Backwards Compatibility - Yes Or No

[jamcat]

Ok, I already know how Shane feels about backwards compatibility, but what about other gamers here? Do you think new systems should have automatic backwards compatibility included?

Here is a interesting feature on the subject taken from:

http://arstechnica.com/columns/game/gars-11202003.ars

By Devon Welles , Frank Torkel

Console-ation prize

Calvin: We got some excellent replies from our readers last week on our backwards-compatibility musings, most of them in this discussion thread. OneInTen was the first to post what many readers seemed to feel — that backwards compatibility exists mainly to lock your present user base into future generations.

You're missing the point. The point isn't to sell old games. It's to sell consoles that will cause people to buy new games. Sony made the Playstation 2 backwards compatible to protect market share. If it wasn't backwards compatible, then the choice between the Playstation 2 or another console would be purely on merits. However, with it being backwards compatible, Sony figures that a Playstation 1 owner is more likely to grab a Playstation 2. So I don't think it's about trying to sell old games to new gamers, it's trying to sell new consoles to old gamers.

The "maintain your market share" argument is an interesting one, and one I hadn't considered strongly before I wrote last weeks column. As far as I know, there are only two "mainstream" consoles that have had backwards compatibility — the Playstation 2 and the Game Boy line. The Game Boy line, despite a distinct technological inferiority to its competitors, hasn't been seriously challenged in years. It attained its dominance long before backwards-compatibility was a factor, but I suppose that is one reason for its dominance. Of course, in the mobile market, backwards compatibility is more critical than the home market — space is of the essence.

But did the Playstation 2 become the dominant console of this generation because of backwards compatibility? Well, I'm not so sure.

The Playstation2 came out before the latest Microsoft and Nintendo consoles, while the Sony hype machine got people to ignore the Sega Dreamcast (in my opinion the best console ever made). At the same time it included DVD playing ability (when DVD players were more than $100) and played most Playstation 1 titles flawlessly. So what sold the most consoles before the competition came out: the launch titles, the hype, the DVD player, or the backward compatibility? Honestly, I have no clue, and I think they all played a role. But I'm not sure backwards compatibility played the biggest part, or even the second biggest. Perhaps we'll find out more in the next generation if one company chooses to forego backwards compatibility.

I think you're forgetting about economies of scale. If a console is released with backwards compatibility, most people are going to grab the new console (even for $100 more) before the old one. That ramps up your production very fast, and that lowers costs. For example, one part I had quoted was $100/part in quantities of 10 and $20/part in quantities of over 100. That savings translates to either more profit, a further reduction in cost to drive gamers to that particular console, or less per-console loss. R&D costs for something like a console would be fairly small in comparison to the number of consoles sold. Spending an extra million on backward compatibility makes sense when that saves them (through increased sales early on) $5/console for the first half-million units.

I think you and Frank are missing one factor in game console reverse compatibility (RC). You may know more about the guts of these things, so please correct me if I'm wrong. If the previous games are on special cartridges, then you impose the hardware costs of sockets to maintain RC. If games are all on disk, then there aren't any real hardware issues, all costs are in making the new CPU instruction set include the old instructions (or fast emulations of them). This is an NRE, non-recurring expense (except for the additional femto-acres of silicon).

So, in summation, I'm convinced backwards compatibility has an upside for the manufacturer, I'm just not sure how large it is.

[jamcat]

Unlike the PS3, the Xbox 2 will not have backwards compatibility:

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?section_name=dev&aid=3645

Stupid move by Microsoft if you ask me. Why? As the article points out:

However, a report into the videogames industry published today by Wedbrush Morgan Securities senior vice president Michael Pachter disagrees with this conclusion - arguing that failing to provide backward compatibility could have the effect of alienating Microsoft's existing Xbox installed base.

"In the event that Xbox Next is not backward compatible, we think that the device will be very slow to grow its footprint," the report warns, while elsewhere it suggests that such a move could damage the company's long-term prospects for the console.

[Shane R. Monroe]

Hey, I have NO PROBLEM with one generation of compatibility, despite what I portrait.

I needn't worry about Xbox 2 ... I DID say that they were going to screw it up didn't I?

There is a company working on an emulator - GOOD LUCK WITH THAT.

[kittendaddy]

GBA and PS2 get high marks for backwards-compatibility in my opinion. I'm a huge fan of it, when it can be done.

