A lot of 90s fans claim that kids no longer play outside (or rather, no longer play in the street). They feel a switch got flipped, whether it after 9/11, 2004, 2007, or 2010, that made kids into couch potatoes. Of course, this is silly, considering kids still play outside to this day, but playing in the street or without supervision is another matter.

Question for @ocarinafan96, @mqg96, @Eazy-EMAN1995: do you recall your parents letting you play outside unsupervised? Was there a moment when this changed?

A lot of 90s fans claim that kids no longer play outside (or rather, no longer play in the street). They feel a switch got flipped, whether it after 9/11, 2004, 2007, or 2010, that made kids into couch potatoes. Of course, this is silly, considering kids still play outside to this day, but playing in the street or without supervision is another matter.

Question for @ocarinafan96, @mqg96, @Eazy-EMAN1995: do you recall your parents letting you play outside unsupervised? Was there a moment when this changed?


Realistic online video games have contributed to the lack of kids playing outside, not helicopter parenting.  Kids no longer have to have their friends over and go outside and play make-believe with today's video games.  When I was growing up we had NES, SNES, and Sega Genesis, which first required you to actually have a friend over to do multiplayer and second, wasn't as fulfilling in terms of replicating real life.

Of course I played outside with my grandparents and my cousins pretty much through the the ENTIRE 2000s decade. Even when I became a teen in the late 2000s, my older and younger cousins still played football, baseball, kickball and soccer with each other.
Anyways, besides playing N64/GameCube, Gameboy color/Advanced, Genesis/Dreamcast, PS1/PS2, XBOX. We'd go out eat Popsicle, candy, lunchables, kid cuisine, snacks. Then my older cousin and two younger ones would play at my grandparents backyard. Go to my uncle's(Moms brother) house and play with my younger cousins, eat snacks and play out in their sandbox, jungle gym, trampoline, and play BB outside. Man growing up ROCKED!!! ;) :D  Oh yeah and I'd even wrestle my two girl cousins outside at my GREAT grandparents house as well! ;D  Overall no the 9/11 atmosphere did NOT change us kids playing outdoors. NO!!

Oh and to answer your question Zelek, I was always supervised playing outdoors at my grandparents and great grandparents house. I was not supervised at my own house where I lived. I was done being supervised completely by 2006.

Well I have to say that kids were definitely still playing outside on a regular basis during the 2000s. Throughout the decade, I noticed a gradual change with kids going outside less often than before. That's what crossed my mind that being a kid was changing significantly.

Yes, there are kids who play outside today; however, it seems to happen often with special events. In every area I have lived in since the late 00s, I didn't see any kids outside at all. Heck, I have even been to out some parks during the day and on the weekends and it's basically empty aside from a few kids. I don't see them riding bikes anymore either.

I agree with BChris, every time I'm playing online shooters, I hear kids that are not even in middle school and when I was their age, there was barely any online gaming aside from LAN parties (which came later) and Xbox Live (which came later as well). While it's awesome that I can still play mutiplayer with friends and family online, it was much fun playing that mode with them in person because it was just friendly competition and I made personal connections with them. Moreover, it was less boring and I didn't have to wait for them to sign in as they were already with me.

Despite split screen getting a lot of hate, I say it's more worth it than having a full screen online.

Interesting topic! Personally for me I did go outside unsupervised as a kid. And this was when I used to live in NYC, right after 9/11, so you would think that my parents would be a bit worried about me being outside by myself. However, when I was 7-10 years old I remember riding my bike around the block by myself and go to the corner store to get candy (my favorites being Wonder Balls & Baby Bottle Pops) and or to another store close by to get itallian ices. Now in many cases I do remember going to the park a few times, but only if friends my age were with me and or my older siblings were there with me. So the golden rule for going outside for me was making sure to have SOMEONE with me at all times

Also on the comment about kids not playing outside, well its sort of a mix of yes and no. I have firsthand experience with kids now since I have a lot of little nieces, nephews, & cousins. Whenever I visit my family in Brooklyn and I see my little cousins, they aren't allowed to go outside unsupervised (and keep in mind they live in the same neighborhood I grew up in) and even if they are offered the choice of going outside they rather stay inside and play on their iPads or whatever. However this isn't universal, as my little cousin who lives close by in NJ with me goes outside all the time and he's even active in sports as he's now trying out for the township's basketball team. So it really all boils down on to each kid really, and this applies to all generations. However I do agree with BChris that kids have much easier access to tech now so many might be more inclined to stay inside than say kids 10 years ago. But I wouldn't go far and say all kids don't like to play outside

I always played outside without supervision. Also walked to school by myself.
Only rule: "Don't go on that busy road."
But that's Europe.

Anyone see that movie Vacation with Chevy Chase? I was watching it last night and there's a scene where Clark and his family go to visit their hick cousins in the middle of nowhere and the kid, Rusty (who must of been 14/15), asks his cousin "Do you guys have Pac Man? Space Invaders?" and he doesn't so Rusty asks "So what do you guys do around here" and then they go on to look at "nudie magazines" so even in the 80's, kids were being corrupted by naked images and if you didn't have video games they'd would be totally lost with nothing to do. Personal experience of mine: Back in 1986, when I was really young, my parents bought me and my siblings an NES and for hours straight we'd play and my mom would complain to us "All you do is play that Super Mario game! You guys should go outside and ride your bikes!" Kids staying inside all day has been a thing for ages. It was nothing new by time the 00's hit. If anything, the only people who could really complain are maybe 50's and 60's kids but even they had TV so you might have to go even further back. These "90's kids" talk about how amazing their cartoons and video games were, yet, I never hear them talk about how "great the outdoors was!" When I first started High School, the internet got big around the same time and some of my friends would be on chat rooms all day playing computer games, talking to girls, downloading illegal mp3's or trying to find porn. This was at least 1996/1997 when majority of my friend's parents started to get computers (We got our first PC in late 1996). Before then I only knew one or two people with a computer and internet access. Having a PC was a really nerdy thing but then people discovered the internet and saw how useful it was.

Anyone see that movie Vacation with Chevy Chase? I was watching it last night and there's a scene where Clark and his family go to visit their hick cousins in the middle of nowhere and the kid, Rusty (who must of been 14/15), asks his cousin "Do you guys have Pac Man? Space Invaders?" and he doesn't so Rusty asks "So what do you guys do around here" and then they go on to look at "nudie magazines" so even in the 80's, kids were being corrupted by naked images and if you didn't have video games they'd would be totally lost with nothing to do. Personal experience of mine: Back in 1986, when I was really young, my parents bought me and my siblings an NES and for hours straight we'd play and my mom would complain to us "All you do is play that Super Mario game! You guys should go outside and ride your bikes!" Kids staying inside all day has been a thing for ages. It was nothing new by time the 00's hit. If anything, the only people who could really complain are maybe 50's and 60's kids but even they had TV so you might have to go even further back. These "90's kids" talk about how amazing their cartoons and video games were, yet, I never hear them talk about how "great the outdoors was!" When I first started High School, the internet got big around the same time and some of my friends would be on chat rooms all day playing computer games, talking to girls, downloading illegal mp3's or trying to find porn. This was at least 1996/1997 when majority of my friend's parents started to get computers (We got our first PC in late 1996). Before then I only knew one or two people with a computer and internet access. Having a PC was a really nerdy thing but then people discovered the internet and saw how useful it was.


I would agree with the spirit of this quote.  Any "90s kid" (I was born in 1989 and now hate that term) complaining about how kids don't play outside these days is either a hypocrite or very, very unaware.  I remember my parents complaining about kids not playing outside anymore back in the late 90s.

I would agree with the spirit of this quote.  Any "90s kid" (I was born in 1989 and now hate that term) complaining about how kids don't play outside these days is either a hypocrite or very, very unaware.  I remember my parents complaining about kids not playing outside anymore back in the late 90s.


Exactly. It's very hypocritical and anyone who was actually there in the would realize kids back then were still pretty bad when it came to going outside and being active. I'll never forget all the cheesy "active living" ads I saw when I was younger.

I don't think playing outside is a universal thing. Same goes for not playing outside.

Of course, not every 90s kid played outside all the time, and not every 2010s kid stays inside all day. But, I think if you were to compare 100 kids from 1995, and 100 kids from 2015, then I think the first group of kids would have a greater number of kids who played outside for longer periods of time than the second group. That's mainly because kids today have access to much more technology at a much younger age compared to kids 20 years ago.

