Bare Knuckle Pickups Forum
Forum Ringside => Guitars, Amps and Effects => Topic started by: Jonny on July 29, 2009, 11:09:20 AM
-
I'm at my dad's work today, and eating a pie, I obviously had a bubble of thought on guitars.
Specifically cheap ones, like Squires and then the moderately acceptable like, in the case of Fender, maybe the Mexican built ones.
Now I was tryingto think like a new beginner to the guitar and thought - if i wanted a guitar, I'd want a good guitar not necessarily knowing that there were a great big difference to them. Hence why I would look at the cheap guitars, unaware of the hugely great difference there is in build quality and general "I $%&#ing love this" kind of feeling that you feel later on.
So if your dad, who would possibly buy your first guitar went into the guitar shop and asked to buy a beginner guitar, they would generally be directed to a guitar kit. The usual Squire guitar, with amp, lead, and everything to get your kid off his ass and into some music and possible theory.
So - why do I think this is wrong? Maybe it is wrong or right in some ways but I think in the long run if you put work into potentially lower guitar, i.e. the Squire then you could have a quality guitar (without knowing it, let's remember that) and have a good investment. There are hundreds of guitars out there that are absolute shiteE. And surely you could get off your feet and look into making them better and eventually the price would very much so decrease to the suitable level of a middle class family man with a kid headbanging to some Black Sabbath or tapping his foot to some blues or jumping off the walls and flinging his arms to some screamo (excuse the stereotyping).
Like the Yamaha Pacifica for example, and I only know its goodness from ear so sorry if you disagree, don't blame me. It is generally thought as a good quality guitar and more and more people I hear recommend a Pacifica over a Squire. I unfortunately didn't get that advice when I bought my Encore - but that's in the past!
And also, if a guitar is build like shite, sounds like shite, feels like shite (not the warm and pungent (sp) type "feel") without a doub ti think some kids would give up on the guitar cause it doesn't 'work' with them. It's just a piece of wood put in a certain way to give you as much satisfaction when you buy, then disappear altogether when you use it.
Thoughts? Just want to talk about something as obviously I'm so $%&#ing excited with pie in hand and working for my dad (without getting paid)
Like, the way I thought about it in my head was the general lacking of range in guitar models in the shop, like you'd have a Stratocaster/Telecaster American Standard but have half a dozen Squires in different colours. Why not a Deluxe? Or even a Deluxe from the Mexican range, or the Lonestar, or a HSS setup for Christ's sake. Sometimes you have to set your God damn money grabbing hands aside and think about the general fun you could have and the person buying if you differentiate a bit.
But now I've lost myself in how to link that with my original argument so there's two arguments for you.
Why can't they make shite guitars better (and I mean like Fender and Gibson, not some random company who can't achieve the favorable diminishing returns) like, eventually they can get their prices down again.
Maybe I'm just having one of those thoughts that will ultimately end in - that's life, it grabs you by the balls, not the other way around.
I'm probably just annoyed at them cause I'm in Belfast, Northern Ireland and maybe the company controls the stock but still.. I had to talk about it, cause you know, I'm so excited right now.
-
They have to make cheap guitars cheap, otherwise they wouldn't be cheap ;)
Plus, Fender or Gibson want you to upgrade to their more expensive models. Why make an Epiphone LP that looks and feels like a '59 reissue? That's no use to the marketing department is it??
-
The primary objective of guitar companies is not to make guitarists, its to sell guitars. It should all make sense viewed in this light.
-
I remember when I first started playing (I had a gap of about 8 years before I picked up a guitar again) the guitar I had was very, very bad. I think it was a black Encore Strat copy* (through an awful, awful Samick amp). This probably contributed to me stopping playing and I don't even know why I started again (I bought an Epi LP and Marshall Valvestate amp**).
The way I see it is that the quality and range of 'cheaper' guitars is so much better nowadays - vintage, squire (particularly CVs), daisy rock (yes, I have one - it was bought for my daughter) and yamaha all make good 'entry level' guitars but you still need to spend a little more than you would on those encore starter packs.
Basically cheap guitars are there for a reason - find a good one and it will push you down the route of getting a more expensive model maybe from the same manufacturer (not always better IMO). Find a bad one, like I did, and it can make you stop for a while.
*My dad bought it for me.
** I tried out a number of different amps and guitars and went for these.
-
Sorry, I only got as far as "pie". :(
-
Yeah, we dont have enough information here to make a call
What kind of pie?
Hot pie or cold pie?
What sort of pastry?
