@cantor2537 You're missing my point. I'm simply saying that if you were to purchase a PS4, the sooner you buy the system the less your total cost is per month over the duration or lifetime of the system.
I spend roughly ~65 a month on my cell phone. Over the span of 8 years, I will have gotten a minimum of 4 new phones. It costs me more to have a phone than it would to get a PS4.
As far as entertainment and utility go, video games are one of the least expensive things a person can buy. Really the sooner you buy one, the less it will cost you in the long run.
A PS4 over 8 years will run you a little over $4/mo
Things that cost me more than $4/mo:
Going to the movies
Going to the pool hall
Going to the gym
Netflix
Starbucks
I'm sure I could probably think of more things. If you waited until half way thru the lifespan of the PS4, it would still be only ~$8.50 per month.
I have already paid for my PS4, and many of my friends keep telling me what many people on Gamespot tell me, which is that they're going to wait, because of whatever reason.
I am going to have mine on day one, for one specific reason. The sooner you buy the system the less money it actually costs you. The longer you wait to buy it, the larger you cost to enjoyment ratio gets.
For example (assuming the lifespan of this generation lasts 8 years):
PS4: $399.99
PS+: 8 years = $399.92 ($49.99/year)
Games: 1 game per month for the life of the system $5759.04 ($59.99x96mo)
Most people I know don't buy 1 game a month on average. I owned a PS3 and a 360 and I don't think I owned even close to 96 games. If you only purchased on average 1 game every 2 months, you'd cut that way down:
$399.99 + $399.92 + $2879.52($59.99x48) = $3679.43 or $38.32/mo
Really the longer you wait, the more expensive gaming gets. I'm probably more of a 1 game every 2 months kinda guy and I spend more on my cell phone than $38.32/mo. I should also note that I used the same PS3 and 360 for the duration. I take very good care of my discs and consoles. I never had any issue with either system and I know many people did. I am planning on buying a warranty for my PS4 just to be safe.
I am offended at how eloquently you wrote this review. How DARE you have opinions and then have the nerve to explain why you feel that way in a level and rational manner. THE NERVE...What do you think this is...A GAME?!
Watch Dogs was the sole game I had planned on buying for the PS4 until The Order: 1886 come out at the end of the year. Now I really have no idea what I should get. I'm pretty much torn between Killzone: Shadow Fall or Assassins Creed IV: Black Flag. I'm not really as excited about either one as I was for Watch Dogs, but I'll need to get something.
Maybe I'll just have a paperweight for a couple months. I can look at it fondly imagining all the fun that lies ahead. I'm anticipating lots of Drive Club ( free with PS+) and maybe some indie titles to hold me over until the second wave hits.
I think when a video game tries to be a film, it can work if they reach a middle ground where it doesn't take away from the interactive experience. There are many games that do this successfully and you have a high level of control with the characters, but at the same time there is extremely cinematic moments and high quality writing ( Grand Theft Auto V, The Last of Us, etc...), but there are also games that come out that try so hard to be a movie that they actually remove interaction to strengthen their artistic intentions. This has the effect of giving a low level of control and the player is basically playing a movie which requires some infrequent interaction.
This can be a very slippery slope and while I cannot speak for others, I believe that gamers prefer more interaction and if they really wanted to go to a movie they would do as such. Gamers want their games to contain superb writing and acting, because they want to experience a great story, not a cinematic with quicktime events.
I think when a video game tries to be a film, it can work if they reach a middle ground where it doesn't take away from the interactive experience. There are many games that do this successfully and you have a high level of control with the characters, but at the same time there is extremely cinematic moments and high quality writing ( Grand Theft Auto V, The Last of Us, etc...), but there are also games that come out that try so hard to be a movie that they actually remove interaction to strengthen their artistic intentions. This has the effect of giving a low level of control and the player is basically playing a movie which requires some infrequent interaction.
This can be a very slippery slope and while I cannot speak for others, I believe that gamers prefer more interaction and if they really wanted to go to a movie they would do as such. Gamers want their games to contain superb writing and acting, because they want to experience a great story, not a cinematic with quicktime events.
SuperDutchy's comments