The Xbox/PS2 coverage discussion thread

[Gabe]

In the Issue 117 Feedback thread there is discussion about more focus on Xbox/PS2 in future issues: somebody said they didn't want to see it, and the following posts were made to suggest why it should happen:

the amount of mails I get requesting Xbox making ofs is getting silly at the moment) so there will be an inevitable shift.

fantastic news, the mag will die on its ar5e if it doesn't start getting PS2/Xbox etc covered more often.

all those kids that were 8,10,11,12 etc from 2002 onwards are now adults and the Xbox and PS2 are more realtive to them. Fact is whether you personally feel they are retro or not, those are the consoles they grow up with and they are the untapped readers that are becoming available.

So I totally agree with you, its probably about time to start introducing them.

There is also Darran's poll about 'Sections of RG', where there is a pretty even split between 8, 16 and 32-bit coverage, which would suggest (on the forum at least) that people are interested. Darran mentioned he's had a number of emails of late too, for requests for later coverage, though we don't obviously know the number.

But does that really tell us anything useful? All this feedback has largely come from already-established readers and the poll doesn't tell us how many people would strongly dislike seeing 32-bit coverage.

Taking the post above, I'd be amazed, for example, if those who were between 10-15 when the Xbox and PS2 were current would (in any significant number) be the same people that would have any interest in buying a magazine (not specifically RG, but *any* magazine) now. As purely children of the internet, the way they consume media is quite different, for starters.

I'd be further amazed if the average age of RG readers was anything less than about 35; people who will have likely seen the (arguably) biggest change in gaming - the move to 3D, and for whom there would have been an explosion of new worlds, content and experiences. There hasn't been any change so significant since that until the Wii, really.

You could also argue that as the teams creating games jumped in size, finding people that actually had any significant input (outside of "I was graphics artist #24 out of ~100") or stories to tell that are interesting will diminish somewhat. Maybe.

It's certainly conceivable to suggest (I obviously have nothing to back this up at all) that a heavier focus on Xbox/PS2 would lose more established readers than create new ones.

Just for clarity here, I'm not saying at all that those consoles shouldn't be covered (will equivalent PC titles of the time be included, by the way?), just that those that enjoy that coverage are likely to be existing readers, not new ones.

I will also set out my stall and say I don't mind what coverage we see, though I do think the stories behind the games are more interesting during the 8 and 16-bit heyday.

So, 2 questions:

Edit: Poll now added.

[The Laird]

I totally agree with everything you said.

If the there was anything after Dreamcast I would definitely be put off. The only machine I own after this is the Wii.

I am 36

[SJ_Sathanas]

1) None, so long as there was a reasonable balance.
2) 32

I really hope this doesn't descend into another petty "is it/it isn't retro" argument as it's getting boring.

[necronom]

I agree with what Gabe said.

If the focus went more towards 32-bit or later, I'd have hardly any interest in it, and would sadly consider ending my subscription. 8-bit is what I want it to focus on, with a bit of 16-bit. Like you said, the interesting stories are likely to be from the 8/16 bit days, and the older people are the people who are likely to buy the mag.

I'm 41.

[TMR]

You could also argue that as the teams creating games jumped in size, finding people that actually had any significant input (outside of "I was graphics artist #24 out of ~100") or stories to tell that are interesting will diminish somewhat. Maybe.

Probably less so than it initially appears. The focus does shift away from the programmers or graphics artists and towards the designers or project managers but, if their stories are still compelling, that really shouldn't make a difference. Have a look at the credits on 16-bit era games because the shift away from "one man band" coding had already started by that point; something like Thunderforce 3 or Whip Rush on the Megadrive took seven or eight people and Myst arrived before the original Playstation courtesy of about fifteen.

It's certainly conceivable to suggest (I obviously have nothing to back this up at all) that a heavier focus on Xbox/PS2 would lose more established readers than create new ones.

It really depends on how much heavier a focus; if we were talking about the majority of RG being taken over then people would absolutely have a point but nobody's said anything like that. If it's more subtle and about opening up the existing article formats to cover some of the more recent games, that could prove to be fantastic if the tales behind them are good ones.

So, 2 questions:
1. Is there any specific machine/era/focus that would stop you from buying the magazine if it became prevalent?