We need more pie info! And more pie. I dont have any pie. Could go some pie too, I'm hungry.
-
As Dave says, it's all about costs. In order to market guitars at different price points, they have to control the costs sufficiently to still make a profit at that price point.
Although in fact I'd guess the profit margin on the starter models is much, much less than the margin on the high-end models.
Anyway, I think I disagree about cheap guitars being shite. Even the cheapest Squiers are amazing compared to the starter guitars which were around 30 years ago.
Even if they are shite, can that kid with his first guitar tell the difference? He won't have tried many better guitars to compare it with. I think most kids are just pleased they have something they can plug in and make a noise. Then in a year's time they'll either have given up or they'll have learned enough to want something better.
-
One of my mates bought short scale Daisy Rock butterfly guitar for his daughter in the USA - it was not cheap (around $200) but it is $hite!
-
My first guitar was awful but the crucial thing may well have been that I paid for it, rather than it being paid for by a relative, so for my first year of playing I was just glad to have something to make some noise on.
That said I then upgraded to a nicer guitar a year later and before that I had got what I consider one of the best solid state practice amps in the form of the 10W Kustom amp (and not even the hybrid one; this one was fully transistor and still sounded plausible.).
-
30 years ago - a copy guitar - a cheap one cost about £100
Today they dont cost much more whilst other thigs like house prices have gone through the ceiling
The guitars you got 30 years ago weren't always that good either- a lot of the cheapies these days are fairly well adjusted straight from he factory.
You do have to choose carefully though with the ultra cheapies
But if you spend just a bit more you get a much better guitar
Look at brands like Shine, Indie, Samick, Cort- fantastic build quality most of the time
-
Even if they are shitee, can that kid with his first guitar tell the difference? He won't have tried many better guitars to compare it with. I think most kids are just pleased they have something they can plug in and make a noise.
I wouldn't have been able to compare my encore with a higher end guitar but I somehow knew that it sounded awful - it was truly, truly awful and fairly obvious to me that it was that bad. This is probably why I had a large gap between stopping and starting again. I had no way of affording better quality stuff and the encore really did put me off wanting to play.
-
my first guitar was a nylon strung acoustic - was pretty ropey, but not too bad.
then i got an epiphone flying V, and a sansamp.. funny, but i still play a V (though a gibson one) and a sansamp today. i don't think its a coincidence - they got me at an early stage. but that epiphone was actually a really great guitar, totally giggable.
agree those encore starter kits, and the like, a pretty bad - horrid frets, shiteety materials.. and low end squires aren't much better frankly. i suppose they are making them to a cost, and £69 for a guitar and amp is totally shaving things to the bone.
the step up to lets say, mid-range epiphone, and high end squire quality is massive as you point out, although that is 3-4 times the price at least. and then 4x more again gets you into USA made stuff.
there is a way you could carve a niche in the price bracket just below epiphone, as vintage have done for example - thats the space they play in. i don't think one could compete in the lowest price bracket range - thats a complete numbers game.
£69 isn't bad as a throw-away experiment if you want to learn, but as ian says - those guitars will put you off!! going for something like an epiphone is much less of a throwaway expense.
-
Without wanting to sound like one of the four Yorkshiremen — kid's of today don't know their born etc.........
The quality of budget guitars these days is light years ahead of what was available when I started playing, and as Feline says the price hasn't really gone up in cash terms. The Woolworths guitars of the 70s/80's were about £100 and were absolutely terrible. Nothing I've played made recently is anywhere near as bad as those guitars.
OK a budget guitar won't sound as nice as a more expensive guitar, and certainly wouldn't hold up "on the road" as well, but they can be made to play very well, so anyone learning on one of these instruments won't be hindered by the unplayability of their first guitar.
-
If a kid and his dad walked into a halfway decent guitar shop (yes a shop rather than a mail order or web shop), then the shop assistant is he was any good would talk the pair through what was on offer at what price.
They would try to upsell to the better quality package - that might only be £50 more but has a much better instrument in it.
They would point out the pros and cons of the better package and it's up to dad which one gets bought
the reason that the shop will often have both the cheap and the pricier pack in is so if Dad says No to the higher price one , then the shop still gets a sale rather than sending him elsewhere.
If you ask me - no guitar on its own should cost less than £130 and it should be of Squier standard series (rather than Affinity series) quality to begin with. That means that a beginner will have a better guitar to play on which should encourage them a lot more, and there will be les probelms in the future.
The player should also be made to feel the value of what they have bought and cherish it and keep it safe.