That having been said, I'd hate to discriminate against new hardware from other vendors just because there's nothing for them to be backwards-compatible to.

Here's an interesting thought, though - let's say the Gamecube 2 is backwards compatible, for the sake of argument. Since I own a PS2, I'm more apt to get the Gamecube 2 than a PS3 because it opens up two new lineups of games (with the Gamecube's lineup), and not just one.

Re: the XBox, if Microsoft wants to shoot themselves in the foot, power to them :). I'd love for the dominant two consoles in the next generation to be owned by Sony and Nintendo. Not sure if it'll happen tho...

[jamcat]

I think it's a great thing. It keeps your investment in older software safe. And it does help companies keep loyal customers. Though I'm sure I'll be mostly playing PS1 games and PS2 retro collections on the PS3 more than any PS3 games. Unless there are PS3 retro collections of game I don't already have for the PS1 & PS2. :)

[Bryan 'KidHype' Smith]

I must be missing something here or i am truly getting really really old but since when did a system pass or fail based on backwards compatability. None of the 16 bit consoles were backwards compatable and they seemed to do just fine. I honestly think the PS2's backwards compatability hurt the way the PS2 games turned out (aka graphically ugly looking games that play slow). I think its dumb to go, "Well if the next Nintendo console can't play my 100 NES carts, 50 SNES carts, 42 N64 carts and my 50 Gamecube disks, then Nintendo can kiss my ass!" You do realize that when you start demanding backwards compatability, you are either going to end up with:

1) A humungous handheld or console (you think they magically make these systems backwards compatable and no hardware takes a hit?)

2) A $300 handheld that plays EVERYTHING or a $500 console that plays everything...sorry...can't afford it

3) Backwards compatability thats not 100% (see PS2 for details, plus you end up having to have that damn older console out anyways cause your favorite game didnt make the comptability list.

You should not be buying a new system based on what games it used to be able to play. I guess next you are going to demand that the system is able to use the older controllers too. Thats called being a cheap ass. I am sorry, I don't want to buy a handheld or a console based on if it can 98% of the time play my old library. Thats what emulation is for.

[jamcat]

Well, the 16-bit Genesis was backwards comaptible with 8-bit Master System games by way of the Power Base Convertor.

I'm not picky on controllers, but you can use PS1 controllers on the PS2. :)

[Bryan 'KidHype' Smith]

Well, the 16-bit Genesis was backwards comaptible with 8-bit Master System games by way of the Power Base Convertor.
Thats not being backwards compatable, thats just a add-on adapter. Those have been around forever for all game systems post Atari era (well, you can count the Colecovision one). I am speaking of true backwards compatability built in to the system.

[jamcat]

Ok, granted it was a add-on adapter. But like with backwards compatibility, it did still allow you to play your older 8-bit software on a newer system.

Being still able to play your old software by either add-on adapter or true backwards compatibility is still a nice feature.

It's all a matter of preference. Some people want cutting edge graphics in a new system. I want backwards compatibility.

[Yodaporn]

Personaly I love backwards compatibility. I once had an nes, snes, gen, sms, saturn, jaguar, 2600, and an offbrand pong machine. And I somehow did manage to play most of them at least once a week. Now at the time I was the kind of kid that dident care how clutterd the living room floor got, but looking back on it, it was a nightmare. Even if those systems were only one gen backwards compatible I could have well cut down on the clutter (freakin 2600 should have a had pong built in :)).

But maybe multi gen compatibility would be just a bit too much, streching the hardware so far that parts of it are stuck in the past. Hopefully the ps3 will just emulate the ps1 and 2. And if they are emulated, please god let us up the resolution on the ps1 games and let us anti-alias the ps2 games.

[Nectar]

The way I see it there are two classes of people who own consoles. The dedicated ones (hardcore gamers if you wish) and people that are just there for the ride (casual gamers). If the new consoles aren't backward compatability, the industry will lose a significant portion of that latter half and gaming will go back to teenage boys and hobbyists.

However, I still don't see the general public plopping down $300 for a new console every 5 years ... backward compatable or not. It took nearly 8 years after the arrival of DVD for them to finally let go of their VHS tapes, so even if the PS3 is three times more successful than the PS2 and the PS4 is four times more successful than that, they're going to lose these people eventually if they don't slow down this 5 year progression thing.

