joe_collector

I'm not sure why you're so anti-BC, but clearly we are talking about RELEASE consoles and the importance (YOUR words) of BC in the first year, right? BC is only important (your words) until quality games come out, usually 1-1.5 years or so. Let's stick to that then.

Huh? I'm not standing up for anyone, just stating the facts. Outside of gamers who researched it, there was a clear expectation of BC in consoles, due it being a defacto feature for generations, even up to the Wii U. You've played games for a while right, and you don't feel there was any validity in the consumer expectation for BC? Come on. Let's say I don't read Car & Driver every week, and discover that my new car doesn't come with wheels - but all my other cars came with wheels, and the sales man tells me that "in September's Car and Driver webcast, we clearly stated that wheels are no longer a standard item". Clearly that is hyperbole to illustrate a point, but Sony and Microsoft totally changed the BC rules this generation, and I never saw one ad disclaimer outlining that it doesn't play PS3 / Xbox 360 games.

Not according to online polls, which had BC as the #1 factor in buying a new Xbox One or PS4 console. But Sony and Microsoft colluded (after all, they want you buying new PS4 release not playing old PS3 games) and none offered BC, which meant that ADD gaming addicts either had to skip this generation or suck on the MS/Sony teat. But like the used game fiasco, had the PS4 offered BC and the Xbox One not (or vice versa) that would have had a serious impact on sales. I own both consoles, and games + controllers for both and if one had included BC, I would have bought 2 of them first day. And I'm not alone, but again, due to collusion there was no choice.

I thought the same thing, and remembered back to the Xbox 360 and how absolutely terrible those first wave/year of games were. There were a few good ones, but the release games were horrible and most were Xbox games with a spit-shine, and I decided to save my money for when it makes sense.

Hate to state the obvious, but the general public had no clue and I've seen a people at Futureshop, EB or Best Buy complaining that their PS4 or Xbox One won't play their PS3/360 games. I've heard the same story from friends, relatives, etc. that had no clue that they couldn't play their old games like they could on the Wii, PS3 and Xbox 360. At a recent post-Christmas party, a few parents were complaining about it - "Why did I buy it now?" when their kids are still playing the PS3 and the PS4 is gathering dust due to no killer games. When they bought it, they thought it would play last-gen games to make up for the year or so you need to wait for the hot PS4 titles, just like the generations of the past. Outside of hardcore gamers who read up on this stuff, how can you expect the average person to have a clue - it's not like Sony or Microsoft advertised this omission.

Exactly, and why would anyone want to keep old systems, controller, peripherals, et al, all up and running, when with BC you can just load any game you want. I find it incredibly bothersome to have to keep boxes and boxes of controllers and other just to finish up some games, when I didn't have to with the Wii, Xbox 360, PS3 or PS2. That's the great thing about PC gaming or buying through STEAM, you can play games you bought decades ago on your brand new system.

Wow - seriously? I guess I'm just a traditionalist. Whatever costume Hank Pym put on, he was always Antman to me. And Pym was also Antman during the BA, like in the Avengers Ultron issues.

No, there will never be backwards compatibility with PS3 or PS2 games, and what you're referring to is the online server-based gaming Gaikai system that Sony bought. This is a cloud-based system where access is granted on a monthly subscription basis to stream a *very limited* number of "the most popular" classic titles. That's not backwards compatibility, and is very similar to retro browser-based games that run off a central server. After reading what I wrote, I think I may have worded that incorrectly. But you're right. It's not backwards compatibility but only a solution for the backwards compatibility problem. No it isn't, it's just Sony's way to make money by double-dipping into the wallets of nostalgic gamers. It's no different than their PS2 Classics (what % of PS2 games are available?) line on PSN, other than it being cloud-based. First off, Sony has stated that there will only be a limited number of games available, with only a few at launch, so lots of PS3 and PS2 games will never be available (like all the superhero ones and other licenses) and the PSN/indie/IOS-level stuff will far outnumber the retail disc games. Secondly, you will have to pay a monthly subscription for this, and Sony will double-dip and certainly not allow disc-game owners to play for free. Now, this might be worth it for some people (Sony retail games will probably be there - GoW, Infamous, LBP, etc.), depending on the launch library of *other* game publishers, but it's certainly not a solution to the current BC woes, and only Sony would try to spin it like that.

By the time I buy one, Sony will have worked out the kinks on their release hardware and shrunk the chips even smaller, making it a win-win for yours truly.

That's absolutely insane, if they can do all that for $100.

No, there will never be backwards compatibility with PS3 or PS2 games, and what you're referring to is the online server-based gaming Gaikai system that Sony bought. This is a cloud-based system where access is granted on a monthly subscription basis to stream a *very limited* number of "the most popular" classic titles. That's not backwards compatibility, and is very similar to retro browser-based games that run off a central server.