Too often the cheaper price stops kids from respecting their guitars and they view it like any other "throwaway" commodity like cheap trainers or whatever.
-
you could give a kid an expensive range of gear and yet he'll sound like the complete beginner he is... but in terms of feel a really cheap instrument can turn him down... many friends of mine started playing on horrible guitars directly plugged in their hi-fi sets and of course never really got into music... i remember one of them with his strat copy completely painted with marker pens... to make the pickups sound he had to put it so close to the strings that the slugs pinched them every time... i remember he paid 40k ITL for it. used. today's 20€... a real nightmare!
my dad bought me a used (full of setup issues, but definitely better than i could handle at the time) USA strat for 700k ITL, an awful chinese Yinbao 15 w amp (single - clean - channel) and a Boss SD1 pedal. an year later i bought a used Boss delay/reverb pedal and began to enjoy REALLY...
i went on playing, that friend of mine not.
-
If a kid and his dad walked into a halfway decent guitar shop (yes a shop rather than a mail order or web shop), then the shop assistant is he was any good would talk the pair through what was on offer at what price.
They would try to upsell to the better quality package - that might only be £50 more but has a much better instrument in it.
They would point out the pros and cons of the better package and it's up to dad which one gets bought
the reason that the shop will often have both the cheap and the pricier pack in is so if Dad says No to the higher price one , then the shop still gets a sale rather than sending him elsewhere.
If you ask me - no guitar on its own should cost less than £130 and it should be of Squier standard series (rather than Affinity series) quality to begin with. That means that a beginner will have a better guitar to play on which should encourage them a lot more, and there will be les probelms in the future.
The player should also be made to feel the value of what they have bought and cherish it and keep it safe.
Too often the cheaper price stops kids from respecting their guitars and they view it like any other "throwaway" commodity like cheap trainers or whatever.
Spot on. Good shops should add value.
Really guitar player shouldn't whinge about the cost/ quality of guitars.
Compared with most other instruments we get off very lightly.
-
I don't know if the quality of guitars is the main reason for kids to stop playing guitar. I started out on a horrendous cheap given up home project of a guitar and played it almost a year before I bought a new one (a Ibanez RG320 which sucked too :lol:)
I kept playing because I had fun with my friends. We had this 3 piece band and even though we all were very bad mucisians it was great fun. If I hadn't played with anyone I don't think I would have continued even if I've had a really great quality guitar.
My main point is, that I find it understandable if a kid gets a guitar, sits alone at home practicing, and finds out that it's actually not that easy to play Stairway to Heaven (or any other desireable song) and then quits playing after a half or a whole year. If that kid had someone to jam with I'll find it less likely that he/she would quit the guitar.
-
I don't know if the quality of guitars is the main reason for kids to stop playing guitar. I started out on a horrendous cheap given up home project of a guitar and played it almost a year before I bought a new one (a Ibanez RG320 which sucked too :lol:)
I kept playing because I had fun with my friends. We had this 3 piece band and even though we all were very bad mucisians it was great fun. If I hadn't played with anyone I don't think I would have continued even if I've had a really great quality guitar.
My main point is, that I find it understandable if a kid gets a guitar, sits alone at home practicing, and finds out that it's actually not that easy to play Stairway to Heaven (or any other desireable song) and then quits playing after a half or a whole year. If that kid had someone to jam with I'll find it less likely that he/she would quit the guitar.
you're damn right... but i began playing with friends at least some month after i started to play at home. getting easy with the guitar is maybe the first thing... ok, i can't play properly my favourite songs but it's fun anyway!
-
Aaaaand on the other hand, my first guitar was a Hondo Deluxe 760. It was a horrible guitar. Still is. I wanted to play, though, so I learned to setup a guitar, I (badly, but one learns through such things) leveled the frets, shimmed the neck in to a not-stupid angle, recut the nut...all within a few weeks/couple of months of starting to play. Yes, I did a rubbish (or very unpolished) job, but I made my horrible barely playable guitar into a horrible playable guitar.
If you want to learn to play, you WILL pesevere (and learn to/teach yourself guitar techery in the process :lol:)
Next guitar, 8 months into playing, was a jackson DX1 (top end MIJ circa '98) that was my main guitar for the next 6 years and is still my number 2 (or 3 depending on my mood). What a $%&#ing difference it made! But I wouldnt have not played if I didnt get a good guitar.
