Pepsicolaboy

I suppose I really should point out that I wasnt by necessity implying that the increased price of gaming as a commodity is a bad thing. Raising the financial barrier to entry is a simple and proven business practice that often generats little other than postive outcomes - consumer confidence, product quality, mature audiences, high expectation and of course creating a higher profile industry.  
I brought it up to open a discussion about the possibilties of how such a change is (or could, if you dont think its real) affect the industry. 
 
Anyway,
@Damian:
Such a good point. The issue is most radically different for people playing on borrowed money. Now, maybe im biased because being 24, Ive spent at least 10 of my 12 or so years gaming relying on other people purchasing my games and hardware/accessories. In other words, the issue is immensly relevant and very important, since thr young gamers of today grow up to be the developers and consumers of tomorrow. Hence, I stand by my general assertion that gaming is not only more expensive on a whole, but that this fact does have a great capacity to effect the industry (ie. scew gaming towards a more mature audience etc.) - and is as such an important issue hardly worth sighing over. 
 
On the other hand, im going to be a doctor, so I've already spent many years at uni and still have just as many ahead of me - the issue would be completely different for someone who didnt contnue on to unversity after high school, or even left before completion and begun earning a wage from 16 or so.  
 
I suppose this highlights how utterly subjectve the price of any commodity is - its unlikey they spend much time discussing the price of mercedes benz at a country club, because its not such a big deal, etc.  
 
Anyway, I love how practically every forum on this site gradually takes any given topic in a direction I generally didnt expect. Its a good crowd. 
Cheers guys  
 

@wfolse1:
@Novyx:
@onyxghost:
@lordofultima: 
 
..........ahh yeah. So its probably my fualt for rambling and ranting my through the issue in such a lengthy and possibly incoherent fashion....but you guys totally missed what I was saying. 
 
Maybe I did mention something explicitly about games THEMSELVES becoming more expensive, but if I did, then I meant it as an aside and even then its a stupid one because I myself, as a gamer, obviously remember paying everything up to $100AUD+ for SNES games when I was a kid. Or rather, I remember my mum reminding me of the fact. 
 
WHICH brings me to my point - the entire post was supposed to be illustrating the way that the things auxillary to games themselves have spiralled into not only pricey, but near essential and certainly commonplace features of the industry. Sure, games have always been expensive, all 'cutting edge' tech. always has been. The issue I wanted to raise was how the undisputible fact that gaming as a whole is an expensive habit then bleeds on to effect the games market itself (with $500AUD+ consoles, online subscriptions to Live and MMO's, hell expensive accesories like HDD's, Eye Toys, Motion Controllers and all those god damn toy guitars and so on).   
 
Your missing the issue because gaming has unquestionably become more expensive - particularly for parents or god forbid, single parents who are the sole means a younger gamer has to access these things. Maybe my part time jobs sucked, but I couldn't have saved the extra $400AUD for a 360 wireless adapter, HDD, Live subscription and control charger just for my xbox - and then saved up enough to buy another $500 console, then support any kind of 'regular' game purchases. Nor could I have expected my parents to buy me two consoles plus all those accesories, then put together much of a regular flow of $100 game purchases. As I expect most kids cant.  
 
On top of that, TODAY, as a student, I can barely cobble together the funds to do the same, and I know MORE people who want a console, or a second console, who simply cant afford it, than those I do who are regularly buying new games for their set up.  

Add to this the effect the price of entry has on families and those who are yet to make the transition into gaming at all - they were 100000000000000 times more likely to pick up a N64, PSone, SNES or PS2 for the $300-400AUD bracket that those consoles spent most of their lifecycles in - we've YET to reach that stage of this console cycle - and you have a pretty goddamn convincing arguement that not only has the concept of becoming a serious gamer become a hell of a lot more expensive, but that as a consiquence there is very likely to be some very significant ramifications for the industry at large. 
 
PLUS - why precisely do you think that you are so 'tired of people complaining'? 

Is your proposition that people are just manufacturing there own finacial hardship for the sake of it? Perhaps its some elaborate plot from the board game community to sabotage the video games industry?

