spacecadet

It definitely became dated quickly. There was a Space Invaders machine in the mall that housed the arcade I used to frequent in the early 80's, but it wasn't actually at the arcade; it was at Bradlee's, one of the anchor stores, near the checkouts. They had a couple of old games there that no one ever played. Occasionally I would just for something different, but I was always by myself at that machine. Space Invaders Deluxe/II was also released in 1980, which was not much of an improvement and had the effect of making both itself and the original feel even more dated. Once a game gets a sequel, no one wants to play the original anymore, but compared to other games from 1980 like Defender, Battlezone, and Pac-Man, not to mention Galaxian from 1979 that did the same thing better, even Space Invaders Deluxe seemed kind of archaic. Then Galaga in 1981 really was the final nail in the coffin. Though obviously people still celebrate Space Invaders for its importance to the industry, especially in Japan, where it was probably the first video game to capture the public's attention.

I guess that's true - if they did a redesigned Switch that was smaller, maybe even just take out the dock and make it a handheld with an HDMI port... I might buy that again. Just leave the original docked permanently, and use the new one as the handheld version. It would be nice if they'd build in some game save state/resume function so you can take a cartridge out of your big Switch, put it in the little Switch and just keep playing. Obviously this would be easier with downloaded/streaming games, and maybe it'd even convince more people to start buying games that way.

I'm not sure there really was a "golden years of the arcade" in Japan prior to the early 1980's as it is. I think that's the main difference. Their arcade scene, at least in terms of video games, started a bit later than ours. People here were more familiar with video games earlier and wanted them in their homes earlier. But Japan's "arcades" were different. They were more about amusement machines of various types. (Funnily enough, they've kind of gone back to that now, for the arcades that still exist there.) I think one reason for this might be that pinball was never big there like it was here earlier in the 70's, and video games appealed to that same demographic, so they could just slot right in at the same existing locations. But in Japan, their amusement games were more family-oriented or for something to do on a date, so hardcore arcade games didn't really fit in. It was a separate subculture. Space Invaders did very well there but it was kind of an outlier until the early 80's. I think they were just less familiar with video games in general than we were until games like Pac-Man and Donkey Kong, which could more easily co-exist with family-friendly amusement machines. Our arcade and home console scene kind of grew out of the young, male-dominated hardcore gaming demographic. But Japan's was way more heavily tilted towards family-friendly and date activity titles. Of course there was a lot of crossover, but it's obvious just by looking at them that Japanese games had kind of a different look and feel at the time, and that's because they were trying to attract the demographics who were used to their mechanical amusement machines. Long story short, the video arcade business there developed later and grew out of different demographics, which in turn delayed the popularity of home consoles.

You can get the headset by itself if you aren't afraid of third party sellers... there's a couple on Wal-Mart.com selling it for $199. But the least expensive official package is the Gran Turismo Sport bundle that comes with the camera and GT Sport, which they have for $245. (I think it's $249 most places.) I'd just get the bundle and sell your other camera, you'll probably get $50 for it anyway. It might be a good idea regardless, depending on which version of the camera you have. It could just be people trying to justify their purchase but I've read some say that PSVR works better with the newer (round) camera. I understand why they only sell it with the camera, because it's necessary for PSVR to work so if someone were to buy just the headset by itself and didn't have the camera, Sony'd be fielding a lot of nasty support calls. A couple other game recommendations: Thumper - though you might not need it if you have Wipeout Omega Collection. Check out the trailer, anyway: Superhot VR: I do also think the Star Wars Battlefront thing is worth playing, though it's short. But you're really flying an X-Wing! And this game is super-cheap these days. Get PlayStation VR Worlds too if it doesn't come with your bundle (I'm not sure if it still does or not) - there is some really cool, transportive stuff on that, especially the ocean thing and Scavenger's Odyssey: Oh and I *love* Until Dawn: Rush of Blood, which is both a fantastic rail shooter *and* a great horror game: On that note, get the VR demo for Resident Evil 7 and see if you'd like playing it in VR. It's definitely an *intense* experience. A little too intense for me. That's about it for now...