I was born in 1995, and consider my childhood years to be from around 2000-07. During that time, I played outside pretty much on a daily basis. Usually for a couple of hours after school. I had a N64 since 2002, and a Gamecube since 2004, so I did play inside as well, and there was also TV. But I definitely remember playing outside A LOT. We had a park near where we lived, and I remember playing on the swings and climbing forts around that area. We also played chasing games and ball games with a lot of the kids from my school, and we would get pieces of chalk and draw things on the street.

I stopped playing outside like that around 2008. But it had nothing to do with the times or parents becoming more helicopter-like. It was mainly because I was getting older and losing interest in the type of thing.

I don't know how much today's kids play outside, as I don't have much experience with kids now, but I think it would depend on the child in question, where the kid lives, and how much technology they have. But I would assume, on the whole, that kids nowadays play outside much less than 90s kids would have, and that is because of the advancement in technology. That being said, 90s kids would have played outside much less than 70s kids, also because of the advancement in technology.

I would really like to just climb a tree, alas that's regarded as weird for adults..

I was born in 1995, and consider my childhood years to be from around 2000-07.

So you don't consider you early childhood years 98 and 99 to be apart of your childhood?

So you don't consider you early childhood years 98 and 99 to be apart of your childhood?


He might be referring to his peak childhood, but IDK though because if 1998 & 1999 is not his early childhood and then he includes 2006 & 2007 (late childhood) in the same peak as his 2000-2005 years, then oh well, that's just how well his memories go. Personally I wouldn't mind still considering 2007-2008/09 as my late childhood or tail end of it, but definitely not my peak like the early & mid 2000's.

10 years ago the park across the street from my place was always filled, now high schoolers just go there to smoke..

There wasn't anything aside frim video games that could keep a kid inside during the 00s. That's like saying PDAs kept people from talking face to face in the 90s. Nonsense.

10 years ago the park across the street from my place was always filled, now high schoolers just go there to smoke..


and text a lot too?

There wasn't anything aside frim video games that could keep a kid inside during the 00s. That's like saying PDAs kept people from talking face to face in the 90s. Nonsense.


and now kids just text and use Facebook all the time.

There wasn't anything aside frim video games that could keep a kid inside during the 00s. That's like saying PDAs kept people from talking face to face in the 90s. Nonsense.


There was plenty that could keep a kid inside during the 00s, don't pretend there weren't such things as TV and the internet around.  As said, I remember people complaining in the 90s about kids not playing outside.  It's a common complaint that will probably be voiced again ten years from now by people saying kids don't play outside in the 2020s compared to the 2010s.

Here's a study from 2004 confirming kids weren't playing outside in the 00s at all compared to their parents:

http://www.imaginationplayground.com/images/content/2/9/2960/An-investigation-Of-The-Status-Of-Outdoor-Play.pdf

Or how about this news article from 2005 about kids playing indoors more than outdoors:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-07-11-pastimes-childhood_x.htm

So you don't consider you early childhood years 98 and 99 to be apart of your childhood?


Technically, it is part of my childhood, but I have limited memories of that time. I have a few memories from '98 and '99 but they are hazy and not really significant. I can only really remember day to day life, toys, TV shows, school, playing with friends etc from about 2000 onwards.

I often see people online commenting things like 'I was born in 1993 and I can remember everything from 1994 onwards' but I think a lot of people exaggerate how much they can remember, just to appear more knowledgeable on the internet. I don't really see this much with people born before 1990 though. It seems to be more common among younger internet users.

When I was younger we played out side a lot and then until it got dark we went inside and played video games, technology is changing so I guess more kids today are glued to the screen compared to 10-15 years ago

Technically, it is part of my childhood, but I have limited memories of that time. I have a few memories from '98 and '99 but they are hazy and not really significant. I can only really remember day to day life, toys, TV shows, school, playing with friends etc from about 2000 onwards.

I often see people online commenting things like 'I was born in 1993 and I can remember everything from 1994 onwards' but I think a lot of people exaggerate how much they can remember, just to appear more knowledgeable on the internet. I don't really see this much with people born before 1990 though. It seems to be more common among younger internet users.


::) ::) Ohh..... that's a punch in the mouth statement right there. More like age elitism. Well I'll say this, what you said is very true. I wonder why people born in the 80's don't ever claim stuff from when they were 3-5 or even 6 as apart of their childhood, but they only consider like 7-11 or even 12 as their peak childhood when it comes to the stuff they did. While you see people born in the 90's claim that they can remember pop culture as early as 3 or 4 years old, and then they'll be like "well you're no longer a child at 10 or 11, you're an adolescent now." A lot of people born in the 80's thinks it's "strange" or something. However, I will say that the peak of anyone's childhood is an opinion, and honestly there is a huge difference between early childhood, core childhood, and late childhood. Like I don't consider 3-4 or early 5 as my core childhood, I consider it as early, and neither do I consider 11 or 12 as my core childhood either, that be my late childhood. I consider age 6-10 as your peak, because from what I've noticed that seems to be the average age range people cherish their own core childhood memories when it comes to their favorite toys, TV shows, video games, making friends, etc. but again, it's all an opinion though and it depends on how well the person's memories go. I wouldn't be surprised if some people are lying on the internet about their childhoods because deep down inside they are ashamed of how bad their generation really was and know they missed out on a lot of the great pop culture just barely before their time, but I will already admit right now I'm not one of the folks who do that. Anything that comes out of my mouth will be the truth on here. So I'm going to already get that straight. Once again, I consider 6-10 (2002-2006) as my peak childhood when it comes to the pop culture geared towards kids that I associate with the most. 11 & 12 (2007-2008) as my late childhood.

When I was younger we played out side a lot and then until it got dark we went inside and played video games, technology is changing so I guess more kids today are glued to the screen compared to 10-15 years ago


now today's kids are constantly on their Facebook Twitter and Instagram.  ::)

::) ::) Ohh..... that's a punch in the mouth statement right there. More like age elitism. Well I'll say this, what you said is very true. I wonder why people born in the 80's don't ever claim stuff from when they were 3-5 or even 6 as apart of their childhood, but they only consider like 7-11 or even 12 as their peak childhood when it comes to the stuff they did. While you see people born in the 90's claim that they can remember pop culture as early as 3 or 4 years old, and then they'll be like "well you're no longer a child at 10 or 11, you're an adolescent now." A lot of people born in the 80's thinks it's "strange" or something. However, I will say that the peak of anyone's childhood is an opinion, and honestly there is a huge difference between early childhood, core childhood, and late childhood. Like I don't consider 3-4 or early 5 as my core childhood, I consider it as early, and neither do I consider 11 or 12 as my core childhood either, that be my late childhood. I consider age 6-10 as your peak, because from what I've noticed that seems to be the average age range people cherish their own core childhood memories when it comes to their favorite toys, TV shows, video games, making friends, etc. but again, it's all an opinion though and it depends on how well the person's memories go. I wouldn't be surprised if some people are lying on the internet about their childhoods because deep down inside they are ashamed of how bad their generation really was and know they missed out on a lot of the great pop culture just barely before their time, but I will already admit right now I'm not one of the folks who do that. Anything that comes out of my mouth will be the truth on here. So I'm going to already get that straight. Once again, I consider 6-10 (2002-2006) as my peak childhood when it comes to the pop culture geared towards kids that I associate with the most. 11 & 12 (2007-2008) as my late childhood.


I can remember things from as early as 2 or 3 (and I was born in '82) but I guess the difference between me and some others is that I like to focus on my teen/young adult years and not so much my childhood. I think childhood either starts from 2-6 (depending on how good your memory is and how your brain develops) up to about 11. 11 is pretty iffy but 12 I consider a tween year. 13 to 19 your teen years. 18 and 19 I consider both teen and young adult years. 90's nostalgia is the worst, though. 70's nostalgia wasn't bad and neither was 80's but then 90's nostalgia comes around and of course, in the age of the internet, it's a bunch of dimwitted morons posting stupid internet jokes to each other thinking they're superior because they were 8 when 1999 ended. Just look at some of the comments of this article.

"This article is f**king s**t. And this is written by someone born in 1992. give it up already, s**t, you are f**king 2000s kids. If you said that you remember the 90s to my 23 year old brother and his friends, you would get laughed at and mocked."
His brother sounds like a deadbeat loser with imaginary (or other deadbeat) friends if he mocks and laughs at people for claiming to remember the 90's. But look, the guy born in 1992 is superior to everyone else because he regurgitates whatever his brother probably spews at him because that's the "right opinion" to believe.

