Retro look at expensive computer gaming systems
With all the buzz about Gamestop's super stupid Xbox 360 game bundles there's been a lot of speculation that the packages are the most expensive in the history of video games. Well, I had an inkling that this was probably a bit naive. So I dusted off my retro gaming books and loaded up Firefox and set off in search of the most expensive video gaming systems. Suprisingly, some of the most expensive systems were the most popular and groundbreaking. So here's the list with the prices at the time of release as well as prices adjusted for inflation, as they would be today. I used The Inflation Calculator to help me with price conversions. The main references I used were "High Score: The Illustrated History of Electronic Video Games" and Wikipedia.org.
The 3DO Interactive Multiplayer - $920.36 (originally valued at $699.99 in 1993)
This games console was the result of a partnership between Panasonic, Sanyo and Goldstar. The console featured an advanced feature set for the time, which was largely under utilised by games developers. All the titles of note were ports from other games platforms. This is a good example of where sticker shock really did put people off; $700 (or nearly $1000 today) was too much for people to pay for such an unoriginal game collection. The one legacy that the console left behind was the start of many of game franchises by EA and Crystal Dynamics. Whilst the system completely flopped, franchises such as Fifa, Need for Speed, Soul Reaver and Gex made their debut on the console, which later led to extended franchises on other (more popular) 32-bit consoles.
Neo Geo - $966.77 (originally valued at $650 in 1990)
The Neo Geo, released in 1990 by Japanese game company SNK, was technologically years ahead of its time. It features
colorful 2D graphics and high quality sound at the level of arcade machines of the day. However, there was a downside,
the price. At just under $1000 of today's money, the Neo Geo was an outrageously expensive console. It also featured
cartridges that would cost $300 dollars today ($200 then). The console gained a niche following of rich gamers that
could afford to buy the console and the games. The main innovation was memory sticks that players could plug into
arcade versions of the console, which they could save to, take home and continue on their own console. Neo Geos
still reach relatively high
prices on eBay.
Commodore 64 - $1207.04 (originally valued at $595 in 1982)
Despite being the most popular computer model of all time, selling between 17 and 25
million units, the Commodore 64 was a relatively expensive games machine by today's standards. However, it offered
extremely good value for money by offering unprecedented sound and graphics quality. Around 10,000 titles were created
for the computer, including thousands of video games. Even today it has an established following, with several
emulators for multiple platforms in development. The C64 would win the prize for best price/performance ratio
ever.
Apple II with 48KB RAM - $8560.26 (originally valued at $2638 in 1977)
Ironically this system was extremely popular due to it's low price, relative to the computers of the day. It was the first time middle class families could actually afford a computer. Like it or not PC lovers, this computer practically single handedly created the personal computer gaming market, inspiring home computer/gaming systems like the Commodore 64. Apple Computer itself released some popular titles, like versions of Hangman, Breakout and the popular 'Adventure' game. Steve Jobs' and Steve Wozniak's experiences at the early Atari helped make the Apple II such a popular gaming machine.
PDP-1 with SpaceWar! - $760,410.51 (originally valued at $120,000 in 1960)
This $760k behemoth tops our chart as the most expensive video gaming system of all time. Later on in 1971, Nolan Bushnell created a coin-op version of Spacewar called Computer Space. A series of events with this space game led to him founding the revolutionary game company Atari. Of course there were dozens of university computers used to create games, but Spacewar was the first. It also set the groundwork for game creation today. Spacewar was derived as a way of taxing the MIT super computer as well as demonstrating a consistent framework in a pleasurable and active way. You could say that today's games creation is carried out with exactly the same aims. Game developers are still trying to fully utilise the hardware of their chosen platform, whilst creating bigger and more diverse game worlds all the time keeping the game fun and active! So was the $120,000 that MIT paid for the computer worth it? Well since the Spacewar title developed for the computer kicked off a several billion dollar industry over the proceeding 40 years, I'd say so!
[Update: Due to a reader's request I've put up a preliminary listing of systems with their prices at release and their prices today. I wasn't originally planning on putting this with this article but whatever! I'll add any extra numbers that people want put in, so submit your numbers to the comments thread. Make sure to head over to The Inflation Calculator and calculate how much it's worth today.]