[jamcat]

But if the systems are emulated, how is it stretching the hardware? Hell, by the time the PS4 comes out, I'm sure they'll have the PS1 and/or PS2 on a chip. Plop a PS1/PS2 chip in, emulate the PS3, and the PS4 is good to go.

Yeah, be nice if console lifespan lasted 10 years instead of 5.

Though I don't know why consoles always come out at a $299.00 price point. The price drops later on anyway, so why not come out with a console at $149.00 in the first place? Could you imagine the PS3 launching at a $149.00 price point? The system would sell like crazy, and Sony would continue market share lead in the PlayStation brand.

[JayP]

At this point- who doesn't have a PS2? If the price were $50 - $100 difference between for back-compat, then no PS3 only. I can live with my little PSTwo and a PS3 sharing space (by then the VCR will be extinct).

Maybe if we could load old PS1/2 games onto a harddrive, then I'd bite. Otherwise, it's no big deal.

[Bryan 'KidHype' Smith]

Though I don't know why consoles always come out at a $299.00 price point. The price drops later on anyway, so why not come out with a console at $149.00 in the first place? Could you imagine the PS3 launching at a $149.00 price point? The system would sell like crazy, and Sony would continue market share lead in the PlayStation brand.
The consoles come out at that price because thats the most they can charge without taking a major hit (aka loss) on the product. The reason why the systems drop in price is because it becomes cheaper to manufacture (like dvd rom drives drop in price, they figure out how to cram the same amount of components in less space, etc). I think psones should cost $29 because i know for a fact a 4x cd rom drive does NOT cost $50.

At this point and time, Sony and M$ aren't making money on the consoles (even though they can't risk taking a jamcat type hit on the hardware sales) but on the software. If the software doesn't sell like they expect, the hardware price stays where its at.

[Darksol]

The price of these consoles is simple supply and demand economics. The first PS3s will be more expensive for early adopters ( This is the way that most tech products work if you have taken Marketing 101 ) and then once that product enters the general consumer phase then they will lower the price of their product because one :
1. They probably will need to lower the price so both Joe Sixpack and Joe Millionaire can afford it.
2. They can go back to their component suppliers and say that they need 10x the number of parts to build all these new widgets. The supplier will then sell the components at a much cheaper rate.
3. Manufacturing efficiencies will be up the more that are made. ( less mistakes on the product line, etc. )

The early adopters will pay a lot more than you to buy x gadget. If you can't match them , then wait your turn :)

[Shane R. Monroe]

I think it's a great thing. It keeps your investment in older software safe. And it does help companies keep loyal customers. Though I'm sure I'll be mostly playing PS1 games and PS2 retro collections on the PS3 more than any PS3 games. Unless there are PS3 retro collections of game I don't already have for the PS1 & PS2. :)

AH... and here is where your directions are misguided Grasshopper.

You're under the illusion that people BUY and KEEP software. Not so. The stupid turn around at GameStop, the UNGODLY popularity of rentals, and many other factors are at play. Games are designed to be DISPOSABLE. So, when consumers get their 25 hours out of it (save one or two big favs maybe) they sell, trade, get rid of the old games for the new ones.

Sure, if games were meant to be kept - I'd get it. But they aren't.

[Shane R. Monroe]

Bryan summed it up best. Backward compatibility has issues. Whether its COST, COMPATIBILITY, or even just STIFFLING the next generation product - its not a free ride.

I like ColecoVision's approach. You want to play something else on this console - YOU WILL PAY. It seems to be the best way to handle it. You want the handheld to do something it wasn't designed to do, you pay. Good enough.

ONE GENERATION; its not unreasonable to hope for that.

I knew, going in, that the PS2's backward compatibility was sketchy - and I bought it to play NEW GAMES - I still have a PS1 (hooked up in the kid's room) - so I have 100% compatibility fallback. If you have a PS2 and ditch your PS1 - you got what they gave you. Someone will make a Nintendo DS GB/GBC "bridge" adapter (which will basically contain the same crap as the GBA did to play them) and THOSE THAT WANT IT will have the ability to play those games on that system.

But, don't ask ME to pay for that feature. I don't want to be charged extra for my 2004 Nintendo DS because R&D cost more or they had to throw in another chip or redesign the thing because someone wants to run 1993 games on it. And while you can think "it was free on GBA" - it wasn't. Part of my $99 was spent on making that unit play games I didn't care about.

