Why do videogames have such a short shelf life?

[MrPopo]

The big thing we've seen with video games is that they are much more constrained by technology than any other medium and subsequently we've seen a huge amount of progress in that technology since they started. A book is a story that has been put on paper; advances in printing technology don't change the actual book. So it's using storytelling techniques that started being refined back when it was oral traditions.

Movies are an outgrowth of theater. So at the start they had a large amount of techniques built up in the world of theater that they used as a base. Then they started taking advantage of the fact that you can use multiple cameras and can take your time in between scenes to change all the scenery; in theater you make concessions for speed. And then the special effects technology took off. But the difference between a high-end movie in 1940 isn't too great compared to a high-end movie now. The differences really only get pronounced as your setting goes to the fantastical rather than the mundane (Star Wars/LotR vs. Casablanca/Schindler's List).

But since all content in video games are incredibly constrained by the technology we saw the progression from dots on the Atari 2600 to our crazy CGI modern games. And we still have a pretty long way to go before we finish some of the realism stuff (human models being the biggest one). And that isn't even counting all of the lessons and progression learned through user input. The active nature of video games means that not only does everything look nicer as time goes on, but the very method we interact with them changes over time. And it isn't a linear path, either. Older games like Ultima used a large portion of the keyboard for commands. Compare to a modern RPG like Skyrim where you can end up with a lot of the same interaction but it uses a lot of context-specific processing. But you've still lost some interaction, such as there no longer being a text parser. And on the flip side, you have FPS's which now include things like quick off-hand melee/grenades where before you had to manually select them. There might be execution-style moves in an action game to punctuate a specific kill.

I think it's the huge changes in the interaction that really drives the turnover.

[Erik_Twice]

Sadly the PC has its own issues. I walked into Best Buy today and saw Bioshock 2 on the 360 for sale at $19.99. I walked to the PC section and found it for $40. Pathetic.

I thought one of the PC advantages is that PC games are cheaper than consoles ones

Actually, they are. Around here all console games keep their price for long while the PC versions of the same games start at a lower price point and drop faster.

[MrNash]

I think this is something that we'll see change as digital distribution becomes more popular. We already have it to a degree with the likes of GoG, Virtual Console, and a decent number of classic games or re-releases showing up on XBLA or PSN.

Right now, as new systems and games constantly come out, space needs to be made for them, so there aren't as many places that want to keep retro games on the shelf when they could dedicate five racks to the next big thing.

Another problem is how quickly a lot of gamers shift towards what ever is next in the pipes for releases. Kingdom of Amalur came out last week? It's pretty fantastic? Super. But now if you'll excuse me I have to get back to obsessing over ME3. And a few days later they'll be on to Tales of Grace F or something. It's just this whole cycle gamers fall into, and I would say the marketing machine helps it along to some extent.

There are those like people who post here that soak in games from all generations, but I think a lot of folks get trapped into that cycle of always wondering what's next both from the technology constantly being replaced with new console generations, as well as media and the PR machine constantly marching forward to look at what's over the horizon.

[J T]

Excellent points copy-paste bot.

[Ivo]

Excellent points copy-paste bot.

It was funny because I thought it was bot, but the post was high quality as I read it, then I thought "This seems familiar". I went to page 1 and saw your post.

This dude was pretty well camouflaged even on the other 5 posts he made.

Ivo.

[GSZX1337]

Tell me. Why isn't Pac Man being ported into iOS? Or Arkanoid? Or Centipede?

I'll tell you why:
It's because Pac-Man, Arkanoid, and Centipede (along with other Atari games) have all already been brought to iOS.

[Aaendi]

I wish there was a standardized game system that any company can manufacture and sell, and will be out for 2 decades before it becomes obsolete. The difference between videogame wars and the Betamax vs VHS war, was that after VHS won, everybody still bought VHS tapes 30 years later. I'm tired of this pointless "competing for competition sake" when it comes to videogame systems. If videogame companies want to compete, compete with games, not systems. I don't want to buy a WB dvd player just to play WB movies, and buy a Paramont dvd player just to play Paramont movies, or look in a garage sale for an "old" dvd player to play "old" movies.

Another thing that is preventing us from having a standardized videogame system, are the rube-goldberg-ish designs a lot of game systems have. The programmer shouldn't have to struggle through his job, and he shouldn't have to reinvent the wheel everytime he wants to start a new game. For example, on the SNES, why should I, the programmer, have to think about how I'm going to organize animated sprites if all games are going to have animated sprites, especially ones with larger cartridge sizes? Why couldn't they just connect the PPU straight to the cartridge like on the NES? See, it's things like these unnecessary hardware quirks that prevent programmers from being artistically expressive. If they ever make a standardized videogame system, it should be straight forward, clean and inviting architecture.

[Gunstar Green]

PC games are far more standardized and have a far longer shelf life. You can still walk into some big retail stores and buy copies of the original StarCraft, Diablo 2, The Sims 2, and many more old games in jewel cases with bargain prices. If there weren't competing consoles and competing formats there would be more shelf space and games would have a longer shelf life.

But it is what it is.

Thankfully digital distribution as mentioned earlier erases the need for shelf space and insures that some of our old favorites will always be available for purchase in some way. Cloud gaming may eventually take that even further.

[Hazerd]

I would love to beable to go down to the local retail store and buy every single SNES game brand new, even though the collectors market value would dive, i would still be like

OMGWTFBBQ!!!!! HNNNGGGGGG!!

[MrPopo]

I wish there was a standardized game system that any company can manufacture and sell, and will be out for 2 decades before it becomes obsolete. The difference between videogame wars and the Betamax vs VHS war, was that after VHS won, everybody still bought VHS tapes 30 years later. I'm tired of this pointless "competing for competition sake" when it comes to videogame systems. If videogame companies want to compete, compete with games, not systems. I don't want to buy a WB dvd player just to play WB movies, and buy a Paramont dvd player just to play Paramont movies, or look in a garage sale for an "old" dvd player to play "old" movies.

Another thing that is preventing us from having a standardized videogame system, are the rube-goldberg-ish designs a lot of game systems have. The programmer shouldn't have to struggle through his job, and he shouldn't have to reinvent the wheel everytime he wants to start a new game. For example, on the SNES, why should I, the programmer, have to think about how I'm going to organize animated sprites if all games are going to have animated sprites, especially ones with larger cartridge sizes? Why couldn't they just connect the PPU straight to the cartridge like on the NES? See, it's things like these unnecessary hardware quirks that prevent programmers from being artistically expressive. If they ever make a standardized videogame system, it should be straight forward, clean and inviting architecture.

The problem with your comparison is that the technology behind playing back film essentially has stayed static since film was first developed. The techniques to put images onto that film has gotten better over the years but the playback doesn't change because it's so simple. Video games are an entirely different beast. The NES cannot physically output the sort of games we see today. Video games, unlike films, essentially produce the end product on the fly.

As for architectural quirks, those rarely if ever get in the way of artistic expression. Generally it tends to be massive hardware limitations, like a lack of smooth scrolling or not enough memory to render an outdoor area the size of New York.