[Update #2: Added Neo Geo]
| Year of Release |
System | Original Price US$ |
Price Today US$ |
| 1960 |
PDP-1 | 120,000 | 760,410.51 |
| 1972 | Maganavox Odyssey |
100 | 456.11 |
| 1976 | Fairchild VES |
169.95 | 583.47 |
| 1977 | Atari 2600 | 200 |
649 |
| 1979 | Atari 800 |
999.95 |
2831.58 |
| 1980 | Intellivision | 299.99 |
759.36 |
| 1981 | VIC-20 | 299.99 |
669.04 |
| 1982 | Commodore 64 | 595 | 1207.04 |
| 1985 | NES | 299.99 | 512.19 |
| 1986 | Sega Master System | 200 | 342.6 |
| 1989 | TurboGrafx 16 | 199.99 | 311.73 |
| 1990 | Sega Mega Drive Neo Geo |
199 650 |
295.98 966.77 |
| 1993 | 3DO | 699.99 |
920.36 |
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
ervin @ Dec 18th 2005 9:41PM
so no Neo Geo stats? when i was reading the title thats the first thing that came to my mind.
Kamalot @ Dec 18th 2005 9:41PM
Sorry, this 'article' is a load of bull honkey.
The Comodore 64 and Apple ][ were home computers, not game machines. You could also list an Alienware up there as an expensive game system under these rules.
The 3DO downright sucked. There wasn't a reason to spend that much on such a crappy system.
Where are the real game systems like the Neo Geo and TurboGrafix?
"Suprisingly, some of the most expensive systems were the most popular and groundbreaking"
I like how the Xbox 360 is listed in here since it has neither been proven to be expensive or groundbreaking. If you were looking to justify the high cost of the Xbox 360, you just failed as the only 'game system' that it can compare to in this listing is the 3DO.
Where is the history lesson about the Saturn and Dreamcast launching early while everyone else waits for Sony's new product? That would be a much more valuable lesson to preach, not because people should wait, but because those consoles were never given a chance by consumers sold on hype.
Conrad Quilty-Harper @ Dec 18th 2005 9:41PM
Ok, kamalot. For a start the Commodore 64 and Apple ][ were widely regarded as popular machines for playing games. A machine that can play video games is a video games machine, although that's not all it can do. Secondly, when did I say that they were all perfect machines? I put the 3D0 down because that's a good example of a console failing because it was too expensive (anyway, the console itself was actually extremely advanced for the time). Thirdly, I stated that I put the Xbox 360 down for comparison! It was the thing that made me write the list in the first place so I might as well have put it down. Fourthly, the title of the article is: "EXPENSIVE VIDEO GAMING SYSTEMS". Not the best ones, not the weirdest ones, not the most innovative ones; The most expensive ones.
Constructive criticism generally relies on the criticism actually being valid. I was trying to put a retro slant on how expensive video games were in the past in comparison with these idiotic Xbox 360 bundles. You seem to have missed the point of the article entirely.
White Rose Duelist @ Dec 18th 2005 9:41PM
I agree that Kamalot missed the point, but I would be interested to see the cost of systems that were made solely (or at least primarily) for video games, both in release-date and 2005 dollars.
Vancaeyzeele @ Dec 18th 2005 9:41PM
This conclusion is wrong, you have to see how much the games costed: Microsoft can get over the price difference by asking too much for the games.
Everyone knows that gaming systems cost more to produce then the launch price. All these gaming systems were expensive but they lasted over three years and games were cheap.
Now games come on a worthless plastic disc that is stuffed in an even cheaper plastic case and a tiny manual.
It is wrong to have a fair compairision with unfair prices.
hi @ Dec 18th 2005 9:41PM
those systems were also using new technology, im not sure how NEW anything in the xbox 360 is
LaughingTarget @ Dec 18th 2005 9:41PM
There wasn't anything new about the NES either. It was just an Atari with a stronger graphics engine. Yet that didn't stop it from re-energizing the video game industry at its adjusted $512 price tag.
dan @ Dec 18th 2005 9:41PM
Some treatment of the classic failures - the Turbografixes, the Saturns, the Jaguars - would not be taken amiss. Or even possibly the classic successes - what would the NES's starting price be in today's dollars? SNES? The Atari? The Master System (okay a bit of an also ran, but successful enough that it got a sequel)?
soco @ Dec 18th 2005 9:41PM
IGN did this same thing a while back. here's the link:
http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/643/643170p1.html
they claim that all nintendo consoles have been released at 199.99$ originally. assuming that's right, we probably know the release price of the Revolution.