You better PRAY that the Xbox2 fails ... if the word goes out that people don't care (which is the way it probably is) then you can hang up ANY backward compatibility from now on. MS see, MS do.

[JayP]

If the Atari Lynx played 2600 games, they'd still be in business (the real Atari, not Infogrames).

[Shane R. Monroe]

heh ... maybe. I'm hoping we get an Activision Anthology for the DS ... maybe I can get games running at the right speed :)

[Chewchilla]

If the Atari Lynx played 2600 games, they'd still be in business (the real Atari, not Infogrames).
Hell, why not wish for 5200 compatibility as well. Nothing like having game cartridges that are BIGGER than the system you're playing them on. ;)

[kittendaddy]

I think the best compromise is the adapter route (like Genesis did). That way you get (and pay for) it only if you want it. If the adapters are perfect, that'd be more preferable to me than keeping around the old consoles together. Our house is small, and I pretty much have to let something go if I want to add to the clutter...

[Bryan 'KidHype' Smith]

You know what i dont understand, speaking about 2600 compatability...why no one has tapped into the retrogaming handheld market. All us suckers have tons of NES, Colecovision, INTY and Atari carts laying around, make a handheld for each system, charge $50-$100 for it. You know we are sluts...we'd buy them all up in a minute!

[JayP]

http://www.classicgaming.com/vcsp/PictureX.jpg

http://www.classicgaming.com/vcsp/

Maybe?

[Danny]

nintendo have reliased a mini nes like a hand-held/plug-and-play thing in japan... I had the chance to buy one from this import shop in Bournmouth, I'll have to check how much that sucka was worth in the UK heh.

[Shane R. Monroe]

The guy was making them in limited quantities for like $400 for awhile. Demand was so high, he just said screw it.

[Bryan 'KidHype' Smith]

nintendo have reliased a mini nes like a hand-held/plug-and-play thing in japan... I had the chance to buy one from this import shop in Bournmouth, I'll have to check how much that sucka was worth in the UK heh.
The story i heard was bandai was going to release a handheld NES in the early 90's and nintendo stopped them. Any handheld NES you see on the market are illegal.

The guy who made the handheld 2600 made a bunch of retro-handhelds and tortures us with pictures on a monthly basis. It seems he does it as a proof of concept more than anything else.

[jamcat]

Well, the MAJORITY of games I buy, I keep. And there are lots of titles for the PS1/GB-GBC I still enjoy playing.

Here are the PS1 titles I still play:

Rollcage Stage II, Test Drive 5, Driver, Pro-Pinball Big Race USA, Pro-Pinball Fantastic Journey, Roll Away, Billiards, Turn About, Tall Infinity, Tempest X3, Atari Anniversary Edition Redux, Namco Museum Vol. 1, Namco Museum Vol. 3, Williams Arcade's Greatest Hits, and Midway Arcade's Greatest Hits.

As for the retro arcade collections, while they are on the PS2, I find the PS1 versions emulated better. The only reason I have the PS2 versions is for the games that are not in the PS1 retro arcade collections.

On the GB/GBC side, here is what I still play:

Hexcite, Ballistic, Klustar, Trouballs, Logical, Marble Madness, Prince Of Persia, Wings Of Fury, Rampart, Mr. Driller, Elevator Action, and Montezuma's Return.

I'm a puzzle game freak. And the GBC has some kick ass puzzle games, so why wouldn't I want to still be able to play them? Sadly, the GBA is lacking in good puzzle games. The only decent puzzle game I've found for the GBA is Denki Blocks.

I shouldn't have to stop enjoying or playing these games because they are old. That is why I am all for backwards compatibility.

[Bryan 'KidHype' Smith]

Jamcat,

Why are you buying newer systems in the first place ( I can understand with the PS2 but not with the GBA). Seems like the only thing the newer systems can give you is backwards compatability. There is no law saying if the machine is backwards compatable you have to buy it even if you will never buy a new game for the handheld or console you are looking at. Main reason why i will probably never own a DS is because I haven't seen anything that makes me go, "I NEED THIS". Same with a PS2. Backwards compatability should never be a end all, be all requirement to get you to buy a newer system. It should always be about the games the newer system has to offer (aka the killer ap).