I mean, jesus.

Still - Sorry for my continued long-winded rambling and thanks for your thoughts, frustrating as I find them :)

Sam. 
 
   

Case in point - I own each of a PS3, 360, Gaming PC and of course a PS2. I praise each with rapturous accord and have recieved countless hours of entertainment and quality experiences from each. In other words, I do not have any intention of entering this point into the childish and fickle arena of a console war. Each are truly excellent platforms, case definitively closed.  
 
However, I must admit to feeling decidedly different aboout each. Particularly the PS3 and 360, both of which are of course my main gaming platforms - but also the source of the most ongoing expense. Its precisely because of this ongoing expense that I've generated a somewhat emotional attachment to each system, for better or worse.   

In particular, While I own more games for my xbox360 than I do my PS3, I simply do not enjoy - nor play - several 360 titles I own, whereas I have completely enjoyed and still regularly play literally all of my PS3 games. Dont get me wrong, I love many of my 360 titles and have enjoyed countless hours of entertainment on the system, but as a function of consistent quality and time enjoyed - my PS3 feels like a more economical system. 
 
Framing this issue is my own person situation, one that probably reflects many gamers current siutuation in one way or another (I fully recognise that this is my situation and mine alone, so dont read any console specific commentary into it please, i beg of you).  
Consider that both my 360 controllers have broken (neither battery pack works consistently, hence rumble must be disabled, plus some other minor issues), I therefore need to pay $80AUD for 2 controller chargers, I have no wireless connection to my 360 and hence have spend a great deal of time without an active internet connection due to my (totally normal) home network set up, must pay an ongoing fee for XboxLive on top of my ISP fee's (which I dont anymore), I would need to pay another $150AUD for a wireless adapter to be able to use my 360 in the same room as the HD TV in the home (which is again, several rooms away from the wireless modem), have destroyed my copy of lost odyssey (Disc 1) because I dared to move the console slightly whilst it was on, have narrowly escaped 3 encounters wich the RRoD and finally, I have run out of HDD space on my 360 (without using it for nearly any media storage, 20GB model) - and hence will need to pay $250AUD (!!!!!!) for a new proprietary Microsoft HDD at some stage. 
 
To quicly contrast this with my PS3, aside from purchasing another controller (which are hell expensive, I must say), Ive not spent a single dollar on the console since purchase, have had absolutely no problem with any accesories nor internet functionality, have enjoyed using it as a streaming wireless hub for my PC media onto my families HDTV, along of course with building a Blu-Ray collection, have tons of HDD space and have slowly made the shift over to PSN as my primarly online gaming platform. Without a hitch i might add, and for free.

Accordingly - I feel like my PS3 is a console I want to use and support, and feel a degree of confidence in the brand and its releases, both accesories and software.   
So to say the least, I utterly and completely feel that the economics behind my consoles are an enormous factor in deciding my future purchases - totally aside from the quality of the games released themselves. It simply has to be, because the outgoings for each consumer these days are just so enormous.  
This was not the case, even last generation, when games were the sole factor determining my interest in each console. 

Hence, I feel the principle consiquence of the economic factor in our everyday gaming lives is two fold -  
Firstly, the reliability and the feature sets of the hardware along with its effective and economical utilization by the consumer (ie. me paying for both a 360, PS3 or Wii, but then utilizing the feature set of one more than the other) has the effect of building confidence in the brand and ensuring future purchases. This could go either way this generation, since many people have had good/bad experiences with each console, given theres no clear superiority of either, even the Wii (for some). 
  
The reason this fact is immensly important is simply because of the magnitude of purchases we make these days. It's a shitload a cash for a regular person like you or I, and its just so much more economically sound for an individual to support 1 platform more than all of them, simply because its unfeasibly expensive to buy into the full feature sets of each.  
The effect this has on the market is excellent however, since the upside of consumers spending big across (ignoring the Wii) 1 of the 2 platforms is that both Microsoft and Sony are forced to provide an increadible breadth of value and entertainment to justify any and every decision a consumer might make either way.  
In other words, the more we spend, the better both platforms get - but very importantly, the bigger we spend, the more emphasis we put on negative experiences (after getting our fingers burnt, we have long memories). Hence, the premium on quality goes up. Hence the sales of $80-100AUD 'less than triple A' titles skyrockets into the stratosphere of irrelevance. Ouch to creativity.

