Great to see a discussion going about this subject(s) and i'am happy i'am not alone in the way i feel about the hd era of how developers handle games!

Do i look down on gamers that buy broken games like unity?
Perhaps i'am,why would you buy something that's almost not working?

Its like buying a car without and engine and weels
And then say "good job car maker I'll buy one!

If we as the game community NOT buy broken games NOT accepting half baked content cut games developers (publishers) would not do it anymore.

Its a great system but highly over rated.

Exactly on point. Those systems tried the hype machine game but all failed as they didn;'t have the fun games to back it up. Consumers were much smarter back then.

PS2 on the other hand came out with such a rediculous amount of hype which for the first time sold consoles based on sheer hype. I bought PS2 at launch and it had absolutely no good games worth playing until 9 months post launch when Twisted Metal Black came out yet it was sold out and it outsold the competition based on future game promises and DVDs.

But dont get me wrong, PS2 was a great console when it was all said and done. I'm just pointing out that it was at that point that Sony and shortly afer Microsoft started abusing the hype train to wow people and sell preorders. The hype based business model was shortly taken over by publishers like Activision and EA who started introducing DLC and other incetives just so they could have your money in hand before the game comes out.

Never bought a piece of dlc yet have the nerve to call it crap... 

Really not doing yourself or your arguments any favours mate. 

I agree,sometimes it feels publishers/developer's are putting more time and effort in promoting and hyping the game (destiny,watch dogs i look at you) than actually making the game.

I hear people saying that gaming has gotten worse a lot and I can't really say I agree. Sure it's changed, but I don't think it's worse.

I have plenty of other unpopular opinions when it comes to gaming though. I'll share a few of the relevant ones after I get out of work tomorrow.

I think the problem lies in the fact that pushing graphics further again and again requiers ever more resources. Both time and money. So that can go at the expence of gameplay. Yes there are exceptions like The last of us, but wouldn't that game be almost just as great with lesser graphics? You also mention high definition televisions however i was already playing in HD on PC even before the PS2 was released. So resolution alone doesn't really change the games, but it does make them look a lot sharper and more immersive. Case in point, look up an PS2 game running in HD and you will now what i mean.

Miyamoto once commented on Wii being underpowered stating that game graphics hade reached an saturation point. I didn't agree back then but now i think he might have been right.

And why is that?

My arguments are that dlc is overpriced and mostly cut out content of the game( as said in the video things like a different skin or colour or a freaking horse armour for 5 dollars)

Mappacks is als  something i hate games on the ps2 has mostly a huge amount of maps but nowadays you get what? 4 -5 maps and you have to pay for them!

Looking at  DOA5 there is like what 100-150 dollars of costumes you can buy like WTF!

Expansions however like the witcher 3 i didnt say anything about it.

Yes. And Wii was a last swan song of a real arcade/console  gaming.

I agree,if the wii would have a lot more quality games instead of shovel ware,It had a change of outselling the ps2.