I agree with Sturgeon's Law that "90% of everything is crud", but the older I get, that remaining 10% still just keeps adding up in absolute terms. If I only like 1 out of every 10 games I see, that's still probably 3 or 4 games every week that I want to have in my collection. 52 weeks in a year, 40 years or so of playing video games, and that's a lot of games... and there are only more coming, both new and "new to me". And I don't really agree with those that say there are always ways to play games if they're good, even digital ones... someone asked a little while ago here about After Burner Climax, which as far as I can tell there is no way to play now if you didn't buy it when it was out. In fact, check out this list of delisted games: https://delistedgames.com/all-games/ A *lot* of those are games that, if you didn't already buy them, you have no way at all to now. And while Sturgeon's Law applies to them too, that's a long list, and even 10% of it is a shame to lose.

I'd love a return to cartridges, but it won't happen because a lot of people actually like digital downloads, and as more people "age out" of buying the latest and greatest games all the time and get replaced in that market with younger people who have grown up without physical media, that trend will only accelerate. Personally, I won't buy something if I don't think I can use it if I want to in 20 years. But I recognize that that's me being old. I've lived long enough to know that I do still use a lot of the stuff I owned 20 or more years ago. But 20 years ago that wasn't true because I hadn't lived long enough for it to be true, so I was fine just buying stuff and then throwing it away when done (only to want to buy it again later). And that's the age of people that the game makers are counting on rushing on to PSN or the Nintendo eShop to buy the latest releases. So there are two factors, I think. One is that increasingly, kids are growing up not experiencing physical media, or experiencing it just enough that they consider it inconvenient. Two is that kids and young adults are generally pretty wasteful in general and think of games as disposable - that's *always* been the case. You don't really gain an appreciation for keeping stuff around long-term until you're old enough to have lived long enough to do so. There are obviously exceptions and I don't know how old you are. But I think that mostly, it's middle aged and older gamers that want to hold on to physical media, and return to cartridge. (I definitely would prefer cartridge to optical disc for reliability reasons... though I'd keep around my Xbox One S for 4k Blu-Ray!) Obviously you do have the Switch as a current option, but I often feel like Nintendo's trying to kill off the cartridge as the main format even on that, in favor of downloads. And a lot of games on cartridge still seem to require downloading practically the whole game before you can actually play it.

That's the original 1000, which launched the line. It's a mix of PCjr and XT. It has no DMA controller, like the PCjr, plus the PCjr's graphics and sound modes (which is what would later be called "Tandy" graphics), but it had 3 standard ISA slots and used XT-class peripherals. It certainly would have been a great deal in 1984, when even most PC clones still cost thousands of dollars. If you need to take your work home with you, like this guy in the commercial says he does, then it was probably the cheapest way to do that at the time. The 5150 was no speed demon in 1984, but then it was 3 years old by then. By 1985 IBM (and other clone makers) had 8mhz 286 machines on the market, and by 1987 they had fully 32 bit 386's. So the Tandy 1000EX would have been considered ridiculously low end at that point, with a 7mhz 8088 and no expansion slots. It wouldn't have been able to run *current* games of the time very well; it would be like having a Core i3 with a GeForce 6600 or something today. I think the 1000 models with more expansion slots and drive bays could have been a good deal in those days, but I don't think the low-end, closed systems versions were a very good value even with their lower prices, especially given that they came later and were relatively less powerful. Sometimes cheap is just cheap. I think they're more interesting *today* because you can buy one and see what you can run on it, but that wouldn't have been fun when these were current. Nobody wants to buy a brand new machine and find out that it's not powerful enough to run the latest game they want to play. btw, it might not be *the* most representative game but one of the titles I always test old PC's with is OutRun, just because I like it and it's simple to play. (Really too easy, actually.) It also relies on a sense of speed and fluidity for gameplay, so I feel like it's a good test. It was released in 1987, so would have been one of the titles someone who just bought a 1000EX might try. My 9.56mhz 8086 1000RL absolutely chugs on it in 16 color Tandy Graphics mode. It's unplayable. It's ok in CGA or monochrome. So I can't imagine a 7.5mhz 8088 would have done better. For current games like that, the Amiga would definitely have been better.