Secondly, the impact on software purchases is immense, since our investment in software for one system over the other determines our general exposure to the feature sets of that system. For instance, im unlikley to appreciate the quality of an application like say, VidZone on the PS3 if I never actually turn on the console to play my games, just as im unlikley to subscribe to a series like Red vs. Blue over XboxLive if im never actually using the box to play games in the first place.  
 
Interestingly, the 'spill over' from gaming to feature browsing required to promote many such features illustrates the importance of tiered game pricing.  
Its utterly insane that the power of staggering the price of games hasnt been utilized by either console as yet, since its undisputable that while it may be less profitable on a per game basis, the 'halo' effect felt by increased PSN or XBL purchases and general use would be staggering - More games on your console means a greater probability of 'noticing' and utilizing the non-game feature sets of the 360 or the PS3, leading ultimately to a more profitable and higher quality experience in both the software and digital feature sides of the industry thanks to the increased profitibility per user.  
 
As it is, after spending upwards of $500AUD on just the consoles alone, along with another $100-300 for accesories, consumers are naturally hesitant to spill another $80-100AUD on regular game purchases.  
The problem is, thanks to the manufacturing/production cost of all of these games, online services and hardware features for the games companies and manufacturers - its literally never been more important for the industry that people are buying games, are using PSN or XBL, are utilizing their consoles as media centres and are simply spending more time utilizing their damn machines! The bottom line is that the console wars will only be able to continue in a healthy and positive manner (and avoid MS, Sony or Nintendo monopoly) if people are buying games and then experiencing the broader applications of these amazing platforms.  
The fact is, its never been less feasible to do so - we spend all our money on the damn machines and their exhustive features. Games matter more than ever, but today, are contextually harder ($$$) to access. Hence we see hesitence and cynasicm toward everything without a Blizzard, Valve, Epic, ID, Sony Computer Entertainment or Microsoft Games Studios seal on it. This is no paradigm from which a healthy industry can grow. 
 
At least, that what I think.
 
It'd be great to know how people feel about how important money is in determining their attitude towards gaming, and the effect you feel it has on your likelyhood of actually using the consoles you have (or want).

How does economics effect you as a gamer?

@Diamond:
Its interesting how you bring up the issue of 'getting your fingers burnt', Its one that has actually effected me more so in this generation that any other. The issue for me is tied into a combination of the expenses of gaming (controllers, internet dues, other accesories and of course the games themselves) along with the expectations that come along with such expenditure itself.    

Case in point - I own each of a PS3, 360, Gaming PC and of course a PS2. I praise each with rapturous accord and have recieved countless hours of entertainment and quality experiences from each. In other words, I do not have any intention of entering this point into the childish and fickle arena of a console war. Each are truly excellent platforms, case definitively closed.  
 
However, I must admit to feeling decidedly different aboout each. Particularly the PS3 and 360, both of which are of course my main gaming platforms - but also the source of the most ongoing expense. Its precisely because of this ongoing expense that I've generated a somewhat emotional attachment to each system, for better or worse.   

In particular, While I own more games for my xbox360 than I do my PS3, I simply do not enjoy - nor play - several 360 titles I own, whereas I have completely enjoyed and still regularly play literally all of my PS3 games. Dont get me wrong, I love many of my 360 titles, but as a function of consistent quality and time enjoyed - my PS3 feels like a more economical system. 
 
Along with this, consider that both my 360 controller have broken (neither battery pack works consistently, hence rumble must be disabled, plus some other minor issues), I therefore need to pay $80AUD for 2 controller chargers, I have no wireless connection to my 360 and hence have spend a great deal of time without an active internet connection due to my (totally normal) home network set up, must pay an ongoing fee for XboxLive on top of my ISP fee's (which I dont anymore), I would need to pay another $150AUD for a wireless adapter to be able to use my 360 in the same room as the HD TV in the home (which is again, several rooms away from the wireless modem), have destroyed my copy of lost odyssey (Disc 1) because I dared to move the console slightly whilst it was on, have narrowly escaped 3 encounters wich the RRoD and finally, I have run out of HDD space on my 360 (without using it for nearly any media storage, 20GB model) - and hence will need to pay $250AUD (!!!!!!) for a new HDD at some stage. 
 