-
I wanted to play, though, so I learned to setup a guitar
The whole techincal thing might also be an angle for a youngster to start or keep playing guitar. If you dig electronic stuff it might be harder to put down the guitar. I can't say for sure as I just recently started to take interest in the technical aspect of guitars. I played guitar for aprox. 15 years thinking that what you buy is what you're stuck with and it can't be changed
Luckily I have now turned away from the dark side and taken my first minor padawan steps into the great knowledge of the guitar force
-
I wanted to play, though, so I learned to setup a guitar
So did I - and then I kept going ........ mending and making guitars
Still cant play very well , but I make a pretty good guitar :D
-
I wanted to play, though, so I learned to setup a guitar
So did I - and then I kept going ........ mending and making guitars
Still cant play very well , but I make a pretty good guitar :D
That is an absolute lie Jonathan. You played amazingly on my seven string.
-
Plus, Fender or Gibson want you to upgrade to their more expensive models. Why make an Epiphone LP that looks and feels like a '59 reissue? That's no use to the marketing department is it??
The primary objective of guitar companies is not to make guitarists, its to sell guitars. It should all make sense viewed in this light.
exactly (to both quotes). Once companies get over a certain size, and especially if they get "the name" like fender or gibson, where they become an aspirational brand, they have an almost captive market. they then can almost forget about competing with the other companies, and start worrying about not competing with themselves- making sure that cheaper models don't cannibalise their more expensive models, that kind of thing.
EDIT: your dad is a pie-taster?
-
I got better at spending money on gear; what do I win?
-
^ a repossession of your house if you miss one repayment, because the banks have screwed themselves?
Oh, and while I agree that guitars are probably getting cheaper and better, I don't think that's any reason to let companies off the hook. Things generally do improve, that's the nature of research etc. I mean, look at a computer from the mid 80s and then look at one now. You wouldn't use the same logic to tell someone that he/she was getting a great deal on a computer now compared to what they cost 20 or 30 years ago, because all computers are much cheaper now.
EDIT: my first guitar was an ibanez rg470. Actually a good guitar (japanese), but spoiled by the trem. If i were doing it again, i'd have sucked it up and got the 550 or 570 with an edge. I guess that's the advantage of starting a bit late, i had a bit more spare money (student loan ftw!), and considering i played other instruments, I knew I'd stick with it, so i didn't have to cheap out to hedge my bets in case I gave up. though of course if i could have I'd have preferred to start earlier, even if it meant a worse guitar.
-
But guitar advancement is nothing like computer advancement.
The most advanced guitars possible have already been around for ages - the wood is there, the electronics are 70 years old.
-
i know it's not the exact same, but more advanced production techniques (CNC etc.), not to mention just increased consumerism and shifting more boxes, is bound to bring the prices down.
EDIT: my point wasn't that guitars are anything like computers, anyway. My point was that computers are another industry where prices have fallen while quality has risen in the past 30 years, and you wouldn't use the prices of 30 years ago to determine whether or not you're getting a good deal on a computer today. I'm saying it should be the exact same with guitars, just because a starter guitar was a piece of cr@p and expensive 30 years ago doesn't mean you should put up with it today if most manufacturers are putting out decent starter guitars for reasonable prices.
-
Yes, I understand your point, but I think its an inapropriate analogy because the technologies are so fundamentally different.
Reasonably steady demand means a reasonably secure market worth investing in, variations in taste mean room for experimentation and diversity and the ability to create and expand holes in the market, and improvments in manufacturing reduce production costs and increase consistency and turnover. Of these in the guitar world the latter is probably the biggest factor in cost reduction along with always being prepared to look for somewhere to put your factory where you can pay the fewest people the least money. That last one, more than anything I would say, is where the budget guitar has benefited the most.
-
of course, i'd agree. My point is that my point is only looking at the fact that the cost has reduced, which, if you ask me anyway, is an appropriate enough analogy- how or why the price has reduced, or the technology involved, is irrelevant. When you're trying to decide whether to buy anything do you look at the going rate and quality now, or the going rate and quality 30 years ago?
if you want, i can change my analogy from computers to TVs, or shoes, or whatever. the specific product isn't really important.
-
Well, the PC and microelctronics in general is an extreme illustration of that (wide enough demand drving down prices without overly hampering production quality), but the biggest obvious difference is obsolecance. Guitar gear doesnt do it, in electronics its inevitable - we all know as soon as a computer or phone is on the shelf its obsolete, and that also keeps demand high.
Cars might be better. People still like old cars, they dont go totally out of the window every 5 years because the next thing is better in every possible way.