It is. You just need the update. If it doesn't install itself the first time you play the game, try just turning on your PSVR and starting the game and see if it downloads then. I can't remember what the process actually was, but the whole game is in VR. It's one of the best VR games on the system. But you also definitely need Rez Infinite. Most of that game is just a port of the original Rez, which is still awesome in VR, but the final level is a new one made just for PSVR and it's mindblowing. I also really recommend Battlezone.

Tandy 1000's are interesting machines. They're just not as "exotic" as Amigas, so I think a lot of people pass them over when thinking of classic computers nowadays, and they did back then too! In 1987, there were a lot of PC clones available already. I don't think these "wedge shaped" all-in-one machines ever really took off in the PC market. The PC market was always all about expandability. People really gloss over that fact nowadays, but I specifically remember in those days that a lot of people thought a computer was a toy (or worse) if it didn't have expansion slots. You bought a PC specifically because you cared about expandability. If you didn't care about expandability, then you probably weren't a PC person. I can't imagine these two Tandy systems sold all that well at the time relative to other PC clones. I know I didn't know a single person with one of them in the 80's. I did know a few people with Amigas. I have a Tandy 1000RL HD, which is a bit later of a machine but is barely any more powerful. It has a 9.56mhz 8086 and 512KB. It also has Tandy graphics and sound, but the thing about those modes is that the CPU and graphics hardware was too slow to really do much with them. Stuff like the Sierra On-line adventure games would work ok, because they were *dog slow* - have you tried those games recently? Holy crap, I can't believe we used to play stuff like that and enjoy it. I fall asleep on the first screen. But anything fast just *chugs* on Tandy graphics, even with a 9.56 8086. Some games also have weird limitations when using Tandy graphics, like Lemmings has no music and Wings of Fury won't let you use the joystick. So you have to just go back to CGA anyway. So personally, I'd say if your goal was to play games, I'd have bought an Amiga back then. If you did need to run some PC software but you also wanted to play an occasional game, then one of those Tandy models may have been a better choice. But really, a proper PC with expansion slots was probably a better option than either one by then, if you could afford it.

I'm gonna be "that guy" - you know, the doubter that everybody loves to hate - and say that Switch sales are gonna fall off a cliff as soon as either the PS5 or Xbox.. Two(?) is announced. Maybe even before that. Nintendo has increasingly been betting their company on what amount to fads. Nothing they do really sets a trend; everything is kind of a one-off. Some of their ideas catch on for a little while (the Wii), while others don't at all (the Wii U). But none of them really last. Even Wii sales massively dropped off after 4 years. It kind of limped along into its 5th year, which is a shorter lifespan than most consoles that popular have. That's because it relied on a gimmick, and people just got tired of that gimmick. And there wasn't much else to recommend that system. I think the Switch is cool but I don't really think it's changing paradigms about how we play games. I still think it's basically a neat little novelty. Its limitations will become more apparent over time, just like with the Wii. And that's a direct result of having to make it small enough to be a handheld. But at the same time, it's really not a very good handheld. Its battery life is terrible, and it's huge compared to any other handheld. So I think people will get tired of using it that way, and it'll increasingly be compared more to the home consoles. Already I'm seeing lots of Fortnite side by side comparisons with the Xbox One and PS4, and we saw the same with Doom. People are choosing between it and the other home consoles, not between it and, say, a Vita or 3DS. And I don't think it comes out on the long end of that stick very often. The system's first year plus has also been financed to a decent degree by big Wii U re-releases (that includes Zelda: BotW, which was a Wii U game first), but that can't last. Eventually that mine's gonna run dry, and we'll be back to the same sparse selection of new releases that most Nintendo systems get. Especially considering how underpowered the system's going to seem 3 or 4 years into its lifespan, meaning third parties will abandon it just like they did the original Wii. So I voted Wii. I think they're actually very similar systems in most ways (in terms of the approach to the current market), but the Wii had the advantages of better availability in its first year, and the fact that 1080p wasn't ubiquitous in its first few years. The Switch has seemed underpowered basically from day one, and has had to rely on its game library to make up for that. It's done well at that, but I just don't see that lasting more than a few years.