To quicly contrast this with my PS3, aside from purchasing another controller (which was hell expensive, i must say), Ive not spent a single dollar on the console since purchase, have had absolutely no problem with any accesories nor internet functionality, have enjoyed using it as a streaming wireless hub for my PC media onto my families HDTV, along of course with building a Blu-Ray collection, have tons of HDD space and have slowly made the shift over to PSN as my primarly online gaming platform. Without a hitch, i might add. For free.

Accordingly - I feel like my PS3 is a console I want to use and support, and feel a degree of confidence in the brand and its releases, both accesories and software.  So to say the least, I utterly and completely agree with your point that economics is a big factor. It simply has to be, because the outgoings for each consumer these days are just so enormous. 

Hence, I feel the principle consiquence of the economic factor in our everyday gaming lives is two fold -  
Firstly, the reliability and the feature sets of the hardware along with its effective and economical utilization by the consumer (ie. me paying for both a 360 and PS3, but then utilizing the feature set of one more than the other) has the effect of building confidence in the brand and ensuring future purchases. This could go either way this generation, since many people have had good/bad experiences with each console, given theres no clear superiority of either.  
The reason this fact is immensly important is simply because of the magnitude of purchases we make these days. It's a shitload a cash for a regular person like you or I, and its just so much more economically sound for an individual to support 1 platform more than another, simply because its unfeasibly expensive to buy into the full feature sets of both.  
The effect this has on the market is excellent however, since the upside of consumers spending big across 1 of 2 (equally excellent) platforms is that both Microsoft and Sony are forced to provide an increadible breadth of value and entertainment to justify any decision a consumer might make either way. In other words, the more we spend, the better both platforms get - but very importantly, the bigger we spend, the more emphasis we put on negative experiences (after getting our fingers burnt, we have long memories).

Secondly, the impact on software purchases is immense, since our investment in software for one system over the other determines our general exposure top the feature sets of that system. For instance, im unlikley to appreciate the quality of an application like say, VidZone on the PS3 if I never actually turn on the console to play my games, just as im unlikley to subscribe to a series like Red vs. Blue over XboxLive if im never actually using the box to play games in the first place.  
interestingly, this spill over effect illustrates for me the importance of tiered game pricing. Its utterly insane that the power of differently priced games hasnt been utilized by either console as yet, since its undisputable that while it may be less profitable on a per game basis, the 'halo' effect felt by increased PSN or XBL purchases and use would be staggering - leading ultimately to a more profitable and higher quality experience in both the software and digital feature sides of the industry.  
As it is, after spending upwards of $500AUD on just the consoles alone, along with another $100-300 for accesories, consumers are naturally hesitant to spill another $80-100AUD on regular game purchases. The problem is, that thanks to that very same fact - the price of all of these games, online services and hardware features for the games companies and manufacturers - its literally never been more important for the industry that people are buying games, are using PSN or XBL, are utilizing their consoles as media centres and are simply spending more time utilizing their damn machines! The bottom line is that the console wars will only be able to continue in a healthy and positive manner (and avoid MS, Sony or Nintendo monopoly) if people are buying games. The fact is, its never been less feasible to do so - we spend all our money on the damn machines and their exhustive features, and hence its never been more important for the industry that games sell - since each platforms other integral sources of revenue (online, accessories etc.) are directly related to peoples -game based- exposure to them. Games matter more than ever, but today, are harder ($$$) to access.

Sorry for the long reply, but I really do think its one of the most important issues in gaming today. thanks for bringing it up guys.

P.S - I think I'll make this into another forum topic, beacuse i'd love to hear more peoples opinions about this issue in particular.

Sam. 