::) ::) Ohh..... that's a punch in the mouth statement right there. More like age elitism. Well I'll say this, what you said is very true. I wonder why people born in the 80's don't ever claim stuff from when they were 3-5 or even 6 as apart of their childhood, but they only consider like 7-11 or even 12 as their peak childhood when it comes to the stuff they did. While you see people born in the 90's claim that they can remember pop culture as early as 3 or 4 years old, and then they'll be like "well you're no longer a child at 10 or 11, you're an adolescent now." A lot of people born in the 80's thinks it's "strange" or something.

Honestly it BOGGLES my mind, that they think those things! Regardless of how young I was during late 1998, 1999, and even early 2000, I still consider those years to be a VERY important part of my childhood and also my informative life as well.

Honestly it BOGGLES my mind, that they think those things! Regardless of how young I was during late 1998, 1999, and even early 2000, I still consider those years to be a VERY important part of my childhood and also my informative life as well.


I understand how you feel. Yeah, I hate that too, EVERYBODY is different when it comes to how well memories go! Period! It depends on the individual person. Everybody can cherish anything at any age. There is NO fact on when core childhood/adolescence begins or when the peak of "this" or "that" starts. Especially when those ones who had older brothers, sisters, or cousins who influenced them to the pop culture at a very young age. It can happen.

Now personally for me, I'm the oldest one of my 3 younger sisters, while I remember things from late 1998 (yes I can remember as far back as 2 1/2), 1999, and 2000. I don't really consider it as important to my childhood because it really wasn't until I was 5 years old in 2001 when I started picking up on the pop culture geared towards kids. Like from 1998-2000 when I was 2-4, I can only remember how the stores used to look, like I have a photographic memory of how completely different Kroger, Publix, Wal-Mart, Toys 'R US, or many others used to look back in the very late 90's and the year 2000, the ceiling, the hallways, the floor, the culture of how different it was before it changed in 2001 or 2002. I can easily remember old logos off gas stations or food brands. Heck I can still remember the old house my Grandparents on my mom's side of the family used to be in before they moved to the house they still are in today since late 2000. I can easily remember being 3 & 4 years old in the back of my dad's Geo Prism car, looking outside at all those old late 80's and 90's models of cars, SUV's, and trucks everywhere!

I can remember all that easily, despite it being vague, but I just can't remember the pop culture, like the fad's, toys, or cartoons as it was happening at that young of an age, which is why I don't consider it important to my childhood, that's all. I can remember details from my family and how stores looked when I was in my early childhood, but that's about it. It wasn't until around 2001 when I could start remembering the pop culture and fad's. By 2002 I was doing everything though, like building lego toys, collecting hot wheels cars, watching my favorite shows on TV, going to the movies, watching football or going to the games, etc. Since 2007 I've been very aware keeping up with the music coming out regularly from the artists, like I still do today.

now today's kids are constantly on their Facebook Twitter and Instagram.  ::)


Definitely, I'm guilty of all of those but I'm not constantly glued to them..

I was at my family BBQ and all my younger cousins were stuck to their iPads or iPods the whole time, my uncle tried talking to them and they wouldn't lift their head up to respond..

Definitely, I'm guilty of all of those but I'm not constantly glued to them..

I was at my family BBQ and all my younger cousins were stuck to their iPads or iPods the whole time, my uncle tried talking to them and they wouldn't lift their head up to respond..


This is what today's kids in 2015 are hooked into, someone should make a thread about kids playing outside in the 2010's.

This is what today's kids in 2015 are hooked into, someone should make a thread about kids playing outside in the 2010's.


How could they make a thread about something that doesn't exist?

How could they make a thread about something that doesn't exist?


I'm talking about the early 2010's.

I'm talking about the early 2010's.


Haha, I was kidding. I just thought I was being so clever by making that joke.

I can remember things from as early as 2 or 3 (and I was born in '82) but I guess the difference between me and some others is that I like to focus on my teen/young adult years and not so much my childhood. I think childhood either starts from 2-6 (depending on how good your memory is and how your brain develops) up to about 11. 11 is pretty iffy but 12 I consider a tween year. 13 to 19 your teen years. 18 and 19 I consider both teen and young adult years. 90's nostalgia is the worst, though. 70's nostalgia wasn't bad and neither was 80's but then 90's nostalgia comes around and of course, in the age of the internet, it's a bunch of dimwitted morons posting stupid internet jokes to each other thinking they're superior because they were 8 when 1999 ended. Just look at some of the comments of this article.

"This article is f**king s**t. And this is written by someone born in 1992. give it up already, s**t, you are f**king 2000s kids. If you said that you remember the 90s to my 23 year old brother and his friends, you would get laughed at and mocked."
His brother sounds like a deadbeat loser with imaginary (or other deadbeat) friends if he mocks and laughs at people for claiming to remember the 90's. But look, the guy born in 1992 is superior to everyone else because he regurgitates whatever his brother probably spews at him because that's the "right opinion" to believe.
The article they are commenting on actually isn't a 90s kid article, it's more of the Neon Era. In fact some of the things that were mentioned were actually from the 80s, not entirely the 90s. So, those arrogant 90s kids are for in a rude awakening when they going to find out that the 9-10 year old article wasn't for them in the first place.

Even more, the person who wrote that comment several years ago doesn't have the right to tell the poster of that regurgitated article that's he's not a 90s kid. A person born '92 was a kid for 5 years in the 90s (while the rest was in the 00s). That's enough for him/her to enjoy it as it happened. Moreover, I agree with what Mqg said a while back. Beginning to recall memories does depend on the person and on top of that, NO one can remember everything they did back then. Heck, even adults can't remember what they did a few days ago.


Honestly it BOGGLES my mind, that they think those things! Regardless of how young I was during late 1998, 1999, and even early 2000, I still consider those years to be a VERY important part of my childhood and also my informative life as well.
This. 1996 and '97 were very important to me as well. My early childhood is what helped me get into the future kid trends that occurred later as I was getting older.

The article they are commenting on actually isn't a 90s kid article, it's more of the Neon Era. In fact some of the things that were mentioned were actually from the 80s, not entirely the 90s. So, those arrogant 90s kids are for in a rude awakening when they going to find out that the 9-10 year old article wasn't for them in the first place.

Even more, the person who wrote that comment several years ago doesn't have the right to tell the poster of that regurgitated article that's he's not a 90s kid. A person born '92 was a kid for 5 years in the 90s (while the rest was in the 00s). That's enough for him/her to enjoy it as it happened. Moreover, I agree with what Mqg said a while back. Beginning to recall memories does depend on the person and on top of that, NO one can remember everything they did back then. Heck, even adults can't remember what they did a few days ago.
This. 1996 and '97 were very important to me as well. My early childhood is what helped me get into the future kid trends that occurred later as I was getting older.


I'm not too familiar with the term "Neon era." I assume it's a term for the 80's-1992 era? Doesn't sound like it'd fit for the Y2K (1998-2002) era. You're right, though. A lot of that stuff is from the 80's and some from 2000-2002 (looking at you Invader Zim). Why do "90's kids" claim stuff from the 80's or 2000-2002 (while at the same time saying that everything went downhill in 2000?).

I took it as he was saying that he was saying he was born in 1992, yet, he is superior to everyone else because he regurgitates his deadbeat brother's (who has such low self-esteem that he needs to "ridicule and mock" children about the 90's) opinion. I think anyone born from 1990-1997 had enough time to experience a small flavor of the 90s (plus the years 2000-2002 and most of 2003) even though they may not have been old enough to have fully absorbed the culture of the time, it's still somewhat of an experience no matter how small. They'll remember little bits and flavors of it. I can remember 1984-1989 and although I don't remember what the entire 80's culture was like I did get a bit of the feel and vibe of the era. Plus, my brother was born in 1977 so I did have some old sibling influence.  Mqg does have a point; people have different experiences and different stages. Some people brain's are well developed enough that their memory starts at the age of 2 (most people will call bulls**t but scientists even say this is true). I, myself, have a much better long term memory so I might not remember most of this week until a few years go by. My short term isn't too bad either so I am not the best example. Adults memories are pretty bad, though. Some of my friends can't remember anything. Going back to the scientist thing; when even a kid claims to remember ages 2-6 some kid born in 1991 or whatever will say that it's impossible to remember ages 2-6 or whatever stupid crap internet dwellers say, yet, here they are pretending like they know everything about the brain and science.

^ I was born in 96 I can remember little bits of 98 maybe a little earlier perhaps.
1999 and 2000 are very clear in my head, I can remember it better than a few years ago

There was plenty that could keep a kid inside during the 00s, don't pretend there weren't such things as TV and the internet around.  As said, I remember people complaining in the 90s about kids not playing outside.  It's a common complaint that will probably be voiced again ten years from now by people saying kids don't play outside in the 2020s compared to the 2010s.

