The thing is, there's an artificial expiration date on games that doesn't exist on movies. For example, there's not much price drop between buying a really old or a really new movie, maybe something like $12 versus $19 (assuming the film didn't totally suck). Although you pay a premium to get the latest stuff as soon as it releases, there's not much of a pricing floor. If Ghostbusters was good in 1984, it's probably still pretty good in 2012. Old movies are in print forever and preserved in some form or fashion, but games are gone forever unless the publisher makes an HD re-release much later. Most VGs come out at $59.99, drop to $14.99 within 6 months, and then vanish from public consciousness. If you didn't get it then, you're out of luck unless you can score a used copy. Not cool and not fair.
Plus, with games, lots of great titles were released in the 80's, 90's and 2000's, but because of "technological advances" - ie, graphics – people are only interested in the latest and greatest. What does that really mean? From the PS2 on, games haven't fundamentally changed. Yes, Metal Gear Solid 4 looks better than 2, but the game play is hardly different. PS3 titles just look like higher resolution PS2 games. And nowadays, the resolution improvements are just a matter of degree, not radically different like night and day (anything past the PS1's primitive polygons tends to look pretty good).
|Metal Gear Solid 2, 3, and 4|
Update: check out K's additional thoughts on the topic concerning Atari games and emulators
What do you think? Do games automatically expire or should they be preserved like movies? Would you still enjoy a game from 10 years ago?