Kamalot @ Dec 18th 2005 9:41PM
"For a start the Commodore 64 and Apple ][ were widely regarded as popular machines for playing games."
There are entire sections of game stores dedicated to PC gaming yet who would call a PC a gaming device? Sure you can play games on it; it is a multipurpose computer, not a game machine.
You could get a Basic cartridge for your Atari 2600, does that turn it from a game console into a computer? You could run a web browser or Linux with mouse and keyboard on your Dreamcast. Does that make the Dreamcast a PC?
Unless you can run Office applications on your Xbox 360, you are abviously crossing the line by including the Comodore and Apple computers as game machines in this article. If your terms are going to be so vague, why not include every electronic device that could load and run a game on it? At that point, the data is useless.
Instead, you should focus on devices that were designed with the PRIMARY PURPOSE of playing games. Then you would be talking about game systems and not multi-function systems that happen to play games.
Kamalot @ Dec 18th 2005 9:41PM
http://www.ps3portal.com/?page=history
Eran Hawke @ Dec 18th 2005 9:41PM
Uh, it is kind of dumb to compare the price of the Xbox 360 to full-blown high-tech (for their time) compters. Even a mainframe? Come on. Why not comapre the price of a 360 to Macintosh since it can play games too?
I have to agree, in order for this article to be valid, it should compare the price of the xbox to the price of other game consoles, not computers.
It is like comparing the price of F1 cars to your Toyota Camry to jet fighters since they all have wheels.
Conrad Quilty-Harper @ Dec 18th 2005 9:41PM
Sure Kamalot, I take your point. I'll change the title of the article to: "Retro look at expensive computer gaming systems".
The fact is I only included the Apple ][ because a) it was a turning point in the history of video games b) it could be percieved as very expensive.
I was never going for a completely comprehensive comparison between game consoles and computer game systems, I was just interested in seeing what past consoles and systems cost and how much they'd be today, hence the laid back commentary on each system.
ymmv @ Dec 18th 2005 9:41PM
I can see the point of including the C64 on this list. This was really a home computer since it couldn't really be used in a business environment unlike the Apple II and PC. Most C64 owners (especially in the UK and US) got it to play games, since 90% of all C64 titles were games. The reason the C64 is stil fondly remebered is for games like Mission Impossible, Winter Games, Paradroid, Uridium, Zoids, Wizball, etc, not for application software like Geos, Vizawrite, Superbase or Easyscript. There were only a few serious C64 magazines in the mid eighties, most of them only catered to gamers. Zzap64 was a bestselling C64 magazine and it never ever covered apps and utils.
Ryan @ Dec 18th 2005 9:41PM
As poster #1 mentioned, where is the New Geo? That thing was absurdly expensive. When I started reading your article, it was the first thing that came to mind.. yet it's not there.
hi @ Dec 18th 2005 9:41PM
so my dads commodore 64 is worth 1200 dollars?
Steve @ Dec 18th 2005 9:41PM
Yes, this article is sloppy and nearly worthless. The inclusion of computers in a comparison of gaming systems is not valid because computers have many extra non-game-related features and components that add dramatically to the price. And the PDP-1.. come on. You should only list things consumers could buy at the time (although it would be funny for a one-shot joke at the end of the article). And why are you comparing an artificially constructed (by a video game retailer) Xbox 360 BUNDLE to the price of official manufacturer-released systems? How about just including the XBOX 360 by itself at its highest-priced configuration? This kind of ill-conceived and ill-executed post makes me strongly reconsider why I read this blog.
Conrad Quilty-Harper @ Dec 18th 2005 9:41PM
Steve, I resent your accusation that this article is "nearly worthless". You have failed to understand what I wanted to look at in this article.
1) I was not looking for a solid and equal comparison of video gaming system's prices. I was merely looking back in retrospect at previous game console's pricing.
2) The Xbox 360 is not part of the retrospective look back. It was the inspiration for this article I admit and I included it for comparison, but so what? I didn't include the Xbox 360 on its own, because that isn't particularly high in price! But if you can't cope with it's mere token presence I'll delete the section on the Xbox 360.
3) Why should I limit this post to consumer systems? It's not supposed to be a dead set comparison between similar consoles, just a bit of a reminiscing article about how expensive video game systems used to be!
Kamalot @ Dec 18th 2005 9:41PM
You should include this too...
http://www.alienware.com/alx_pages/main_alx.aspx
You can get this game system for only 4,648.00!