Here's a study from 2004 confirming kids weren't playing outside in the 00s at all compared to their parents:

http://www.imaginationplayground.com/images/content/2/9/2960/An-investigation-Of-The-Status-Of-Outdoor-Play.pdf

Or how about this news article from 2005 about kids playing indoors more than outdoors:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-07-11-pastimes-childhood_x.htm

I see alot of "since 1995" in that second article. You wouldn't say there were tons of things to keep kids in aside from video games in 1995 would you?

I'm not too familiar with the term "Neon era." I assume it's a term for the 80's-1992 era? Doesn't sound like it'd fit for the Y2K (1998-2002) era. You're right, though. A lot of that stuff is from the 80's and some from 2000-2002 (looking at you Invader Zim). Why do "90's kids" claim stuff from the 80's or 2000-2002 (while at the same time saying that everything went downhill in 2000?).

I took it as he was saying that he was saying he was born in 1992, yet, he is superior to everyone else because he regurgitates his deadbeat brother's (who has such low self-esteem that he needs to "ridicule and mock" children about the 90's) opinion. I think anyone born from 1990-1997 had enough time to experience a small flavor of the 90s (plus the years 2000-2002 and most of 2003) even though they may not have been old enough to have fully absorbed the culture of the time, it's still somewhat of an experience no matter how small. They'll remember little bits and flavors of it. I can remember 1984-1989 and although I don't remember what the entire 80's culture was like I did get a bit of the feel and vibe of the era. Plus, my brother was born in 1977 so I did have some old sibling influence.  Mqg does have a point; people have different experiences and different stages. Some people brain's are well developed enough that their memory starts at the age of 2 (most people will call bulls**t but scientists even say this is true). I, myself, have a much better long term memory so I might not remember most of this week until a few years go by. My short term isn't too bad either so I am not the best example. Adults memories are pretty bad, though. Some of my friends can't remember anything. Going back to the scientist thing; when even a kid claims to remember ages 2-6 some kid born in 1991 or whatever will say that it's impossible to remember ages 2-6 or whatever stupid crap internet dwellers say, yet, here they are pretending like they know everything about the brain and science.
Yeah, the Neon era is from 1988-1992/93 and see what I mean? They are hypocrites and arrogant. Now the guy who wrote that comment that his brother would "ridicule and mock" children about the 90's aren't even a representation of a 90s kid, they're extremists. Here's the difference between the two.

Real 90s kids

The 90s was never a perfect decade. And I'm tired of people brain washing younger people into thinking that the 90s was amazing and that the 00s was terrible.

People who grew up in the 90's remember the good times as well the bad, "90's kids" are just an interesting breed of hipster and nostalgia-tard who are trying to feel superior and gloss over anything bad in their childhood. If you're a 2000's kid don't get offended by this video or any "90's kids" posts because every generation has good times as well as bad.


Arrogant "90s kids"

No, people born from 1994-1997 are not 90's kids at all. People born in 1994 and 1995 could only remember the last two or one year of the 90's, and people born in 1996 and 1997 were only toddlers. They only remember watching re-runs of 90's shows.

Kids these days walk around like lost souls. truth is technology stole their souls and they don't know how to have real outdoor natural fun.they stand around lost without a piece of tech. I feel sorry for the next generation. Go millenials! Don't worry yal will think the same about the next generation....or worse self destruct . 90s still had slip and slides arcades block buster we appreciated it. Stuff is too easy for you guys that's why yal are all little punks.

And yes, Mqg is correct. people have different experiences and different stages no matter what at any age. In addition, I agree, they seem to think they know everything about child development, but they don't as they are not even scientists. It's been researched like you said that people can remember anything as early as age 3. Moreover, kids even get into the trends such as cartoons, video games, toys and activities at an early age. So, these arrogant idiots really have no idea what they are actually talking about.

Yeah, the Neon era is from 1988-1992/93 and see what I mean? They are hypocrites and arrogant. Now the guy who wrote that comment that his brother would "ridicule and mock" children about the 90's aren't even a representation of a 90s kid, they're extremists. Here's the difference between the two.

Real 90s kids

Arrogant "90s kids"

And yes, Mqg is correct. people have different experiences and different stages no matter what at any age. In addition, I agree, they seem to think they know everything about child development, but they don't as they are not even scientists. It's been researched like you said that people can remember anything as early as age 3. Moreover, kids even get into the trends such as cartoons, video games, toys and activities at an early age. So, these arrogant idiots really have no idea what they are actually talking about.


I'm with you on this. If the 90's were "the best times ever" why claim stuff from the 80's and early 00's? And don't get me wrong, I love the 90's; it was the time of my youth but I don't understand why these kids focus on their childhoods so much. I get it, they really love the 90's culture and it's totally cool, I see where they're coming from but when you're a kid there's so much s**t you miss out on that you experience when you're a teenager and young adult. You have the freedom of being young with a brain that's developed enough for you to have your own likes/dislikes and make your own choices. I was a kid for most of the 80's yet I don't go on about being an "80's kid" simply because I would of much rather have experienced the 80's at an older age (not to say I'm not happy that I was a teen during the mid-90's/Y2K era because it was a great time for me).

People are wired differently. I don't know how it's so hard for them to understand that. Nobody remembers things at the same time at the exact age. I sometimes wonder if these types of people actually have social lives. If they love the spirit of the 90's so much they should go outside, ride their  bike, make some new friends and shut off the computer. Just because it's 2015 and not 1995, doesn't mean you have to stop playing outside.

I see alot of "since 1995" in that second article. You wouldn't say there were tons of things to keep kids in aside from video games in 1995 would you?


You yourself said:

There wasn't anything aside frim video games that could keep a kid inside during the 00s. That's like saying PDAs kept people from talking face to face in the 90s. Nonsense.

Thus why I cited those articles showing that clearly kids were being kept inside during the 00s, and the process even started in the 90s, since they were using "since 1995" and not "since 2000" or something like that. 

You yourself said:

Thus why I cited those articles showing that clearly kids were being kept inside during the 00s, and the process even started in the 90s, since they were using "since 1995" and not "since 2000" or something like that.

Which shows that kids have been kept inside by technology atleast since the 1990s, meaning the 80s kids were the last to have their entertainment fully outside.

My point was that tech consumes kids lives the more it advances. I've seen that article before, and all it says is that kids in the 90s and 00s are playing video games and messaging online more than other generations. These can lower the amount of outside activity relative to someone in the 1970s, but is still no match for what we have today that can keep families from verbally talking to each other over the dinner table.
As I and many have mentioned, parks are virtually empty in 2015 but were still full in 2005.

I remember kids playing outside in 2006 at the time when I was living in Atlanta Georgia. I'm aware at this point 2006 was the last of the good ol' days. You had to be in school to have fun onwards.

I was really an indoors kid. Before my mom got sick, I wasn't really allowed to play outside cause my dad didnt want to watch me, and he was scared someone would kidnap me, so I just got used to being indoors, else watching TV or videos or reading. Part of the reason I'm so smart now is because I literally had nothing to do but read. There was a pageant here and there, but I never played with the other little girls, I was too competitive.

Also how I came to write--I read all the books in the library at school. LOL. Kids dont go out much now. I mean if they actually have to schedule an "international day of play" and have stations go off air to make kids go outside, we got a problem.

Anyone see that movie Vacation with Chevy Chase? I was watching it last night and there's a scene where Clark and his family go to visit their hick cousins in the middle of nowhere and the kid, Rusty (who must of been 14/15), asks his cousin "Do you guys have Pac Man? Space Invaders?" and he doesn't so Rusty asks "So what do you guys do around here" and then they go on to look at "nudie magazines" so even in the 80's, kids were being corrupted by naked images and if you didn't have video games they'd would be totally lost with nothing to do. Personal experience of mine: Back in 1986, when I was really young, my parents bought me and my siblings an NES and for hours straight we'd play and my mom would complain to us "All you do is play that Super Mario game! You guys should go outside and ride your bikes!" Kids staying inside all day has been a thing for ages. It was nothing new by time the 00's hit. If anything, the only people who could really complain are maybe 50's and 60's kids but even they had TV so you might have to go even further back. These "90's kids" talk about how amazing their cartoons and video games were, yet, I never hear them talk about how "great the outdoors was!" When I first started High School, the internet got big around the same time and some of my friends would be on chat rooms all day playing computer games, talking to girls, downloading illegal mp3's or trying to find porn. This was at least 1996/1997 when majority of my friend's parents started to get computers (We got our first PC in late 1996). Before then I only knew one or two people with a computer and internet access. Having a PC was a really nerdy thing but then people discovered the internet and saw how useful it was.