PS-Ever heard of MAME? Does a hell of a lot better job at playing classic compiliations than the PS1/PS2 crud avaible. Just a thought

[jamcat]

Even though I mainly play older stuff, I do like to play "newer" stuff once in a while. Sadly on the PS2 there isn't much "new" stuff worth playing. My ENTIRE PS2 collection is basically 6 games: Stuntman, Gradius V, Atari Anthology, Activision Anthology, Midway Arcade Treasures 1, and Midway Arcade Treasures 2.

The only "new" PS2 games I have any interest in getting at the moment is the remake of Area 51, and Pinball Hall Of Fame. I love video pinball games.

As for the GBA, besides that it can play GB/GBC games, I enjoy the system for 2D gaming. What made me get a GBA was Metroid Fusion. I'm a sucker for a good old school 2D platform action game. And I also love the MANY Atari, Activision, Namco, Konami, and NES retro collections on the GBA. The GBA may lack in puzzle games, but it sure has a ton of retro goodness. To have excellent portable versions of Ms Pac-Man, Galaga, Pole Position, Gyruss, Time Pilot, Scramble, Tempest, Centipede, and Asteroids is classic gaming bliss.

As for MAME, yes I have MAME, and a $#!tload of other emulators. But sometimes I like to play a game of Missile Command on a big TV while laying back on my futon instead of sitting in a chair hunched over a PC and looking at a small monitor.

[Demolition Man]

Honestly I'm not a big fan of "backwards compatability" for a lot of the same reasons as Shane. When I buy a new system the thing I am concerned about is what kind of GAMEPLAY experience does the new system have, not if I can play my NES games on a SNES type of thing. Backwards compatability is just another bulletpoint feature that honestly from my experience in selling game systems most people don't care if the PS2 can play PS1 games let along is the DS can play the original Gameboy Tetris for that matter.

Oh, and Jay P... I don't own a PS2, nor will I ever own one since I have yet to see a single title on the PS2 that even excites me enough to buy one that I can't find on the Dreamcast, XBox (with NO mod chip mind you), Gamecube, GBA, Jaguar, SNES, NES, Genesis, Atari ST, Atari 800XL, or even my megar Atari 2600 for that matter. :p

[jamcat]

Well, when the PS3 does come out, I won't be getting one until the price drops to around $149 - $179. And by that time, any so-called "must have" launch titles will have dropped to the $19.99 mark. I won't pay anything more than $20 for console games.

It's just amazing how people can be idoits and line up for a game like Halo 2 at midnight and pay full price for the game, when they can save money by waiting for the game to go to Xbox's "Greatest Hits" collection for $19.99. Crazy. People bitch about the music industry ripping people off on the price of CDs, yet they are willing to be raped for $50 on games without a fuss.

[Shane R. Monroe]

Raping knows no standard and makes no sense. People will let themselves be taken over and over with computers and video games - but these are the same people that "pride themselves" on being a "smart consumer" that never "gets taken". Classic.

[Demolition Man]

jamcat you sound like a perfect person for cheapassgamer.com! :D

[Demolition Man]

Raping knows no standard and makes no sense. People will let themselves be taken over and over with computers and video games - but these are the same people that "pride themselves" on being a "smart consumer" that never "gets taken". Classic.

Very true Shane. I shop well for stuff like CDs, DVDs, and games - rarely will I pay $50 for a game, and if I do it had better be well worth it. The last four games I paid full retail on were:

- Midtown Madness 3 (XBox) - good single player experience with a great online game play system.

- Crimson Skies (XBox) - Read MM3.

- Freelancer (PC) - The best Wing Commander: Privateer type game since Privateer.

Otherwise most of the time I'll wait until I see the game cheap enough before buying it. No way would I pay $50 for, say, "Prince Of Persia." But for $20 it does get my interest.

(I'm not sure I would even pay $20 for the new one that just came out tho from the reviews I'm reading :( )

[jamcat]

Hey I'm cheap, what can I say. I just don't see spending $50 for a game that will be beaten and forgotten after a few hours of play. For $50 a game should give MORE than 8 hours of gameplay and/or have decent replay value.

[jamcat]

The original Midtown Madness on the PC is great. And being from Chicago, it was fun to drive around the virtual version of the city in the game.

Crimson Skies is also cool on the PC. Recently found that title in the value/discount bin at my local CompUSA for $9.99.

