you like and want to play, then it's not going to be a good deal. After all, we are in this industry for the games, not the hardware.

The Solution: I suggest you buy all three systems, and anything else you can get your hands on. I currently own more than 25 game systems, and will have something to play for the rest of my life. Video gaming is an expensive hobby, but it sure beats the heck out of getting fresh air.


The Problem: Should a company be able to add a service fee when they originally priced it as free? That's the argument Phantasy Star Online fans have had to wrestle with for the better part of this generation. Should we be forced to pay to play Phantasy Star Online, a game that isn't even a Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game? Let's find out.

The History: Back in the early days of Sega Net one game ruled all, that game was Phantasy Star Online. By today's standards it was a pretty simple game, a hack and slash game that allowed four players the chance to adventure through four different levels. There was no voice communication, a limited amount of locations, and lag; yet, for most of us the game is one of the best memories we had of the short lived system.

Sensing people were growing bored of the tedium that was the first game, the house of Sonic brought out a semi-sequel that was billed as more of an expansion pack. The only problem was the fact that Sega decided to charge people a monthly fee. It wasn't a lot of money, but it was enough to keep many of the early adopters away.

In the subsequent years would release a GameCube version, again requiring you to pay a monthly fee. The straw that broke the camel's back, though, came from the Xbox version which featured most of the bells and whistles missing from the Dreamcast version. Not only was it a port of a game that was already several years old, but Sega required a monthly fee on top of the Xbox Live fee. This angered a lot of Xbox Live owners, and most of us gamers who want to play the game but don't want to pay for the pleasure.

The Conundrum: There's actually no reason for Sega to charge people to play Phantasy Star Online. Certainly some online RPG's require a monthly fee, but they are usually maintaining a persistent world. Phantasy Star Online doesn't have that problem, since it's really just an action game with an online mode. There aren't thousands of people in a room, only four at a time. So why charge people??

The reason Sega gave in the Dreamcast era was that the servers cost money to keep running, but Microsoft is footing the bill for the Xbox Live, it doesn't seem like a viable reason in the year of 2004. I don't think the chances are good for Sega to reconsider, but as far as I can tell there's no reason for Sega to be charging us extra to play one of the best action/RPG's of all time.

The Solution: Sega needs to get rid of the Pay to Play set-up, everybody should be able to enjoy Phantasy Star Online without the worry of monthly charges. There are other games similar to Phantasy Star Online that don't require a monthly fee, such as the phenomenal Champions of Norrath, so why can't Sega? It makes them look greedy, and feels like a slap in the face to the fans who made the first one so successful. If all online games required you to pay, nobody would be playing SOCOM or Madden 2004.


The Problem: Now that this generation is nearing the five year mark (assuming you recognize the Dreamcast as the beginning), it's only natural to want to know what comes next. Will the PlayStation 3 have better graphics and sound, and what improvements could Microsoft make to the Xbox to make it better than it is now? And what about Nintendo, they are constantly talking about how their next system isn't going to just be a step forward, but will do something that will change the industry as we know it. If you aren't curious about what's right around the corner, then maybe you aren't that interested in video games after all. So are we just antsy, or is there a reason we should start making room for the next generation game systems?

The Similarities: It's clear that all three companies, Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony, are all currently working on a next generation game system. I don't think that's any surprise. Chances are they were working on them before this current generation's console shipped. I guess the real question we need to figure out is just how soon they will want to release a system. The only way to do that is to look at the systems individually, and them compare them at the end. So, let's give that a shot, starting with the two systems that have the best reason to see this generation end ...

The Microsoft: The Xbox is one hell of a gaming platform, and we haven't even begun to see what the system is capable of. But there are plenty of reasons Microsoft would want to move on to the next system. For one thing, it would be nice to get the jump on Sony by releasing the system before the PlayStation 3 hits. It would be a complete flip flop of this current generation, and would easily make Microsoft a major player in the video game market.

The problem with that is they would be abandoning their unit after only four years, assuming they release the Xbox Next in 2005. It's a question mark how consumers would react to such a short life cycle, especially if the PlayStation 3 takes its time to hit the market. I have a feeling that this is a risk Microsoft is ready to take, and wouldn't be surprised if we saw a fall release date for their follow-up to the Xbox.

The Nintendo: Although critics (including myself) claimed that Nintendo had painted themselves into a corner by lowering the price to $100, it seems to be working for them. With the retaking of second place (by the thinnest of margins) Nintendo seems to have found their second wind. 2004 promises to be a huge year for the GameCube, while 2005 will bring even more franchise sequels. At this year's E3 Nintendo went as far as to indict the other companies for wanting to get this generation over with. Nintendo seems ready to keep this generation alive, and if there's one thing we know about Big N, it's that they dance to their own music.

Nintendo also plans on releasing a brand new portable game system, the Nintendo DS (tentative title), that will do just about everything ... including play your GameBoy Advance games. But it doesn't look like Nintendo is phasing out the GameBoy Advance, instead they hope that these two systems can co-exist (better than the Virtual Boy and the GameBoy Pocket, one hopes). I have a hunch that this new portable, the continued support of the GameBoy Advance, and a renewed enthusiasm for the GameCube, will all keep Nintendo from releasing a new console in 2005.

The Sony: You'd think that Sony would be ready to just hurry up and get this generation over with. After all, their system is four years old, and isn't getting any younger. But at the same time they have a huge user base, a mountain of third party support, and no reason to move the party along. This is Sony's time to be on auto-pilot and just watch what the other companies are doing.

They've laid down the groundwork for what the next PlayStation will have inside of it. And there's no denying that it will be a technologically advanced piece of work. But outside of a few nods and winks, Sony hasn't done much to indicate that they are interested in bringing us a new platform. And I have a hunch they won't until the dust settles over the PlayStation Portable, or PSP, their next generation handheld.

Landing in the United States Spring of 2005, Sony will have to do everything they can to fight off not one, but two different Nintendo portables. It would be unwise, probably foolish, for Sony to release their PlayStation 3 the same year as their portable. One would hope that Sony would want a year or more for people to get used to their first foray into the handheld market, and then give them a new system.

The Solution: Since no new system will be released until late 2005 at the very earliest, you might want to start saving for all the portable systems that will be headed your way in the next 12 months. By the time the PSP is released it might be time to revisit this question, but I still say they won't be releasing any game systems until 2006.