Great post, I find the posts about people saying "OMG, kids these days, it wasn't like it was back in my day" of every single generation very annoying. To see people of my generation, Y, now saying it about the latest generation is laughable. People's memories are short, but even before the launches of the likes of the PS3, Wii, Xbox 360 all in 2006, there was still fairly wide spread online gaming and the mmorpg epidemic was making headlines. Even back in the 90s gaming wasn't online unless you were on a PC but the games were still graphical enough for kids to play them for hours on end. So much of it depends on the individuals as well. A lot of things in the 10s are just an evolution from the 00s anyway, there is nothing wildly different compared to 10 years ago.

Great post, I find the posts about people saying "OMG, kids these days, it wasn't like it was back in my day" of every single generation very annoying. To see people of my generation, Y, now saying it about the latest generation is laughable. People's memories are short, but even before the launches of the likes of the PS3, Wii, Xbox 360 all in 2006, there was still fairly wide spread online gaming and the mmorpg epidemic was making headlines. Even back in the 90s gaming wasn't online unless you were on a PC but the games were still graphical enough for kids to play them for hours on end. So much of it depends on the individuals as well. A lot of things in the 10s are just an evolution from the 00s anyway, there is nothing wildly different compared to 10 years ago.


The thing is, that's exactly the problem we have today - that gaming hasn't progressed much in the past decade.  By contrast, ten years before 2005, in 1995, 2D games like the DKC trilogy and Chrono Trigger were still the most popular on home consoles, the Nintendo 64 hadn't even been released yet, the Saturn and PS1 were not huge successes that year, and Windows 95 had only just come out.  I think the mid-2000s felt more exciting because the types of games that existed back then were still groundbreaking and cutting edge, whereas now they just safe and rehashed.  I think that if Kinect and Wii had been greater long-term successes, gaming by now would have progressed as much since 2005 as it did between 1995 and 2005, but instead, old formulas proved to be the most critically and financially enduring since the seventh and eighth generations of gaming took off.

Great post, I find the posts about people saying "OMG, kids these days, it wasn't like it was back in my day" of every single generation very annoying. To see people of my generation, Y, now saying it about the latest generation is laughable. People's memories are short, but even before the launches of the likes of the PS3, Wii, Xbox 360 all in 2006, there was still fairly wide spread online gaming and the mmorpg epidemic was making headlines. Even back in the 90s gaming wasn't online unless you were on a PC but the games were still graphical enough for kids to play them for hours on end. So much of it depends on the individuals as well. A lot of things in the 10s are just an evolution from the 00s anyway, there is nothing wildly different compared to 10 years ago.


I believe online gaming was already available on XBOX Live on the original XBOX and maybe the PS2 has some online games before 7th generation existed, but I don't think it was as popular then or as a necessity for games then compared to now. Of course, there was already online gaming on the PC on certain sites well before then as well. Like "Runescape" or "Planet Hot Wheels".

I believe online gaming was already available on XBOX Live on the original XBOX and maybe the PS2 has some online games before 7th generation existed, but I don't think it was as popular then or as a necessity for games then compared to now. Of course, there was already online gaming on the PC on certain sites well before then as well. Like "Runescape" or "Planet Hot Wheels".


I think all systems of that generation had online gaming capabilities but it was terrible! It was the slowest thing ever and you'd find 2 or 3 people in a lobby on a good day. Really depressing.

I think all systems of that generation had online gaming capabilities but it was terrible! It was the slowest thing ever and you'd find 2 or 3 people in a lobby on a good day. Really depressing.


From what I remember I don't think Gamecube had online. It actually had this LAN mode capability. You needed at least two Gamecube's and two different TV's in your house to do it, and there were these LAN cables you had to plug into the Gamecube's in order for them to connect, so you could go above 4 players. It's like local online gaming. For example, if you were playing Mario Kart Double Dash, you could have 8 different TV's and 8 different Gamecube's in the house and use the LAN cables to connect with each other and go up to 8 players on separate screens. This is from what I heard of, but I've never done it before.

From what I remember I don't think Gamecube had online. It actually had this LAN mode capability. You needed at least two Gamecube's and two different TV's in your house to do it, and there were these LAN cables you had to plug into the Gamecube's in order for them to connect, so you could go above 4 players. It's like local online gaming. For example, if you were playing Mario Kart Double Dash, you could have 8 different TV's and 8 different Gamecube's in the house and use the LAN cables to connect with each other and go up to 8 players on separate screens. This is from what I heard of, but I've never done it before.


The Gamecube had Phantasy Star Online 2 and 3 and I think that was it's only Online game. I think my sister still has it but I don't think you can still go online on the Gamecube anymore because the servers are no longer up. You could hook up your internet adapter and play it but you'd find only 2 or 3 people online.

When I was a kid we played outside all the time. It wasn't the 2000s but even back then my sister and her friends would go outside. Its sad that they just tend to play on their phones instead.

The Gamecube had Phantasy Star Online 2 and 3 and I think that was it's only Online game. I think my sister still has it but I don't think you can still go online on the Gamecube anymore because the servers are no longer up. You could hook up your internet adapter and play it.


All I know is that you can't get on the "Nintendo Wi-fi Connection" anymore for the original Nintendo DS and Wii games, which sucks and it probably had something to do with the low Wii U and 3DS sales, so they forced everybody to switch over from the classic Wii and DS games. They shut it down last year back in May or June 2014. I'm not sure what wi-fi service was available back in the Gameboy Advance and Gamecube era, cause I wasn't aware of it. Probably because of how amazing the single player experience was for racing games, platform games, and RPG games then!

All I know is that you can't get on the "Nintendo Wi-fi Connection" anymore for the original Nintendo DS and Wii games, which sucks and it probably had something to do with the low Wii U and 3DS sales, so they forced everybody to switch over from the classic Wii and DS games. They shut it down last year back in May or June 2014. I'm not sure what wi-fi service was available back in the Gameboy Advance and Gamecube era, cause I wasn't aware of it. Probably because of how amazing the single player experience was for racing games, platform games, and RPG games then!


Yeah, I heard about that. Nintendo, stop f*cking around and make better games! Don't excuse your low sales on the Wii and DS online play! I don't think there was a Wi-Fi service on those systems. You'd have to hook everything up if you wanted to go online. I don't think the Gameboy Advance could go online, though. It was amazing. Man, the Gamecube is the last classic Nintendo system. It didn't need online, anyway.

When I was a kid we played outside all the time. It wasn't the 2000s but even back then my sister and her friends would go outside. Its sad that they just tend to play on their phones instead.


this is our generation nowadays.

this is our generation nowadays.


A day in the life of the 2010's:

Breakfest, Lunch and Dinner:
http://guardianlv.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Smartphone-Addiction.jpg

Hanging out with your pals:
http://cdn.idigitaltimes.com/sites/idigitaltimes.com/files/2014/08/28/2013/12/05/13265-smartphone-addiction.jpg

Going out on dates:
https://candornews.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/fecf62bd2860585e_cell_phone_couple-xlarge.jpg?w=315&h=320

Gettin' it on:
http://www.chfi.com/files/smartphonejunkie.jpg

Bedtime:
http://guardianlv.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/sleep-texting1.jpg

A day in the life of the 2010's:

Breakfest, Lunch and Dinner:
http://guardianlv.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Smartphone-Addiction.jpg

Hanging out with your pals:
http://cdn.idigitaltimes.com/sites/idigitaltimes.com/files/2014/08/28/2013/12/05/13265-smartphone-addiction.jpg

Going out on dates:
https://candornews.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/fecf62bd2860585e_cell_phone_couple-xlarge.jpg?w=315&h=320

Gettin' it on:
http://www.chfi.com/files/smartphonejunkie.jpg

Bedtime:
http://guardianlv.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/sleep-texting1.jpg


You know why this is our generation? Cause we're self absorbed with our gadgets and here are more examples:
http://images.jagran.com/mobiles-b-14-12-2012.jpg

http://cache1.asset-cache.net/gc/200566834-001-new-york-city-business-man-typing-on-gettyimages.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=WZCG17%2FVXFZ9%2BaJVl77mZ34Q1wHnXfXdmzsaVIx4qP2Ncph9xkuq%2FBGnW8XftSUR

https://nycpix.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/walking-eating-txtng.jpg