This is an increadibly long question. Actually its more like an article... or a novel.  
But bear with me.  

After watching the newest gameplay footage from Borderlands that recently went up on the site, and more importantly reading over the responses to that footage - I started thinking about how this game provides such a good example of the counterproductive conservativism and cynical attitudes consumers develop in a successful market. In this case, games and gamers.

Maybe Im being cynical myself, but after reading the slew of lukewarm and large proportion of generally negative comments for this game - I find myself wondering as to the reception of a title like Borderlands 5, 6 or 7 years ago.

Now, Im far from decided on the game myself - but frankly, the game occours to me as a great example of an older (and perhaps outdated) principle of game design aimed at little more than creating a fun and sprawling 'dungeon' crawler built upon the once luaded ethos of - 'by gamers, for gamers'.

Consider it; the games potential to become a money grubbing cash cow seems practically negligible, something which I believe the developers are probably quite aware of. Speaking of which, I think its fair to say Gearbox has an above average pedigree for a smaller 3rd party, as well as an excellent attitude toward community involvement and some genuine belief in thier own products - At least in my opinion anyway, though maybe Ive been listening to too many of Randy Pitchfords near orgasmic PR rants.

Either way, listening to the scepticism (my own included) of the general community, I suppose I find myself wondering as to the difference in underlying attitude in the games and ethos of classic 90's developers like Black Isle or say, Westwood, to those of the corporatized gaming monoliths of today. The difference in our underlying attitude.
 
In doing so, i cant help but marvel at the commercial behemoth games have become. Or more to the point, I wonder as to the effect upon all of us as we grow acustomed to the uber-successful 'holywood' games of today - framed of course, importantly, within the industries transition into mainstream social acceptance.  
Is this having an effect on our expectations of game design? Or are the tenents of game design changing? Or is it the interplay of both perhaps that finds me so intruiged as to my slight feeling of, well, pointlessness at the thought of another 100 hours of relentless loot hoarding. 

I guess my point is this - Games have become such a viable and broad commercial product that the consumers (us) might only just be narrowly avoiding the wittling down of some of the very things underlied our original addictions to gaming - that wonderful niche of fickle escapism and the oh so uncool devotion to a medium that was wholely unlike any other. Simply put, that 'counterproductive conservativism' and cynacism I referred to a moment ago is a product of gamers being inundated with change, quality, range and rapid social/markety growth. We're spoiled as hell. 
 
Hence, I feel as though its only natural that in such a climate, the consumer begins to view anything less than a revolutionary, mind blowing, paradigm-shifting (or well established) blockbuster as well.... irrelevant. 
 
Its not very contemporary of me, and maybe its even backward, but I loved the fact that only ever so slightly did Starcraft resemble something I could see or do at a movie theater. Or read in a book. There is something so wholesome and fundamental to the role that gaming has played in my life that simplistic and primarily gameplay driven, utterly pointless games have played in my life. Diablo is great example.
And remember, the constantly shifting experience of video games is not brought about by some sort of implacable necessity - most sports havent changed in hundreds of years. Closer to the subject, board-games have hardly changed at all in my lifetime, if at all.  
Is the relationship between technology and video gaming immutable? Necessary? 
What is its effect on our experience as gamers, our expectations? What is the consiquence of rapidly constantly racing beyond conventions and designs that we wholely enjoyed. Before today, I'd never even stopped to consider if there was any alternative.

For instance; I wonder, if it had never been previously released, how would a Diablo do today? How would a game only barely driven by narrative that is utterly centred upon repitition and and an 'oh so nerdy' lust for gathering in game items of absolutely no real world consiquence, fair today? 

Now me, I love that shit. And chances are if your reading this then so did/do/will you.  But a striking question is how those notions translate with young gamers, kids whose first game experience was COD4, or Killzone 2, or Gears of War. How the hell do they react to such a concept?  
 
