Call it overstatement.
Call it hype.
Call it a public relations ploy.
But also call it true?
An Electronic Arts press release promoting the release this month of the PC version of BioWare’s roleplaying game “Mass Effect” suggests that gaming is part of green living:
Popular video games such as the upcoming release of “Mass Effect” for PC, offer consumers over 50 hours of entertainment. Compared to other things that you can get for $60 these days, video games like Mass Effect provide more value for your dollar. Going to the movies costs $10 for two hours of entertainment. For $60 at the movies, you would only receive 12 hours of entertainment, which is 4 times less than a video game such as Mass Effect. For that matter, $60 won’t even get some car owners a full tank of gas, which would likely only last a week. Why not stay home, save the environment, and play “Mass Effect”? [Emphasis Added]
Now clearly the person writing this release was trying to get my attention. And they did. But is there any wisdom to these words?
May 16th, 2008 at 11:58 am
Do I hear a cable company announcing they’re greener since with around $50 of cable subscription fee, you can get as much as 744 hours of entertainment (if you can stay up 24/7 without a second of sleep) without driving around? LOL.
But to compare Mass Effect’s (or any other game with long playtime) 50-hour-long entertainment to 2 hours of cinematic experience is like comparing TV series to a movie experience.
Do you want:
- long and well explored, but probably drawn-out and/or stretched experience, or
- compact and exhilerating, arguably more artistic experience in just 2 hours (and spend other 48 hours in something else)?
I’d go for the later, and use the other 48 hours meeting people, going out, prolly watch other good movies, and having fun. Or even some sleep.
May 16th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
I think it was a little tounge-in-cheeck, let’s not blow it out of proportion.