You know why this is our generation? Cause we're self absorbed with our gadgets and here are more examples:
http://images.jagran.com/mobiles-b-14-12-2012.jpg

http://cache1.asset-cache.net/gc/200566834-001-new-york-city-business-man-typing-on-gettyimages.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=WZCG17%2FVXFZ9%2BaJVl77mZ34Q1wHnXfXdmzsaVIx4qP2Ncph9xkuq%2FBGnW8XftSUR

https://nycpix.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/walking-eating-txtng.jpg


It's like we've become married to our cell phones. It's the new heroin!

http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hub/176530/file-28826859-jpeg/images/noooo_-smartphone-addiction.jpeg

I'm with you on this. If the 90's were "the best times ever" why claim stuff from the 80's and early 00's? And don't get me wrong, I love the 90's; it was the time of my youth but I don't understand why these kids focus on their childhoods so much. I get it, they really love the 90's culture and it's totally cool, I see where they're coming from but when you're a kid there's so much s**t you miss out on that you experience when you're a teenager and young adult. You have the freedom of being young with a brain that's developed enough for you to have your own likes/dislikes and make your own choices. I was a kid for most of the 80's yet I don't go on about being an "80's kid" simply because I would of much rather have experienced the 80's at an older age (not to say I'm not happy that I was a teen during the mid-90's/Y2K era because it was a great time for me).

People are wired differently. I don't know how it's so hard for them to understand that. Nobody remembers things at the same time at the exact age. I sometimes wonder if these types of people actually have social lives. If they love the spirit of the 90's so much they should go outside, ride their  bike, make some new friends and shut off the computer. Just because it's 2015 and not 1995, doesn't mean you have to stop playing outside.


I think it's because they don't research when the shows, toys and trends were popular and that they assume the 90s were "perfect" when it wasn't. In fact, some of the things these "90s kids" speak about were not actually from the 90s itself. For example, the NES was mostly in the 80s while the GC was in the 00s which is not considered part of the 90s. Additionally, no decade is (or will ever be) perfect; however, some were better than others.

You're right. By the time someone is in MS, that's when they begin to develop themselves as a person and experience the full pop culture of a decade. As a kid, yes one is more interested in the kid trends than the main culture; however, there are kids who start to be more of their surroundings and parts of pop culture as early as age 5/6 (an article proved this).

I agree. No one is the same as each other. That's what these "90s kids" need to understand. I feel that they don't have one especially if they are arguing with others on YouTube or other sites. And yes, just because the decade has been over for longer than 15 years, doesn't mean the spirit vanished. The "90s kids" can still do many of things that they used to as kids. In fact, most are making a comeback or already have.


A day in the life of the 2010's:

Breakfest, Lunch and Dinner:
http://guardianlv.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Smartphone-Addiction.jpg

Hanging out with your pals:
http://cdn.idigitaltimes.com/sites/idigitaltimes.com/files/2014/08/28/2013/12/05/13265-smartphone-addiction.jpg

Going out on dates:
https://candornews.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/fecf62bd2860585e_cell_phone_couple-xlarge.jpg?w=315&h=320

Gettin' it on:
http://www.chfi.com/files/smartphonejunkie.jpg

Bedtime:
http://guardianlv.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/sleep-texting1.jpg


This. I feel that technology and social media has changed us for the worse. We are so addicted that we all have became zombies. I know we all need to limit our use and be moderate with these things. Unfortunately, it's getting difficult to do that. I read an article one day and they had this study where a group of students had to go one day (or a week) without phones and social media; most couldn't do it and failed the test. It's amazing how 10 years ago, we were in a balanced world of analog and digital technology; now today, it's mostly digital. 

I think it's because they don't research when the shows, toys and trends were popular and that they assume the 90s were "perfect" when it wasn't. In fact, some of the things these "90s kids" speak about were not actually from the 90s itself. For example, the NES was mostly in the 80s while the GC was in the 00s which is not considered part of the 90s. Additionally, no decade is (or will ever be) perfect; however, some were better than others.

You're right. By the time someone is in MS, that's when they begin to develop themselves as a person and experience the full pop culture of a decade. As a kid, yes one is more interested in the kid trends than the main culture; however, there are kids who start to be more of their surroundings and parts of pop culture as early as age 5/6 (an article proved this).

I agree. No one is the same as each other. That's what these "90s kids" need to understand. I feel that they don't have one especially if they are arguing with others on YouTube or other sites. And yes, just because the decade has been over for longer than 15 years, doesn't mean the spirit vanished. The "90s kids" can still do many of things that they used to as kids. In fact, most are making a comeback or already have.
This. I feel that technology and social media has changed us for the worse. We are so addicted that we all have became zombies. I know we all need to limit our use and be moderate with these things. Unfortunately, it's getting difficult to do that. I read an article one day and they had this study where a group of students had to go one day (or a week) without phones and social media; most couldn't do it and failed the test. It's amazing how 10 years ago, we were in a balanced world of analog and digital technology; now today, it's mostly digital.


It's weird when some people claim stuff from the 80's or 00's as the 90's. I mean, some of it makes sense. I personally consider 2000-2002 (and a good amount from 2003) the post 90's 90's (the last time any 1996/1997 influence was relevant) so I don't really have a problem with it but then these weirdo's come out and talk about how everything "after 2000 sucked!" or whatever bullsh*t they can think of and then claim Invader Zim as a "90's show". They also think that by 1990, the "crappy 80's" were washed away. Nostalgia is a fun thing but feeling superior because you were 11 in 1999 is f*cking stupid.

Both these statements are very true. I'd say I was pretty aware of the 80's when living them even though I was still pretty young but it wasn't until Middle School where I really figured out who I was.

Honestly, if they love 90's Pop Culture so much, why not do something about it? The future is unwritten! These guys are all late teens and early 20's so they should stop whining on your computer about the 90's while they young! Go start a band that'll write the next Dookie, Smash or Nevermind! Become a filmmaker and make the next Clerks! Sitting around and whining about it isn't going to change anything!

Our social skills are going down the toilet because of our technology. We are becoming less like human beings with real emotions and more like robot zombies tied down to our phones. It's more like we are controlled by our tech than anything. I heard about that test, too. It's sad how all of us piss away our lives on technology. Yeah, I don't like 2004-2006 pop culturally but I do miss how less digital it was. There was so much more room to breathe.

It's like we've become married to our cell phones. It's the new heroin!

This is why I liked the times before those gadgets where we actually had face to face conversations with one another.

We are so addicted that we all have became zombies

Sometimes we need to get out of that habit.

Come on guys, it's not all doom and gloom :) One thing with people these days is that they talk as though social media and having an online profile is compulsory. It is not. Back when I was a teenager it was all kicking off and I was expected to follow the stupid teen herd and setup a "facebook" which clearly I did not do and won't do. I have a basic mobile telephone (cell phone) and I use my desktop daily because it is my main entertainment centre, without it I would have nothing to do, not miraculously "have a life" if I didn't have the technology. Tech is good, try to stop looking at things through sheesh tinted glasses. People were saying the same thing a decade ago and they will say the same a decade after. End of the day if you don't like technology or a part of technology you don't have to participate in it at all :P

People were stuck to their phones in the mid-2000s as well. There were a lot of people who had their phone in their hands 24/7, they wouldn't even put it back in their pocket in case they missed a text. I also remember people having those earphone and bluetooth speakers. It would look like they're talking to you but turns out they were talking on the phone. I definitely don't want to go back to that era, mostly because of my fingers being destroyed trying to text on my 2007 Motorola phone.

I remember by 2003 when I got broadband, me and my friends would start doing indoor activities more. Cartoonnetwork.com had a lot of great flash games, as well as miniclip.com. We were also a bit naughty and went on funnyjunk.com every now and then. A lot of the teenagers at the time were on habbohotel.com from what I remember, I made an account but wasn't an active user until 2005 or so. Everyone had MSN by then. We still went outside regularly though, I loved riding my bike and there were still a lot of kids playing Yu-gi-oh and dodgeball at the playground. So yeah, I'd peg the decline of the playground at around 2003.

I remember by 2003 when I got broadband, me and my friends would start doing indoor activities more. Cartoonnetwork.com had a lot of great flash games, as well as miniclip.com. We were also a bit naughty and went on funnyjunk.com every now and then. A lot of the teenagers at the time were on habbohotel.com from what I remember, I made an account but wasn't an active user until 2005 or so. Everyone had MSN by then. We still went outside regularly though, I loved riding my bike and there were still a lot of kids playing Yu-gi-oh and dodgeball at the playground. So yeah, I'd peg the decline of the playground at around 2003.