"1) I was not looking for a solid and equal comparison of video gaming system's prices. I was merely looking back in retrospect at previous game console's pricing."
You only included one video game console in the original article, the laughingstock overpriced 3DO. Not a very good retrospective of game consoles when most of the systems are computers and only one retro console is in the list.
"2) The Xbox 360 is not part of the retrospective look back. It was the inspiration for this article I admit and I included it for comparison, but so what? I didn't include the Xbox 360 on its own, because that isn't particularly high in price! But if you can't cope with it's mere token presence I'll delete the section on the Xbox 360."
Well, what are you trying to compare? Computers or video game systems? If you are trying to compare gaming systems then Xbox 360 should be in there along with its base prices, not a bundle deal. If you wanted to include bundles, you should take into account some kind of disk drive or tape deck for the Commodore 64 as well as a bunch of games.
"3) Why should I limit this post to consumer systems? It's not supposed to be a dead set comparison between similar consoles, just a bit of a reminiscing article about how expensive video game systems used to be!"
Because if you are including non-consumer game systems then it would include arcade cabinets and special video games like those found at Disney Quest. Virtual reality games where you stand in that ring and put on goggles would be in the list too. If the article is supposed to be about video game systems, then it should be about video game systems and not home/office/campus computers.
I hate to admit it, but IGN actually put together a much better article about putting the Xbox price in context as someone above already pointed out.
http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/643/643170p1.html
Im not sure what the point of such an unfocused and off-base article is about. Comparing the prices of computers that happen to play video games and using a huge bundle of Xbox 360 accessories and games as a starting point? Why?
Steve isnt alone in failing to understand what you are trying to look at in the article. Either you arent explaining yourself very well or the article does not make any sense.
Antonio @ Dec 18th 2005 9:41PM
I'd put the TurboDuo up there... and/or the TurboExpress. Both a first to do what they did (CD-Rom & play main console games on the handheld) and both were damn expensive and still are.
Devil's Advocate @ Dec 18th 2005 9:41PM
I thought the article performed the task admirably. It gave a brief insight to historical gaming costs and the adjustment for inflation with them. It was not an essay on the definition of a gaming unit, nor is it a definitive work on the history of gaming costs.
People will argue about anything.
No they won't.
Yes they will.
Conrad Quilty-Harper @ Dec 18th 2005 9:41PM
#21: Thank You. Absolutely right.
Pnice @ Dec 18th 2005 9:41PM
Pioneer LaserActive? Does it count as a console?
Sven @ Dec 18th 2005 9:41PM
Interesting article. I remember buying the C64 in 1984. The price was outrageous (well above $595, but I live in Northern Europe so it's not unusual for prices to reach and even go above UK levels), but I had the computer for quite a few years - and used it as often as I could. It's still working today, I only have had to change the fuses a couple of times :). I think some of the criticism here is misplaced. The 3DO was supremely expensive, and while certainly advanced, it had few titles made for it, and didn't seem to much more advanced than CD32, which was launched at around the same time at a much lower price. (Yeah, I love the CD32, and still have it, so I'm biased.)
Orbulon @ Dec 18th 2005 9:41PM
Stop harrasing Xbox 360. It may not be the fastest, and it may not have blu-ray, but there the downsides end. Who needs 6 USB ports when you've only used one on Playstation 2 (for Eyetoy) and who the fuck needs dual HDMI-ports when haven't even got ONE HDTV yet? And who will buy two and put in the same room? Xbox 360, comes standard whith what we really want. A really good online-mode and a harddrive. (ok, nearly standard)
And if you ask Sony what they're going to use WiFi for, they say "Communicate with PSP". But when you ask microsoft, they say "Internet connection, network connection, connedt to PC's and stream your music and videos to your xbox" (so you don't have to buy another realy big hardrive and copy all your media)
No, I'm not a Xbox fanboy. But it seems like everybody else are Sony fanboys. You don't see that Xbox has got just the same chance to win. And no, 360s not ugly, see som real in-life pictures for a change.
sabbath_dude @ Dec 18th 2005 9:41PM
I thought the article was very interesting.
Some people can take things way too seriously.
Eran Hawke @ Dec 18th 2005 9:41PM
I'll be damned...lookit this bit about the apple...
"Ironically this system was extremely popular due to its low price, relative to the computers of the day. It was the first time middle class families could actually afford a computer. Like it or not PC lovers, this computer practically single handedly created the personal computer gaming market"
Sounds like it was a personal computer, not a game system.