The Xbox 360 and PS3 were actually the first generation of home consoles that I don't feel any particular need to upgrade, especially with all the juicy deals on PS Plus. They are "good enough" for me, and while I will upgrade in a year or two (when the next Elder Scrolls or Borderlands game pops up), with no support for PS3 or Xbox 360 games on the new systems, there's certainly no reason to hurry. I can remember with the PS3, when they announced that BC was going away, searching madly for a MGS4 SE. Now, who cares when you buy? And damn, are there some great free (and almost free) games on PS Plus - I'm on some gaming forums and laugh when the PS4 newbs continually ask "how can I play the free Borderlands 2/DMC/Dragon's Dogma/XCOM/Bioshock Infinite/etc." on my PS4?

But who really cares about the first appearance of Scott Lang? I know about movie hype, but this is getting pretty lame when the original Antman/Hank Pym gets ignored. And I'm far from jealous or whatever, as being a hardcore Byrne collector, I have piles of this stuff.

Whoa, where did all the recent posts go? Was there a flamewar that I missed?

I don't know if anyone has figured out in which magazine is the first to include Boba Fett.

I really wish people would stop bastardizing the word "variant" to mean "anything different from the USA" and try to understand that in Canada, UK, Europe, etc. our comics are "regular" to us. A "variant" is a comic that is different from the standard edition printed in that country, and was sold on the exact same shelves. The word variation is more fitting than calling these books variants. No, they are standard Canadian, UK, European, Mexican, Philippine, etc. editions, no variation from any other comic on the stand. It's easy to understand the distinction when you realize that the sun doesn't revolve around the US.

I really wish people would stop bastardizing the word "variant" to mean "anything different from the USA" and try to understand that in Canada, UK, Europe, etc. our comics are "regular" to us. A "variant" is a comic that is different from the standard edition printed in that country, and was sold on the exact same shelves.

foreign variants or foreign editions?

And it's not like there aren't a zillion other HG copies of that book to get signed. This kind of thing is where I really wish SS had never been invented.

I think we can also add the Romance books to the omission. Lots and lots of Romance books in the 1950s. Yep, see my previous commnet:

The biggest omission in this whole "Ages" are the Western, Crime, Horror and Monster/Sci-Fi genre that absolutely ruled the late-40's, 50's and into the 60's. That's the reason Marvel dropped their superheroes, to make money on the most popular genres, but because these didn't translate into marketable characters owned by DC and Marvel, they are hastily swept under the carpet. And even by a superhero-centric view, it doesn't make sense, as DC was pumping out a pile of Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, etc.-based books (more than any other genre) and it was really only Timely (which would switch gears and fire everyone at the drop of a hat) that jumped ship to Monster-Land and killed their superhero line.

Well, then other than the Golden Age, there really are no "Ages", as comics were chugging along just fine in the 50's and 60's and even if you crazily used a superhero-centric view, DC hardly stopped producing superhero comics during this era. If you look at comics as a whole, then there was only the Golden Age that started it all, and that's it. Trends changes, but comics never stopped being produced and the only reason we have the SA is because superhero fanboys looked back with 20-20 hindsight. What about all the Westerns that ruled the plains during the 40's and 50's? Where's their "Age"? The funny animal books? The humor books like Archie? Cartoon books from Harvey? Romance? Horror? Crime? Don't they matter?

That book used to pop up all the time, but as the number of variant collectors grow, the free range copies are drying up.

But is Columbia Comics actually a dealer buying for resale? irrelevant. If we're going to be pointing fingers about resale we're going to be pointing a lot of fingers. You put a price on a book, and you get that price, its irrelevant. Of course it's relevant, and this very issue was brought up when CGC first setup the Forum-Only Selling Areas. The potential for abuse of forum goodwill was the main consideration, and you have to remember that back then, some people were being extremely generous in giving forum members a good deal. But I believe (and I may be wrong) that CGC stated sellers could put a "no dealers" clause in their sale thread if needed and if there was mass abuse, then it would be re-examined. Anyone confirm that?

But is Columbia Comics actually a dealer buying for resale? Yes, and we're gonna have to live with it. There are plenty of dealers buying for their stock here. If they see a good deal, why wouldn't they? I remember that being a point of contention when CGC first started the Forum-Only Selling part of the site, and there was a "wait and see" kind of attitude towards the unfortunate potential of "dealers using forum goodwill to restock their shelves". I think the consensus was that if it got really bad, and some dealers were abusing it, then it would be re-examined. I have no idea if CC is abusing it or not, but even CGC realized that some people are looking to "give a deal to forum collectors" with lower-than-market prices, and are not intending dealers to buy them out and then charge double at retail.