PS3 wanted in CA, NJ, but not Colorado?
by Adams Briscoe 
{ Jun 9th 2006 at 6:15PM }
That's the vibe we're getting from this interesting write-up from GameDaily. They polled some gamers in each of those places only to find that California and New Jersey seem to be looking forward to the Sony system, but no love for it in Colorado?In fact, here's one quote that has a pretty good point: "With a price like $600, people might just come back to the arcade for affordable gaming. Well, either that or get a PS2." To those of you
Yeah, we've heard that one before too. Possibly the most valuable quote to take away from the whole affair pretty much sums it all up perfectly: "It's just the hardcore people that have a problem with it. Core gamers are little bitches. They complain about everything because they're used to a certain standard of living, and whenever anyone dares to change it they complain. You don't see people stressing out about the prices of new cars, computers, or appliances nearly as much. The cost of living is going up. If you don't want a PS3, then don't buy one."
[Thanks boots]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Erick @ Jun 10th 2006 12:56AM
California is the richest country in US.
Erick @ Jun 10th 2006 12:57AM
I mean state
Joe Handzik, aka dragonjoe or ODLdragonjoe @ Jun 10th 2006 3:49PM
And I won't, mother ****ers. Viva la Wii60 revolution!!!
Luke @ Jun 10th 2006 8:31PM
No you were right the first time.
Paul @ Jun 12th 2006 9:01AM
oh and NJ is one of the next wealthiest states.
This article is just as much bunk as the one from the Inquirer last week.
If you were to do a real scientific survey I bet you would find that the nation matches up with colorado far more than california and jers.
boots @ Jun 12th 2006 1:07PM
New Jersey and California amount something to near 44 million people. Colorado not even 5 million.
CA and NJ are also more cosmopolitan, aren't they? There was a study about gaming and minorities not long ago. If I remember well, Minorities played in a slightly higher percentage more games, especially videogame consoles (as opposed to PCs).
Paul @ Jun 12th 2006 3:09PM
so your numbers are even farther off if you are basing its accuracy on NJ and CA, they represent a far smaller proportion of population. what needs to be done (and wont be because sony would be the only one to benefit from it, wont benefit from it now because it is too late, and has never been good at it) is a full scientific survey of cost of gaming systems. Nothing you have seen is even close to scientific. The writers biases come through when they are suprised that this is the case in CO, they may be suprised but you dont freakin write that if you are trying to be impartial. Again this article = bunk
boots @ Jun 12th 2006 8:16PM
Paul, there are indeed *scientific* studies for "prices of consoles", or simply put, "prices in general". It's called economy.
Anyway, what do you mean about my numbers? Because if you say that the numbers I cited don't benefit Sony in a single way, you probably didn't understand. Put CA and NJ, two very cosmopolitan states (meaning even more console gamers than PC gamers) with a lot of population (meaning more market) and put them against Colorado, a state where it is a safe bet to say that is not as Cosmo as california, let alone that is not as populated. And to go on a little bit with the tangent, maybe the more republican states will get a 360, while the democratic ones a PS3 (but distrust me, since this is not "science").
So, who cares if it's science or not? Take it as you will, it's an interesting read. Don't even compare it to "The Inquirer", as they always write junk.
Cage @ Jun 13th 2006 8:48PM
I would think the console with the better online service (XBL) would benefit more from a denser population ("democratic population"). There, high speed internet is more widely available and used. But again distrust because its not "science".
djphatjive @ Jun 15th 2006 3:34AM
I live in Colorado, And there is no way in hell I'm paying that much for a system. $599 for a game system, Then buy 2 or 3 games, Thats an extra $180 plus tax. So where at $780. Then buy movies you already own on BLut-Ray, 23 dollars a piece. So lets say you buy 5 of them. Thats, $115 dollars. So now we are up too $895. Man my Xbox 360 is looking good already. $399 + 35 for extra controler, $39.99 for burnout, 59.99 for COD2. And 9 dollars for Halo, 9 dollars for Halo2, and 9 dollars for Fable. So that means we are at..... $560.00, oh and Xbox live for 13 months, $59, 619 total. Hmmmmmmm what sounds like a better deal, hmmmmmmmmmmm Hell I'll buy a WII like everyone else is. No one cares about sony and blutt-ray. I can copy my DVD movies onto my media center and watch them thru the 360 media center extender. What the hell can you do with Blutt-ray??????????????
boots @ Jun 15th 2006 7:00PM
"I would think the console with the better online service (XBL)"
First of all, you are making the assumption that everyone and their grandmother share your opinion (wrong). Second, PS3 isn't even out, which makes your claim invalid. Third, people also care about price, and if PS3 has a "free online service", as stated already several times, then it will be about choice: Play games, or play games for a fee? At least, for casuals.
Anyway, how about explaining what is a "democratic population" (and how is it dense anyway?), as opposed to a "non-democratic population"? If you mean a wider market, you can certainly reach one with no cost of online gaming, not a premium for playing the game you already paid 60 bucks for.
Djphatjive, you just confirmed that in colorado "nobody" cares, but again, Colorado is a much smaller state than CA and NJ, not to mention that CA and NJ are economically more advantaged than most states in the states (ok, that wasn't intended).