Perhaps more interestingly, how do we?  
I know that I for instance represent a broader community of gamers whose standards have shifted so radically over this generation alone that many of the fundamental concepts that drove my previous obsession with gaming have been practically thrown out the window. Today, seriously investing myself in a new game (especially for a full price game) practically requires the title to have such a command of narrative, gameplay, presentation, soundtrack and an overall cohesiveness of design that there is, practically speaking, little difference between the games I want and the blockbuster films, books, comics and TV that I otherwise ingest that I've barely stopped to think if im slowly concealing some of the things that made gaming so special for me in the first place.  
Or whether theres really much of a difference between the mediums at all these days.  Maybe my two most anticipated games at the moment, Uncharted 2 and Mass Effect 2, go a ways to illustrate this point.    
  
I suppose to more clearly frame my line of thinking - what does the advancement (and homogenisation with other mediums) of gaming actually achieve at its core?
Would the commercial failure of a current-gen dungeon crawler or some other such 'shallow' game in some way invalidate those hundreds of hours I spent playing? Could it have been better? Does it need mo-cap cut scenes, procedural animation, social commentaries, orchestral soundtracks and the rendering power of multi-core processors to increase my captivation? My enjoyment?    

Dont get me wrong, theres nothing wrong with these games nor by neccesity anything wrong with current-gen game design, and besides, thats a different discussion for another day.

My question relates to the impact of those inordinately high production values, massive PR budgets and very importantly - the rising acceptance and presence of games as a social and commercial entity - on us.
 
I suppose Borderlands set me off thinking about this topic because of its potential to utterly fail - not just commercially, but in the hearts and minds of gamers. Of me. I just dont think it would have in the past. Then again, maybe it wont now.

Regardless, have the shifting priorities and expectations of gamers relegated games that would have provided hours of fun, priceless escapism and care-free entertainment 6-10 years ago  -  to meerly antiquated games and notions that today engender hesitation and cynicism from the very same audience?

What are your thoughts?
Have we as gamers changed? What are the differences in our expectations today from those of the golden past? Have games simply gotten better? Or has sobriety and social maturity struck the goodwill from our perceptions and capacities for the humour-laden, gore-filled, simplistic and perhaps morally shallow gameplay fests of the past?

Love to hear everyone rattle-off on the subject.
Sam.

This is an increadibly long question. Actually its more like an article... or a novel.  
But bear with me.  

After watching the newest gameplay footage from Borderlands that recently went up on the site, and more importantly reading over the responses to that footage - I started thinking about how this game provides such a good example of the counterproductive conservativism and cynical attitudes consumers develop in a successful market. In this case, games and gamers.

Maybe Im being cynical myself, but after reading the slew of lukewarm and large proportion of generally negative comments for this game - I find myself wondering as to the reception of a title like Borderlands 5, 6 or 7 years ago.

Now, Im far from decided on the game myself - but frankly, the game occours to me as a great example of an older (and perhaps outdated) principle of game design aimed at little more than creating a fun and sprawling 'dungeon' crawler built upon the once luaded ethos of - 'by gamers, for gamers'.

Consider it; the games potential to become a money grubbing cash cow seems practically negligible, something which I believe the developers are probably quite aware of. Speaking of which, I think its fair to say Gearbox has an above average pedigree for a smaller 3rd party, as well as an excellent attitude toward community involvement and some genuine belief in thier own products - At least in my opinion anyway, though maybe Ive been listening to too many of Randy Pitchfords near orgasmic PR rants.

Either way, listening to the scepticism (my own included) of the general community, I suppose I find myself wondering as to the difference in underlying attitude in the games and ethos of classic 90's developers like Black Isle or say, Westwood, to those of the corporatized gaming monoliths of today. The difference in our underlying attitude.
 
In doing so, i cant help but marvel at the commercial behemoth games have become. Or more to the point, I wonder as to the effect upon all of us as we grow acustomed to the uber-successful 'holywood' games of today - framed of course, importantly, within the industries transition into mainstream social acceptance.  
Is this having an effect on our expectations of game design? Or are the tenents of game design changing? Or is it the interplay of both perhaps that finds me so intruiged as to my slight feeling of, well, pointlessness at the thought of another 100 hours of relentless loot hoarding. 