All this negativity about GS is one of those "be careful what you wish for" things. Where else are you going to buy games for modern systems in person, especially used for a significant discount off the new price? Are you just going to buy *everything* online and either wait for it to be shipped to you or pay some ridiculous price for a "digital" copy you don't even really own? How are either of those things better than just going to a store? I don't buy a hell of a lot of modern games, but when I do, there are basically two places I go: GameStop or Best Buy. And both of those places seem to be in their death throes. I don't see how my life is going to be improved when they're gone. That's not to say GameStop hasn't become annoying lately, especially with the way they absolutely will not leave you alone if you're just looking around in the store, and the way they interrogate you when you check out. Those were bad, bad ideas that no doubt turned a lot of people off. But I mean, have some thicker skin. Just say "no" to everything. It's not really that hard. And you walk out with a game, which is a win for you. And that's going to go away soon.

Shipping is by zone, not necessarily by distance. (It's the same for UPS and FedEx, btw.) It's entirely possible to have a lesser distance cost more because of the way the zones are laid out. Here's a web app that will show you the zones from your location: http://apps.endicia.com/apps/zonemap You can see that they roughly correspond to distance but not exactly. For example, for me shipping something to Plattsburgh, NY would be zone 2, but shipping something to Brattleboro, VT would be zone 3, even though the latter is much closer.

Replacing the battery involves basic soldering. It's not as easy as it should be, but it doesn't seem that difficult either (I haven't done it, but I've seen guides because I was considering it too). For me I just decided it wasn't really worth it. You just have to bypass the date setting every time you boot up, or set the date manually. There are maybe a few games that rely on time actually passing (Sonic Adventure, for example) and if you plan on playing any of them and using those features, then you might want to replace the battery. There are YouTube videos about replacing the battery if you want to see whether it's something you can easily do. For me, I use my DC sometimes but not often enough that just bypassing the date or setting it when I boot up was enough of a hassle to get around to soldering something.

I'm going through the exact same thing with a PS/2 and a floppy emulator right now. It's a problem only if you just plug the cable in to your Gotek as is and expect it to work (and not potentially damage your Gotek). What you need to do is get the pinout, find out which wires are carrying the power and ground, then get a 4 pin molex to floppy power adapter, cut off one end and solder the power and ground wires from the floppy cable to the floppy power adapter. So in the end you have a Y-cable with a standard floppy connector and a standard floppy power connector on one end.

I've sent in both my 3DS and my Switch. I got both back pretty quick, although I wasn't 100% happy with the repair to my Switch.

It wasn't intended to be Japan-only, which is why Sony told all the media outlets in the US to stop calling the PS1 the PSX. And there was extensive coverage of the PSX here at the time, both because it was expected that it would eventually release here and also because it was a machine called the PSX and people thought that was interesting/funny considering that was what everybody had called the PS1 to that point. Here's just a little bit of the US coverage in the gaming press: https://www.gamespot.com/articles/psx-makes-a-stir-in-japan/1100-6076490/ https://www.gamespot.com/articles/sony-revamping-psx-with-psp-connectivity/1100-6120537/ https://www.gamespot.com/articles/sony-pulling-the-plug-on-the-psx/1100-6119142/(note that even as they discontinued it, they were saying they were "still debating" a US release) http://www.ign.com/articles/2003/11/06/sony-psx-on-display http://www.ign.com/articles/2003/05/28/sony-europe-on-psx http://www.ign.com/articles/2004/01/27/psx-sales-not-what-sony-hoped-for So it was pretty well known to gamers at the time. And if you said something like "I was playing my PSX yesterday..." in a forum at that point, people were going to think you actually had imported a PSX. So given that the press started using "PS1" as well, so did most gamers. Nowadays Sony also has a show called "PSX", but I'm pretty sure that's because they just like the way the letters go together. The "X" stands for "eXperience". I think that's what it was supposed to be on the original PSX as well.