[Bryan 'KidHype' Smith]

Not paying $50 for a game doesn't make you cheap. It means the game aint worth $50. The most i ever paid for a game is $40 and that was for Ms Pacman for the 2600 and Double Dribble for the NES. On both titles, i got more than my monies worth on them.

I think its actually fun to buy used/bargan bin games. It doesn't sting as much if they suck.

[kittendaddy]

It's just amazing how people can be idoits and line up for a game like Halo 2 at midnight and pay full price for the game, when they can save money by waiting for the game to go to Xbox's "Greatest Hits" collection for $19.99. Crazy. People bitch about the music industry ripping people off on the price of CDs, yet they are willing to be raped for $50 on games without a fuss.

Well, if online play doesn't appeal to you it totally won't make sense. People getting Halo 2 on launch day are probably looking to play online, and the time when the experience is richest online is when the game is young. You can get a lot of mileage out of that 50 dollar purchase, especially online. Even if you only get, maybe, 50 hours of entertainment (a low total, for an online game) out of it, that's less than a buck an hour. For a good game, that's pretty cheap entertainment.

I think the problem is that you have to suspend disbelief and realise that some people find the new games fun to play. Even online games. Put yourself in that mindset, and see if the math makes any more sense to you, from a purely hypothetical standpoint.

Obviously we all price our time differently. When a game is really well done, I don't mind paying full price for it (online or no). I don't feel remotely taken for paying full price for Ninja Gaiden on XBox, because I felt it was incredibly fun to play.

However, for a lot of stuff, I like getting it after it's been discounted, because it just makes sense. I like a lot of the better modern games, and there are usually several that I haven't played that have since dropped in price, so it's a no-brainer for a lot of stuff. Full price games are usually on my list for birthdays and xmas, but it takes me so long to play through them that by the time that batch is done, there's enough budget titles out there to last me a year easily.

PS: I've actually never bought a game and been surprised that it sucked since I started checking reviews online.. I pretty much check gamespy and gamespot, account for their various biases, and decide if the shortcomings (or strengths) matter to me. You don't have to blindly believe a score to get value from even biased reviews.

[jamcat]

Well, I will look at reviews to see opinion, but in the end I buy what I like.

For example, I remember back in the PS1 days reviewers bagged on the Bruce Willis Apocalypse game. I loved it because it mixed run and jump 3D platforming with Robotron style shooting.

[kittendaddy]

Not paying $50 for a game doesn't make you cheap. It means the game aint worth $50.

I agree. And I'd be shocked if many true classic gamers liked anything published on consoles these days enough to pay 50 dollars for them.

It tickles me to get two games for 25 bucks that lasts me 3 months (hey, I don't get to play nearly as much as I'd like :)) - the thrill of the bargain hunt is almost as much fun as playing.

[Dragon57]

I can't say I would ever make backward compatibility a make or break item in my decision to buy any system. As had been said in earlier posts, I do like the option to buy an add-on device to allow it, which gives those that want the ability to play an old game on the new what they want. I don't agree the extra engineering and money should go into the base product.

When the Colecovision was announced, some said it would play 2600 games and people went nuts. I never understood that. I already had a 2600. Why would I want to play those games on a Coleco? If you wanted to play 2600 games by that time and you hadn't already bought a 2600, then playing 2600 titles couldn't really be that important. I later bought one of the 2600 devices for my Colecovision as my 2600 hardware had been played nearly to death, but it wasn't 100% compatible in the end, but it was good enough. Am I glad they offered the device? Yes. Would I have cursed them if they had not? No. I would have just bought another 2600 and went about my own business.

I see it this way, console gaming is not a right, but a luxury. If you don't have the extra cash to keep buying the latest stuff, don't worry about it. Prices come down, yard sales happen and you can eventually get the stuff you want. I just don't see the argument that having the ability to play old games on new systems is a 'must-have' feature. Just don't sweat the small stuff and the way I look at life, most things fit into the 'small stuff' category. Gaming surely does. :)

[jamcat]

Hey, I love the bargain bin, especially when it comes to PC games. You can't go wrong for $9.99.

Currently I'm playing one of those bargain games. Micro Center had a blow out on bargain jewel case games, and I picked up Indiana Jones And The Infernal Machine for .99 cents. And the game is awesome. Better than Tomb Raider. So far I've logged about 23 hours in the game, and I have 2 levels left to go before I finish the game.

Proves you can always find a gem in the bargain section.