No, his thesis was “gaming consoles bad, get rid of them.” I suspect he’d say the same about gaming PCs if he ever used them-they require a significant investment in time and money that makes no sense for anyone that doesn’t want to waste a significant portion of their life.

The sad thing is that COD 1 and COD 2 were incredibly good. It’s just that it became a brainless shooter with a plot that made my head hurt starting with MW1 (I’ll say it. I’m not a fan of COD4), though it was interesting seeing how the series handled automatic weapons in a modern setting.

I consider myself a casual-I play a few games occasionally and that’s it. I don’t consider myself a serious gamer.

As a last gen console player, why should I care what happens to the experience on the current generation of consoles? Why should I be willing to spend the money to upgrade just to improve the experience of those who already own current generation consoles?

Your whole explanation doesn’t sound like how a free market should work-if studios really operate like this, they should be shut down. In that scenario, the executives would kind of be understanding the market’s signal-a lack of demand, for products of the quality that they provide. Those executives have apparently…

I don’t understand this argument. Why do we as consumers have an obligation to underwrite the production of a better quality product by a for-profit company? It’s not like Activision is a charity or something. Why not just demand better quality games and refuse to buy inferior quality ones?

You’re missing the point. It doesn’t make sense to spend extra money to purchase a next gen console when a last gen console does the job. After all, a dollar spent on a new console is one that can’t be spent on other entertainment/debt service/retirement/lighting on fire because you can/etc.