I think that's probably the issue more than anything. I owned a clothing store until a little while ago (technically still do, online) but it's the same thing... if you don't know the products you're selling, they're not going to sell. It's not that the products themselves don't sell, but if you're not familiar enough with them and don't care about them, you're not going to do the research required to pay the prices you need to to turn a profit, then you're not going to turn them around at prices where they'll sell. And you're probably not going to devote much time to promoting them online or anywhere else, and you're not going to give them prime shelf space in the store. It becomes kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Stores like this treat pre-crash stuff like it's persona non-grata, then claim it "doesn't sell", other, new stores either hear this and follow suit or go through the same process, and it just becomes conventional wisdom. But I'm sure there are stores out there doing just fine with pre-crash stuff, because they know it, they know how to price it, and they believe in it enough to feature it. There's one by me that has entire racks right in front devoted to Atari stuff. I don't think there's anything wrong at all with store owners only selling what they know, but I would prefer it if they just admitted to that instead of claiming stuff "doesn't sell". It's more accurate to say "I don't know how to sell it". I'm sure also that this trend will continue and there's not really anything anyone can do about it. It's the same with any retro or vintage field. Go into a vintage electronics store and you're probably going to see stuff from the 80's on up, not old tube amps.

My position is pretty much the exact opposite of yours - that MS has done a really good job of making people think the X is a different system than the S, when nearly everything that MS touts about the X (with the exception of X-specific game enhancements) was actually introduced with the S. There seems to be a lot of confusion out there about things both models can do equally well, with some people thinking those features are exclusive to the X. Also, saying the S just "happens" to be able to play 4K Blu-Rays is a little disingenuous - that's a major new feature that it introduced, as was HDR. The Xbox One S was the first 4K HDR Xbox. The Xbox One X is just a faster version of the same thing, since the S wasn't really fast enough to play *games* at 4K, and the X is, if developers choose to use its extra power that way (not all have). These are the only differences between the two machines: Xbox One X - Custom CPU @ 2.3GHz, 8 cores; Custom GPU @ 1.172GHz, 40 CUs, Polaris features, 6.0 TFLOPS; 12GB GDDR5 RAM @ 326 GB/s Xbox One S - Custom CPU @ 1.75GHz, 8 cores; Custom GPU @ 914MHz, 12 CUs, 1.4 TFLOPS; 8GB DDR3 RAM @ 68 GB/s Feature-wise, they're the same. The question is just whether the extra horsepower is worth more than double the price for the system in games, but remember that since 4K is actually 4 times the resolution of 1080p, it's going to take a lot more horsepower just to keep games looking the same at that higher resolution. In practice, I didn't think the games looked different enough to justify the cost for me. This is one of the few X-enhanced games I actually own for Xbox One and played on both the S and X: It does look different, but not enough for me to even really notice while actually playing. Even hands-off, I have to really look for the upgrades while watching the video. I feel like the X is for people who'd go out and buy a GTX 1080 for their PC. And more power to you if that's you; there's nothing wrong with that. But the price is just going to extra performance; it's not like a faster graphics card can actually *do* more. And it's the same with the Xbox One X.

But the S does all those same things. Literally the only thing the X has over the S is the game enhancements. So if you don't care about the enhanced games, you may as well save yourself $200+. And it's not as if those same games look awful on the S. So I just don't see how the X could ever be a bargain for minimal gamers. It's a higher performance option for those who need every last pixel out of the games that are enhanced for it.

No, the PSX is the PSX: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSX_(digital_video_recorder) Sony sent out a press release and actually required all publications covering their systems to cease using the term PSX to refer to the PS1 at that point. And surprisingly, most average people seemed to follow suit. (Probably because it was just confusing at a certain point if you kept referring to the PS1 as PSX.)

I had an X for 14 days and then I returned it for an S. Though I don't claim that's the right decision for everyone, it was for me. I went back and forth looking at direct split-screen comparisons of games on both machines (in 4K; I mean I made sure to watch 4K videos on my 4K TV to make sure it'd approximate what I'd actually see), and I agonized over whether the differences were enough to be worth the extra cost. I ended up deciding that, combined with the number of games I thought I'd even play on this machine, it wasn't worth it for me. I got the S instead and I've been really happy with it. For one thing, as I thought, I mainly use mine for 4K streaming and 4K Blu-Ray. That's what really attracted me to it, because I have a PS4 anyway and 90% of the games I'd even want on the Xbox One are cross-platform. So I only have something like 3 games for it and I've had it for 7 months now. So I got a 4K streaming box, a 4K Blu-Ray player and a wireless game controller for my PC (that's mostly what I use it for) for $229 with a free copy of Madden 18 included. Whatever games I get for it on top of that are like a bonus. I probably do use my Xbox One S more than any of my other consoles, I just don't use it much for gaming. So for me, the Xbox One X would have been a waste. But if you're really into Xbox games, especially if it's gonna be your only console, then I can see an X being worth it.