I guess my point is this - Games have become such a viable and broad commercial product that the consumers (us) might only just be narrowly avoiding the wittling down of some of the very things underlied our original addictions to gaming - that wonderful niche of fickle escapism and the oh so uncool devotion to a medium that was wholely unlike any other. Simply put, that 'counterproductive conservativism' and cynacism I referred to a moment ago is a product of gamers being inundated with change, quality, range and rapid social/markety growth. We're spoiled as hell. 
 
Hence, I feel as though its only natural that in such a climate, the consumer begins to view anything less than a revolutionary, mind blowing, paradigm-shifting (or well established) blockbuster as well.... irrelevant. 
 
Its not very contemporary of me, and maybe its even backward, but I loved the fact that only ever so slightly did Starcraft resemble something I could see or do at a movie theater. Or read in a book. There is something so wholesome and fundamental to the role that gaming has played in my life that simplistic and primarily gameplay driven, utterly pointless games have played in my life. Diablo is great example.
And remember, the constantly shifting experience of video games is not brought about by some sort of implacable necessity - most sports havent changed in hundreds of years. Closer to the subject, board-games have hardly changed at all in my lifetime, if at all.  
Is the relationship between technology and video gaming immutable? Necessary? 
What is its effect on our experience as gamers, our expectations? What is the consiquence of rapidly constantly racing beyond conventions and designs that we wholely enjoyed. Before today, I'd never even stopped to consider if there was any alternative.

For instance; I wonder, if it had never been previously released, how would a Diablo do today? How would a game only barely driven by narrative that is utterly centred upon repitition and and an 'oh so nerdy' lust for gathering in game items of absolutely no real world consiquence, fair today? 

Now me, I love that shit. And chances are if your reading this then so did/do/will you.  But a striking question is how those notions translate with young gamers, kids whose first game experience was COD4, or Killzone 2, or Gears of War. How the hell do they react to such a concept?  
 
Perhaps more interestingly, how do we?  
I know that I for instance represent a broader community of gamers whose standards have shifted so radically over this generation alone that many of the fundamental concepts that drove my previous obsession with gaming have been practically thrown out the window. Today, seriously investing myself in a new game (especially for a full price game) practically requires the title to have such a command of narrative, gameplay, presentation, soundtrack and an overall cohesiveness of design that there is, practically speaking, little difference between the games I want and the blockbuster films, books, comics and TV that I otherwise ingest that I've barely stopped to think if im slowly concealing some of the things that made gaming so special for me in the first place.  
Or whether theres really much of a difference between the mediums at all these days.  Maybe my two most anticipated games at the moment, Uncharted 2 and Mass Effect 2, go a ways to illustrate this point.    
  
I suppose to more clearly frame my line of thinking - what does the advancement (and homogenisation with other mediums) of gaming actually achieve at its core?
Would the commercial failure of a current-gen dungeon crawler or some other such 'shallow' game in some way invalidate those hundreds of hours I spent playing? Could it have been better? Does it need mo-cap cut scenes, procedural animation, social commentaries, orchestral soundtracks and the rendering power of multi-core processors to increase my captivation? My enjoyment?    

Dont get me wrong, theres nothing wrong with these games nor by neccesity anything wrong with current-gen game design, and besides, thats a different discussion for another day.

My question relates to the impact of those inordinately high production values, massive PR budgets and very importantly - the rising acceptance and presence of games as a social and commercial entity - on us.
 
I suppose Borderlands set me off thinking about this topic because of its potential to utterly fail - not just commercially, but in the hearts and minds of gamers. Of me. I just dont think it would have in the past. Then again, maybe it wont now.

Regardless, have the shifting priorities and expectations of gamers relegated games that would have provided hours of fun, priceless escapism and care-free entertainment 6-10 years ago  -  to meerly antiquated games and notions that today engender hesitation and cynicism from the very same audience?

What are your thoughts?
Have we as gamers changed? What are the differences in our expectations today from those of the golden past? Have games simply gotten better? Or has sobriety and social maturity struck the goodwill from our perceptions and capacities for the humour-laden, gore-filled, simplistic and perhaps morally shallow gameplay fests of the past?

Love to hear everyone rattle-off on the subject.
Sam.