I think it depends on the individual person. Plus since about the 90's decade, kids (or parents based off their restrictions) have their own choice whether they want to stay indoors all day on video games or go outside to play a lot. 2003 is debatable but it doesn't apply to everybody. People got broadband at different times, and according to most sources here in the U.S. it wasn't until 2004 when broadband had passed dial up in most people's households, but that's close to 2003 anyway. My parents got broadband in Christmas 2001 when they replaced Windows 98 with Windows XP. I remember as early as 2002 going on the cartoon network, nickelodeon, and disney channel websites. I'd also get on shockwave a lot too and distinctly remember how different shockwave used to be back then. Planet Hot Wheels website was my favorite of all, where you would get an account to race with folks on many different/custom tracks around the world, unlock car parts, gadgets, etc. It was real fun back then.

However, at the same time I still went outside a lot, and got on the playground on the other side of town and played flag football. Internet back then wasn't as of a necessity as it's become now since the late 2000's. Kids still play outside today, that's their choice or up to the parents whether we want the technology to control ourselves or not. However, it seems like parents for quite a while now are more strict about their kids going outside due to the fear of them getting hurt or an attack (again, could be debated when this trend started going on), and with more fast paced technology by the press of a button like iPhone's, iPod's, iPad's, Androids, etc. and all the social media sites that exist, not just higher speed internet computers, it's a more likely chance that people are more addicted to their screens at this point now.

Oh yes, definitely. The playground was still teeming with kids in 2003. I'm just saying that that's when you can peg a decline on. 2003 had noticeably less kids on the playground than 2002, 2004 less than 2003 etc. but there were still a lot of kids there.

Oh and I also forgot to mention amandaplease.com LOL that show was great.

People were stuck to their phones in the mid-2000s as well. There were a lot of people who had their phone in their hands 24/7, they wouldn't even put it back in their pocket in case they missed a text. I also remember people having those earphone and bluetooth speakers. It would look like they're talking to you but turns out they were talking on the phone. I definitely don't want to go back to that era, mostly because of my fingers being destroyed trying to text on my 2007 Motorola phone

I remember those times when people were still stuck to their phones, they couldn't put it down.

It's weird when some people claim stuff from the 80's or 00's as the 90's. I mean, some of it makes sense. I personally consider 2000-2002 (and a good amount from 2003) the post 90's 90's (the last time any 1996/1997 influence was relevant) so I don't really have a problem with it but then these weirdo's come out and talk about how everything "after 2000 sucked!" or whatever bullsh*t they can think of and then claim Invader Zim as a "90's show". They also think that by 1990, the "crappy 80's" were washed away. Nostalgia is a fun thing but feeling superior because you were 11 in 1999 is f*cking stupid.

Both these statements are very true. I'd say I was pretty aware of the 80's when living them even though I was still pretty young but it wasn't until Middle School where I really figured out who I was.

Honestly, if they love 90's Pop Culture so much, why not do something about it? The future is unwritten! These guys are all late teens and early 20's so they should stop whining on your computer about the 90's while they young! Go start a band that'll write the next Dookie, Smash or Nevermind! Become a filmmaker and make the next Clerks! Sitting around and whining about it isn't going to change anything!

Our social skills are going down the toilet because of our technology. We are becoming less like human beings with real emotions and more like robot zombies tied down to our phones. It's more like we are controlled by our tech than anything. I heard about that test, too. It's sad how all of us piss away our lives on technology. Yeah, I don't like 2004-2006 pop culturally but I do miss how less digital it was. There was so much more room to breathe.


That's true. They have alot of time to do something about 90s pop culture. If some others have done it, they can do it as well.

Not only our social skills, so is everything else. In one of my classes, a girl gave a speech regarding work and it said that people in this generation are not getting hired because of miscommunication and lack of job skills. We really need to put down technology sometimes and go out and do something with others. By doing that, we can make the world much better working together and it improves social skills, job skills, and even our health.

I think they do that is because some things from the 80s and/or the 00s were closer to the 90s in general. That's why don't represent real 90s kids at all. In fact, they're the reason why other people want the 90s nostalgia to end so much. They go overboard and tell other (insert decade) kids that their childhood was horrible. The 90s nostalgia would have been much better had it began sometime in 2010/11 instead of 2006. Additionally, this whole debate about who is and isn't one would have never occurred and the reminiscing would have ended on a positive note. Here's an image from 2011 that makes no sense and here's the original list that started it all.

http://i1134.photobucket.com/albums/m615/90skidbrah/Real90sKids1.jpg


You're a 90's kid if:

You remember watching Doug, Ren & Stimpy, Pinky and the Brain , and Two Stupid Dogs.

AAAAAAAH real monsters.

You've ever ended a sentence with the word "Sike!"

You just cant resist finishing this... "Iiiiiiin west Philadelphia born and raised..."

You remember TGIF on ABC. Step by Step, Family Matters, Dinosaurs, and Boy Meets World

You remember when 2Pac and Selena died.

You remember when it was actually worth getting up early
on a Saturday to watch cartoons.

You got super excited when it was Oregon Trail day in computer class at school.
you were the coolest kid ever if you could beat it in one computer class *I'm totally gonna go out and buy that game now.*

You remember reading "Goosebumps"

You took plastic cartoon lunch boxes to school.

You remember the craze, then the banning of slap bracelets and slam books.

You still get the urge to say "NOT" after (almost) every sentence...Not...

You used to listen to the radio all day long just to record "Your FAVORITE song of ALL time".

"Where in the World is Carmen San Diego?" was both a game and a TV game show.

Captain Planet. He's a Hero.*I used to wake up early to watch this show!*

You knew that Kimberly, the pink ranger, and Tommy, the green Ranger were meant to be together.

You remember when super nintendo's and Sega Genisis became popular.

you used to play Sonic the Hedgehog

You always wanted to send in a tape to America's Funniest Home Videos... but never taped anything funny.

You remember watching home alone 1, 2 , (and maybe even 3)........and tried to pull the pranks on "intruders"

You remember watching The Magic School Bus, Wishbone, and Reading Rainbow on PBS.

You remember when Yomega Yo-Yos were cool.

You remember those Where's Waldo books..

You remember when Mortal Kombat Was "Da Bomb"!

U remember eating Warheads sour candys

You remember watching the 1st Batman, Aladdin, Ninja Turtles, and 3 Ninjas movies

U remember Ring Pops.

U remember drinkin' Fruitopia and Surge.

U BEGGED your parents to get you "the Grape Escape" game

If you remember when every thing was "da BOMB"

when they made the new lunchables so that you could make tacos and pizza!!

You remember boom boxes vs. cd players

Writing M.A.S.H. notes.

Mousetrap was the coolest game EVER!

Making those little paper fortune cookie finger game things.. and then predicting your life with them.

You knew all the characters names and their life stories on "Saved By The Bell"

You played and/or collected "Pogs"~Casi! Remember how many pogs we had?!*

You haven't always had a computer, and it was cool to have the internet.
And Windows 95 was the best.

You watched the original cartoons of Rugrats, Power Rangers, and Ninja Turtles

You had a favorite New Kid on the block, and you knew all of there names

Michael Jordan was a king.

Or you called out "Jordan" when you pretended to "dunk it"

Yikes pencils and erasers were the stuff!*

All your school supplies were "Lisa Frank" brand.(pencils.notebooks.binders.etc.)

You remember when the new Beanie Babies and talking Elmo were always sold out.

You collected those Beanie Babies.

Growing Pains.

Carebears and The Gummy Bear show.

Gak was the coolest thing invented.

Lambchop's song never ended.

The old dollar bills.

Silver dollars, were cool to have.

You remember a time before the WB.

You collected all the Troll dolls.

You owned a portable tape player.

You know what an original walkman is.

You remember wanting to sit on the orange Nickelodeon couch.

You owned a trapperkeeper

You've gotten creeped out by "Are You Afraid of the Dark?"

You know the Macarena by heart.

"Talk to the hand" ... enough said

You always said, "Then why don't you marry it!"

You know the significance of the number 23.

You went to McD's to play in the playplace.

You remember playing on merry go rounds...at the play ground
and see-saws

When we were younger:

Before the MySpace frenzy...

Before the Internet & text messaging...

Before Sidekicks & iPods...

Before MIKE JONES...

Before PlayStation2 or X-BOX...

Before Sponge Bob

Back when you put off the 5 hours of homework you had every night.

When light up sneakers were cool.