Unless someones getting nostalgic for their old 386? :lol:
-
Speaking of which, does anyone remember that game on windows 3.1 where you were skiing down a mountain and no matter what you did you got eaten by a yeti? $%&# that shite, Crysis is WAY better.
-
A lot of guitars are bought by relatives who have no idea of what they are getting but just know that junior wants an electric guitar. Issues such as quality are not uppermost in their minds and they are perhaps thinking that junior will lose interest so best not spend too much. I overheard two people discussing buying a guitar for someone in Argos. They bought one over the other because it had more pickups which they seemingly equated to better value for money as you get three. Not that they knew what pickups were by the sound of things.
-
The choice today is amazing, the quality / price is the best I have ever known.
I think the Squire Classic vibes could be your only guitar at any level.
I played a kay SG guitar that had been round the whole school. 2 screwn held a piece of metal in place that was something resembling a trem. I learned Hendrix and Led Zep on it. The posh kid I knew had a brand new Encore!
Sh*t used to be acceptable until you got good enough to get something better....
-
Are Squire CVs REALLY that good? I thought I'd be OK going with a MIM Strat for my techno/synth guitar but, really - are they? Who on the board has one?
-
I think squier has done pretty well. they're still pretty cheap, but the quality of them is going up.
However there are a lot of other brands like encore etc who are there purely to be cheap, so they're generally pretty terrible.
It depends on many factors but i know kids have a very short attention to span to a lot of things. one minute little jimmy is screaming 'i want to play guitar, i want to be like *insert trendy band name*.' then two weeks later he wants to be the next tony hawks or something.
I totally believe in getting something cheap to start with to see if theyre keen and stuff, then upgrade later. however, you have to get 'the best of the cheapest' like squiers/pacificas/vintage rather than the cheapest pile of poop available, otherwise that could put him off majorly.
I played a Squier strat for the first 3 years of playing, then saved up for a USA strat when i was more serious.
-
Well, the PC and microelctronics in general is an extreme illustration of that (wide enough demand drving down prices without overly hampering production quality), but the biggest obvious difference is obsolecance. Guitar gear doesnt do it, in electronics its inevitable - we all know as soon as a computer or phone is on the shelf its obsolete, and that also keeps demand high.
Cars might be better. People still like old cars, they dont go totally out of the window every 5 years because the next thing is better in every possible way.
Unless someones getting nostalgic for their old 386? :lol:
yeah, of course, the obsolescence thing is something where guitars are very different from most other products. i still say the analogy was close enough, though. :)
speaking of old games, i liked a lot of the old games. there was kind of a golden age around the late 80s/early 90s where computers were getting enough power to make a game not just look like 2 red lines and a dot, and where they could actually implement more complex styles of game (e.g. civilization, settlers etc.), but where most of the game companies were still small and were allowed and encouraged to be original, instead of just cranking out tomb raider 57 or the latest rushed-out movie franchise.
that being said, plenty of new games are good, and plenty of the old ones were rubbish too, so as always it goes back to treating everything on its own merits...
oh, and i just realised i typed "technology" when i meant "analogy" in my last post, sorry :oops:
-
I think squier has done pretty well. they're still pretty cheap, but the quality of them is going up.
However there are a lot of other brands like encore etc who are there purely to be cheap, so they're generally pretty terrible.
It depends on many factors but i know kids have a very short attention to span to a lot of things. one minute little jimmy is screaming 'i want to play guitar, i want to be like *insert trendy band name*.' then two weeks later he wants to be the next tony hawks or something.
I totally believe in getting something cheap to start with to see if theyre keen and stuff, then upgrade later. however, you have to get 'the best of the cheapest' like squiers/pacificas/vintage rather than the cheapest pile of poop available, otherwise that could put him off majorly.
I played a Squier strat for the first 3 years of playing, then saved up for a USA strat when i was more serious.
I started with a squier (an affinity strat, could take new saddles/bridge and a neck, but sounds pretty good nonetheless). I also have another squier (standard this time, needed the extra fret). The standards are made of agathis (which is quite unfortunate if you don't find one that sounds reasonable). I managed to luck out and found one that sounds pretty decent (good lows, moderate but strong mids, but lacking in highs). Once I manage to secure some reasonable funds, I'll probably switch out my bridge HD for a C-Bomb and add a PK neck. The ceramics actually do pretty well in it.
-
Well, the PC and microelctronics in general is an extreme illustration of that (wide enough demand drving down prices without overly hampering production quality), but the biggest obvious difference is obsolecance. Guitar gear doesnt do it, in electronics its inevitable - we all know as soon as a computer or phone is on the shelf its obsolete, and that also keeps demand high.