The more I come back to this article, the more I see it as someone trying to justify to themselves the high cost of the 360/PSP.
'Well, it was okay to spend a lot on a computer 20 years ago so I can drop a lot on my next console and feel good about it.'
Rationalize it all you want, but so far nothing has impressed me to salivate over any of the next-gen consoles.
Jason S @ Dec 18th 2005 9:41PM
I thought the article was great. It made me not feel so bad for having to pay $400 for my next console. Everyone else must have a case of the Mondays...
RoosterX @ Dec 18th 2005 9:41PM
I really liked this article, i believe those who critizise it - actually don't have anything else to do, made me think back to the old days, how much i loved my vic-20/c64 and later on Amiga AND also how much we really paid for those systems, i know i shall have one Xbox 360, not before christmas, since no SW title is gonna be any special that early after a release, the price i guess will not be lowered since it's already being 'cheap', i mean how much money dont many of us use on a PC, my GFX card is even more expencive than the whole Xbox360 system...and im a student, even i can afford the Xbox 360 system.. something i wouldn't have afforded back in the 80's when the c64 was launced.. ;)
hocka lugie @ Dec 18th 2005 9:41PM
no Jaguar or Jaguar CD or even Phillips CD-I?
roy179 @ Dec 18th 2005 9:41PM
Conrad, don't let the haters get to you. They've got no lives if they want to nitpick an article where someone did all the footwork to give them a new way at looking at something. This is just a games blog. Game on.
Conrad Quilty-Harper @ Dec 18th 2005 9:41PM
Thanks guys, I needed that support. It's not nice when the 1000 word article you've just spent 4 hours writing/researching gets trampled upon because of some stupid technicality.
Ed @ Dec 18th 2005 9:41PM
If you are going to include old computers, you should definitely add the CD-i. Also, listing PDP-1 is absurd-- what about modern day supercomputers? Or workstations? Hell, even Alienware computers.
Also, I'm not too sure why you decided to leave out the Atari 5200 and 7800.
Finally, there is an error in your listing. The "Sega drive" (I guess you were referring to the Mega Drive or Sega Genesis) was launched in 1989, not 1990.
I don't want to bash this article too much; I think it had good intentions, but is sorely misguided. However, anyone who can't get the name or launch date of the Sega Genesis correct, and who lists Apple II and Commodore 64 as game machines probably:
a) Has questionable credibility when it comes to discussing the history of the industry
b) Has not been playing games very long
Conrad Quilty-Harper @ Dec 18th 2005 9:41PM
The Sony Mega Drive (sorry, minor typo) was introduced in 1990 in the UK, so I assumed it was the same year in the US. That was off the top of my head so sorry for that.
I'm not going to go into the C64/Apple ][ debate again. I'm aware that they're not 100% games machines, that's why the article is titled "computer games machines".
I left out those Ataris because they weren't particularly expensive machines. This is about expensive computer systems primarily.
Ed @ Dec 18th 2005 9:41PM
"The Sony Mega Drive (sorry, minor typo)"
I will assume you meant Sega. :)
Conrad Quilty-Harper @ Dec 18th 2005 9:41PM
Woah, freudian slip!
Hans Spahr @ Dec 18th 2005 9:41PM
Great article!! Could you please add the original purchase price for an Amiga 500? Man, I loved mine.
Hans Spahr @ Dec 18th 2005 9:41PM
Great article!! Could you please add the original purchase price for an Amiga 500? Man, I loved mine.
Scott @ Dec 18th 2005 9:41PM
Your thesis is completely valid, Conrad. I've argued this for some time now, as well. The conventional wisdom is that $400 for a video game system and $60 for games is unprecedented and outrageous. What you've done is actually crunch the numbers and proven that those prices are well within historical paramaters.
Most of your critics don't really have a point. They complain that you didn't include such-and-such a system or whine that this-and-that system shouldn't have been included.
I think your inclusion of systems like the Apple II are instructive. Of course a personal computer is not the same as a dedicated gaming console, but how many consoles were there in 1977? If you wanted a machine that could play a wide variety of different games, a home computer was a logical choice.
By the way, a Magnovox Odyssey, which could only play Pong, cost $100 in 1972. Guess how much that is in 2005 dollars? $456.