I think this is something that's probably changed for a lot of people over time, in the same way people used to say "PSX" to mean "PS1", until Sony released a product actually called the "PSX" and then you couldn't say that anymore. I just said "Atari" as a kid, but then Atari released the 5200 and you had to be more specific or nobody'd know what console you were talking about. At that point, because Atari was clearly calling the new system the 5200, I started calling the old system the 2600. It was being marketed that way at that time anyway. Nowadays I had reverted to kind of using "VCS" and "2600" interchangeably, depending on context. I mean the woodgrain versions clearly say "Video Computer System" on the box, so if I'm writing a forum post with a picture of the box or something, I'd usually say VCS. But I've also altered that now too because of the new system, and I don't think I'd refer to it as VCS as often anymore. As for the Sega thing, the funny thing is the Master System really is supposed to be just "The Sega System". This was when Sega had the SG-1000 Mark I, II and III as well as the SC-3000, and that was the "Sega System" - all of it was backward compatible, multiple models in one system. So you could call *that* "The Sega" and actually you're pretty much right. The "Sega Master System" was originally a specific package of the Sega system (there was also a "Sega Base System" and I think a "Sega 3D System"), but Sega just kind of gave in to what people were actually calling it and started referring to the system in general as the Master System. But it'd be kind of like if everybody called the NES the "Action Set" regardless of whether that's even what they actually had. It'd be like two kids talking to each other and saying things like "hey, you got a Master System?" "No, the Action Set's got better games!" And eventually Nintendo just started referring to the Action Set in all their press releases and on all the boxes because they knew that's what everybody was calling it. I have heard people say just "Sega" for the Genesis/MD, though, because at the time it would have been clear what you meant. "You got a Super Nintendo?" "No, I got a Sega." It wasn't very common, but I've heard it.

My point is that is how we did it when those games were on the market, and we had fun. Light gun games are actually easier on a smaller screen.

One thing about 27"+ CRT TV's... they're a pain in the neck. Even a 27" CRT requires two people to lift, and the plastic on a lot of these is going bad and often won't survive a move. I bought my mother a 27" Sony for Christmas in something like 1997, noticed the plastic was cracking a bit about 8 or so years later, went to move it when she got a new apartment and the entire thing fell apart. We couldn't even pick it up because the plastic had basically just shattered from regular handling. We had to call a junk company to come get it, and when they picked it up, the tube violently imploded. I resolved at that point that there'd be no more CRT's in my life, and I'd just live with the picture differences of flat panel displays. I've since relaxed that - I currently have four CRT's in my basement, but all are relatively small and three are computer monitors. Two of those are CGA; I don't know of a way to even use an LCD with a CGA computer, so CRT it is. The last one is an old Sony KVM that I just recently got - actually I have no real use for it and have been thinking to sell it. But no way I'm shipping it, because it's made of that thin Sony plastic too. Also, most people didn't play older games on 27" and larger sets. When I was a kid, a 20" set was considered big and that's what we had. When it finally broke, we bought another 20". When I had enough money to buy my own stuff, I bought a 13" TV, and that's also what I took to college to play all my NES and Genesis games on. I sold electronics for a living from 1996-1998 and even at that time, 27" was just getting to be about average. Plenty of people were still buying smaller sets, but those who were buying 27" and larger were typically upgrading. So they'd have had something smaller before, when most 2D game systems were on the market. That's not to say you can't or shouldn't try to have better than most people did, but it's an easy excuse for buying a smaller CRT, which is something I'd recommend doing anyway. It'll save you a lot of headaches.