Absolutely not.

2. How old are you?

41.

[Gabe]

1) None, so long as there was a reasonable balance.
2) 32

I really hope this doesn't descend into another petty "is it/it isn't retro" argument as it's getting boring.

I hope so too, because that isn't the intention at all; for the record, I do believe that it is retro, but that isn't really the point here.

[Gabe]

TMR, we broadly agree - I think it is all about interesting stories. Whilst I may be a bit of an outlier here, I read the mag purely because I love gaming and want to be entertained: I don't get any nostalgia-hit or even play retro games these days (nor have done for many, many years).

Anyway, to answer my own questions (I've now added a poll to the OP):

1. Yes, repetition of content (something I've mentioned in the past).
2. 36

[merman]

I'm 38 and there's no era/machine coverage that would make me stop buying RG.

As I have said in these discussions before, documenting interesting stories behind the development of games and hardware is what RG does. Take issue 117 - the interview about Space Invaders Infinity Gene was interesting and added some extra flavour to the Space Invaders piece. It's modern, yes, but it's a key franchise and a way to get more people interested in the old games.

That's not to say I want to see every page of RG filled with PS2 coverage, but that there is room when it adds to the story.

[Hitman_HalStep]

1.none
2.36

[gman72]

Im 40 and there is no specific focus that would stop me purchasing the mag. You all know what kind of shift in focus I would prefer and that has not happened yet and im still buying the mag.

[Megamixer]

What's all this 'Xbox/PS2'? Does anybody remember the Gamecube?

Anyway, the only console coverage that would put me off would be the PS3/360 era. I think PS2/Xbox/GC is fine in small dosages as is already happening with the Future Classics articles and the other odd, small piece.

[markopoloman]

I voted No (over 40).

It is a hard thing to balance though, isn't it. I'm 60% 8-bit, 20% 16-bit, 20% PC after those. Not really got any massive interest in consoles or ps2/xbox/gamecube - but it wouldn't stop me buying the mag.
What I don't want is for the 8 and 16 bit stuff being removed - it has to count for a good percentage of the mag for me to say I have enjoyed the issue.

[deadpan666]

I voted No...(I'm 36)...

Obviously I don't want to see the mag start to just focus on later machines, but to be honest I don't think it ever would.

But Retrogamer does need to think about some PS2/Xbox/Gamecube coverage! I mean, someone who was playing PS2 at launch aged 12 (which was the age I got my Speccy) will now be approaching 25 years old....and it's 7 years now since the PS3 was launched!

In my opinion, a lot of potential new readers will be reaching the age when they start getting nostalgic for the games they played in their youth...I mean, I was 27 when I first picked up the mag!

And it's also perhaps worthy of note, that the Super Nintendo was only 12 years old when Retrogamer started back in 2004, but no-one complained about the inclusion of articles about that console within the pages then...

[Darran@Retro Gamer]

I don't understand your post or your poll.
It seems to suggest I have some sinister agenda to start exclusively covering Xbox and PS2 at the expense of 8-bit stuff which is clearly ridiculous. Can you explain it a little clearer as I genuinely don't understand what you're trying to get at.

Edit
Ah I get it and upon re-reading it it doesn't suggest an agenda at all.

You're basically saying would you stop buying Retro Gamer if a certain era became prevalent. I did notice that you don't say how much coverage is too much though, suggesting there would be more Xbox/PS2 stuff at the expensive of 8-Bit, but that would never happen.

Anyway, I voted No and I'm 39
Although I guess my vote is pretty much wasted seeing I determine the magazine's content anyway

[Gabe]

You're basically saying would you stop buying Retro Gamer if a certain era became prevalent. I did notice that you don't say how much coverage is too much though, suggesting there would be more Xbox/PS2 stuff at the expensive of 8-Bit, but that would never happen.

Nope, no agenda, just interested in what existing readers think as there's an interesting discussion to be had and I'm glad this thread has been conducted in a very civilised manner, considering that it can be an emotive subject.

I didn't make any reference as to 'how much is too much', partly because I think that comes from a standpoint of it all being a bad idea (which I don't think it is), but mainly because that's down to the individual - for some, any is too much (as well you will know).