I also remember buying my Atari 2600 in the early '80s for $150. That's almost $300 in today's dollars. Games were $30 a pop, which works out to about $55 today.
One commenter said this post made him question why he bothered to read this blog. After reading astoundingly rude and unfounded attacks like that, I imagine you must be questioning why you bother to blog in the first place.
Keep up the good work.
Ace25 @ Dec 18th 2005 9:41PM
Nice article. I agree with you putting in C64 and the others. I mean look at the Xbox today, it can run linux, emulate the majority of the systems listed, play all media formats, etc.. and it basically a PC inside, so you can say its multi-use as well but is sold as a game machine. Other "gaming" systems like the Amiga 500 where sold as PCs but where used primarily for gaming and to spawn that evil age of the "Demo Scene" lol.
I would like to see you list the other Atari machines (400, 800, 5400, 7200), the Amiga (500/1000/4000), and the rest of the obvious ones if you have the time. :) (SNES/N64/PSX)
I started gaming with my Atari 400 back in '82 with casette drive. Actually learned to write my own games in basic at age 7. Had a whopping 4k of ram which I had my dad pay to upgrade to 48k for $200. Although it was classified as a PC I believe, it was used as a gaming machine 90% of the time.
Ace25 @ Dec 18th 2005 9:41PM
Ooops, nevermind about those systems I listed, just read your looking for the most expensive at the time, hense the reason those where not listed. Maybe the Atari 400 would still meet the requirements.
Ace25 @ Dec 18th 2005 9:41PM
ok, last comment, the Atari 800 sold for $999.95 in 1979. That is $2831.58 today.
Ron Albert @ Dec 18th 2005 9:41PM
This article only reinforces the popular conception that blogging is not a legitimate form of journalism. Probably because it's usually written by 15 year olds who don't know what they're talking about, or at least people who write, think, and structure their "4-hour articles" on a 15-year-old level. No, this is not unfounded criticism. Anyone over 20 and with a brain can read this article and know this. But if you like this sort of thing, then be my guest and keep supporting Conrad's work.
Joseph @ Dec 18th 2005 9:41PM
I think this was a very good read. A lot of people are saying that because some of the systems compared can do more than just games it shouldn't be included. Even though they are used almost entirely for games. If that is the case then we can't compare the xbox 360 or the PS3 since they can play movies and stream hi-def content from your media pc. Does that mean it isn't a gaming system...must be a home theater, huh. Great blog Conrad
Chris Williams @ Dec 18th 2005 9:41PM
Where on your list is the ColecoVision ??
Scott @ Dec 18th 2005 9:41PM
Ron, care to offer any actual refutation of the points Conrad made? Or are ad hominem attacks all you have?
superberg @ Dec 18th 2005 9:41PM
While you do bring up some valid comparisons,comparing the Xbox 360 to "high end" expensive systems is misleading. There really is no equivalent to the Neo Geo or 3DO in the current console market. Saying the Xbox is high end would mean the Xbox was high end when it came out, and it cost just as much as the PS2. Granted, MS took a loss on the systems, but it wasn't a high end console. It was mainstream.
While I am not shocked at the $400 price of the 360, I do think the $300 core system can lead one to conclude that either the core system or the accessories are vastly overpriced. It's like buying a car: if you get a lower interest rate, you pay more of a deposit. It all balances out to you paying the same amount.
Tristan Jones @ Dec 18th 2005 9:41PM
Crikey people, a quiet reminder at what the internet is about.. the sharing of ideas without getting your head cut off! Geepers, if you don't like the article, stop drinking Coke and watching porn and do some research and write one for yourself!
Ron Albert @ Dec 18th 2005 9:41PM
You're right; that was mean, I apologize. I'm sorry, Conrad -- I shouldn't take this thing so seriously. I guess all that porn and coke got to me. :)
dan @ Dec 18th 2005 9:41PM
Geez! As a real-life journalist with a decade of experience, I'm used to people finding something to complain about in every article, but this is over the line.
Kamalot and Steve - my extensive research shows that you guys are douchebags. I'd be very interested in heard how old each of you two are, and wha you do for a living.
I thought the article was an interesting read, similar to hundreds of quickie "comparison" or "overview" stories almost every writer has under their belts. Just because *you* would have used a different metric or compared different systems, doesn't mean that everyone who comes up with something different is a moron.
An aside to the author -- journalism rule #1 is don't respond to every little complaint, and don't feel like you have to justify yourself to everyone.