Cars might be better. People still like old cars, they dont go totally out of the window every 5 years because the next thing is better in every possible way.
Unless someones getting nostalgic for their old 386? :lol:
yeah, of course, the obsolescence thing is something where guitars are very different from most other products. i still say the analogy was close enough, though. :)
speaking of old games, i liked a lot of the old games. there was kind of a golden age around the late 80s/early 90s where computers were getting enough power to make a game not just look like 2 red lines and a dot, and where they could actually implement more complex styles of game (e.g. civilization, settlers etc.), but where most of the game companies were still small and were allowed and encouraged to be original, instead of just cranking out tomb raider 57 or the latest rushed-out movie franchise.
that being said, plenty of new games are good, and plenty of the old ones were rubbish too, so as always it goes back to treating everything on its own merits...
oh, and i just realised i typed "technology" when i meant "analogy" in my last post, sorry :oops:
Fine then!
I think people get confused with old games. Memory is a hazy thing. If you had civ and civ 4 or doom and crysis or privateer and X3 next to each other, I know fine well what everyone would end up playing!
-
My son (aged 9) wanted to start to learn so I got him an Epi Les Paul Junior (supposedly MIJ) - the body is nothing to write home about but the neck is really nice and it plays much better than the £70 that it cost me. OK it does not have much variety in sound from one P-90 but as a learner guitar it does the job. Never tried a Chinese one to see if there is any difference but this one does seem to have quite a good level of finish and feel on the neck - for me, this is the thing that can really put kids off - a nasty neck!
-
Fine then!
I think people get confused with old games. Memory is a hazy thing. If you had civ and civ 4 or doom and crysis or privateer and X3 next to each other, I know fine well what everyone would end up playing!
i still play my old games all the time, I'm not going by old, hazy memories (though of course nostalgia could be playing a part). I'd play them more only a lot of them won't work on newer machines... I think i need to download a decent DOS emulator or something like that. :lol:
EDIT: i haven't played civ 4, but i've got civ 3 and 2, and have played civ and civ net- i agree that civ 3 is the best (though it's still plagued by the same annoying AI problems), but often older games don't get sequels, and it's not guaranteed that they'll be better settlers 2 is better than the first one (actually more or less the same just with a few more features), but settlers 4 is horrible, they completely changed it and it killed it.
Depends on the type of game, too, of course. and I'm certainly not saying that all new games are cr@p, certain games just couldn't be done with older machines.
-
I dont object to old games...but newer is typically better, in my experience. I liked civ 2 better than civ 3, though, at least in part because of the videos of the status analyst people, and when you were at war and winning the military guy was drunk :lol:
-
that's true. I lost my cd rom of it, though, so i can't get the videos any more. :lol:
and remember the annoying trade advisor in modern times, "let's do lunch, sir!". nearly made you wish you were in recession so you didn't have to listen to him.
Main things i like more about civ 3 is the borders and culture aspect, and also the whole resources/luxuries aspect, both of which make it a lot more realistic. In civ 2 the other teams could have armies 2 miles outside your capital and not be at war because there was no concept of borders, and also it's a bit daft when you can make musketeers but have no saltpetre...
the rest is more or less the same, though, bar slightly fancier graphics.
-
Well, the PC and microelctronics in general is an extreme illustration of that (wide enough demand drving down prices without overly hampering production quality), but the biggest obvious difference is obsolecance. Guitar gear doesnt do it, in electronics its inevitable - we all know as soon as a computer or phone is on the shelf its obsolete, and that also keeps demand high.
Cars might be better. People still like old cars, they dont go totally out of the window every 5 years because the next thing is better in every possible way.
Unless someones getting nostalgic for their old 386? :lol:
ahh, the days of dual 5.25" dual floppy drives, no HDD and booting up to DOS 8)
-
I remember having an Apache helicopter game that I bought in a garage type sale in my school gymnasium. I spent ages trying to get it to work, but the floppy disk prevailed! And I was literally like:
HOLY shite- FIRST I'M IN A HELICOPTER, NOW I'M IN A HOVERCRAFT, BLOODY HELL!
It was an awesome game.
-
I dont object to old games...but newer is typically better, in my experience. I liked civ 2 better than civ 3, though, at least in part because of the videos of the status analyst people, and when you were at war and winning the military guy was drunk :lol:
well, the close combat series has still got its beauty... even if theatre of war is way better (in terms of graphics, realism and complexity), cc III to V remain among my favourite games of all time...