When you rented VHS tapes, not DVDs.

When gas was $0.95 a gallon & Caller ID was a new thing.

When we recorded stuff on VCRs .

When we called the radio station to request songs to hear off our walkmans.

When 2Pac and Biggie where alive.

When the Chicago Bulls were the best team ever.

Way back.

when it was all about N64.

WHEN YOU TRADED POKEMON CARDS FOR A LIVING

Before we realized all this would eventually disappear

Who would have thought you'd miss the 90's so much!!!!!


Come on guys, it's not all doom and gloom :) One thing with people these days is that they talk as though social media and having an online profile is compulsory. It is not. Back when I was a teenager it was all kicking off and I was expected to follow the stupid teen herd and setup a "facebook" which clearly I did not do and won't do. I have a basic mobile telephone (cell phone) and I use my desktop daily because it is my main entertainment centre, without it I would have nothing to do, not miraculously "have a life" if I didn't have the technology. Tech is good, try to stop looking at things through sheesh tinted glasses. People were saying the same thing a decade ago and they will say the same a decade after. End of the day if you don't like technology or a part of technology you don't have to participate in it at all :P
It's not that it's a problem, it's just that we have become addicted to technology which is becoming difficult to get out of. Because of that, we are losing social skills and other skills that are important. Everything has a balance and using tech excessively is destroying it. That's why it's good for people need to moderate their use. That way, we can get that balance back. There is so much to do in the world that we are surely missing out on.

People were stuck to their phones in the mid-2000s as well. There were a lot of people who had their phone in their hands 24/7, they wouldn't even put it back in their pocket in case they missed a text. I also remember people having those earphone and bluetooth speakers. It would look like they're talking to you but turns out they were talking on the phone. I definitely don't want to go back to that era, mostly because of my fingers being destroyed trying to text on my 2007 Motorola phone.

I remember by 2003 when I got broadband, me and my friends would start doing indoor activities more. Cartoonnetwork.com had a lot of great flash games, as well as miniclip.com. We were also a bit naughty and went on funnyjunk.com every now and then. A lot of the teenagers at the time were on habbohotel.com from what I remember, I made an account but wasn't an active user until 2005 or so. Everyone had MSN by then. We still went outside regularly though, I loved riding my bike and there were still a lot of kids playing Yu-gi-oh and dodgeball at the playground. So yeah, I'd peg the decline of the playground at around 2003.


I peg the decline of society around 2003.  ;D


That's true. They have alot of time to do something about 90s pop culture. If some others have done it, they can do it as well.

Not only our social skills, so is everything else. In one of my classes, a girl gave a speech regarding work and it said that people in this generation are not getting hired because of miscommunication and lack of job skills. We really need to put down technology sometimes and go out and do something with others. By doing that, we can make the world much better working together and it improves social skills, job skills, and even our health.

I think they do that is because some things from the 80s and/or the 00s were closer to the 90s in general. That's why don't represent real 90s kids at all. In fact, they're the reason why other people want the 90s nostalgia to end so much. They go overboard and tell other (insert decade) kids that their childhood was horrible. The 90s nostalgia would have been much better had it began sometime in 2010/11 instead of 2006. Additionally, this whole debate about who is and isn't one would have never occurred and the reminiscing would have ended on a positive note. Here's an image from 2011 that makes no sense and here's the original list that started it all.


People are looking for the easy way out of situations by relying on their cell phones and computers and look what's it's doing to us! We're more like robotic zombies than human beings. How are any of these digital relationships meaningful to anyone? We are losing jobs and we're losing what makes us human. No wonder depression is so high today.

It's the worst nostalgia movement by far. It's basically Comic Book Guy from the Simpson's and his internet buddies sitting around feeling superior because "I saw the Super Mario Brothers movie in theaters before you were born." Lame. I don't understand the obsession with childhood. I am nostalgic for my teen and young adult years from 1996-2003 more than anything. That picture makes no sense. 1994, 1995 and 1996 kids are pure "90's kids"? What dumbass made this? Nice columbine photo at the top. Hilarious. I am glad whoever made this has fond memories of all things 90's! ::)

it's just that we have become addicted to technology which is becoming difficult to get out of.

Is there a way to get out of it?

How are any of these digital relationships meaningful to anyone?

I don't see it as "meaningful" anymore, it's just boring, I'd rather do it the old fashioned way, one to one and face to face, the way it originally was.

Is there a way to get out of it?
Yes, there is. All we have to do moderate ourselves using technology and do something that's passionate for us.


People are looking for the easy way out of situations by relying on their cell phones and computers and look what's it's doing to us! We're more like robotic zombies than human beings. How are any of these digital relationships meaningful to anyone? We are losing jobs and we're losing what makes us human. No wonder depression is so high today.

It's the worst nostalgia movement by far. It's basically Comic Book Guy from the Simpson's and his internet buddies sitting around feeling superior because "I saw the Super Mario Brothers movie in theaters before you were born." Lame. I don't understand the obsession with childhood. I am nostalgic for my teen and young adult years from 1996-2003 more than anything. That picture makes no sense. 1994, 1995 and 1996 kids are pure "90's kids"? What dumbass made this? Nice columbine photo at the top. Hilarious. I am glad whoever made this has fond memories of all things 90's! ::)


That's why it has to stop. We're losing people we know and love since we're becoming that way. It makes look soulless and frozen. Because of tech, the important element that's deceasing is communication which is something we need to have. When we use digital formats to talk to others, we don't see tone of voice, verbal and/or body language at all. Even if we are using Skype, Oovoo, and video chats, we're still looking at a screen which could cause distractions and not focus on the person. You're right, depression is so high because many people are lonely and need someone to comfort (sometimes they don't). The truth is, all of us need each other in one way or another. Even if we are busy, let's take the time to say hi or call them and tell them to meet up somewhere. Doing that will increase communication where we are correcting a balance that is decreasing due to a lock of a connection. If we can bring this back, it will benefit everyone and cause a positive outcome in the end.

I agree. I want to participate in it so much as part of my childhood was in the decade, but not with these arrogant "90s kids" ruining all the fun. I wish the real ones started the nostalgia, not them. They understand that the 1990s were not all perfect and had its flaws. In fact, the real 90s kids would have known to began the recollection of the decade itself when it was around 20 years old. Back in 2006, the 90s were nowhere near close to being 20 at the time.

No, its saying that having memories between 5 and 13 during those years considers a person a 90s kid; however, that photo still makes no sense because everything on the right is considered 90s culture whether they like it or not. In addition, it's incorrect about people not remembering anything before age 5; the first memories can begin age 2 or 3 and even if they are vague or constant, they still count regardless. I don't think the person who made that photo did any research as there are some flaws in that picture. At the bottom, there's a disclaimer saying that 90s babies forced to use 90s tech/toys due to poverty doesn't equal a 90s kid. That's definitely nonsense since how does being in poverty disqualifies someone from being a 90s kid? Like I said, that image is a defect. This person doesn't represent real 90s kids; he represents those arrogant ones.

http://i1134.photobucket.com/albums/m615/90skidbrah/Real90sKids1.jpg


What's really sad is thinking about how much time and energy someone put into making that thing. Sadder still is the fact that it was most likely somebody too young to remember half the stuff on the left side of the graph that they're bragging about.

It also perfectly illustrates the absurdity of that brand of "'90s kid supremacy". I mean, they actually list Snow and Kriss Kross as two reasons the early '90s were better than the Y2K era! :P

I really don't care whether kids played outside or not in the 00s but I can tell you that it was well into the technological era then and a decade ago people were saying the same thing.
That's true. They have alot of time to do something about 90s pop culture. If some others have done it, they can do it as well.

Not only our social skills, so is everything else. In one of my classes, a girl gave a speech regarding work and it said that people in this generation are not getting hired because of miscommunication and lack of job skills. We really need to put down technology sometimes and go out and do something with others. By doing that, we can make the world much better working together and it improves social skills, job skills, and even our health.

I think they do that is because some things from the 80s and/or the 00s were closer to the 90s in general. That's why don't represent real 90s kids at all. In fact, they're the reason why other people want the 90s nostalgia to end so much. They go overboard and tell other (insert decade) kids that their childhood was horrible. The 90s nostalgia would have been much better had it began sometime in 2010/11 instead of 2006. Additionally, this whole debate about who is and isn't one would have never occurred and the reminiscing would have ended on a positive note. Here's an image from 2011 that makes no sense and here's the original list that started it all.

http://i1134.photobucket.com/albums/m615/90skidbrah/Real90sKids1.jpg
It's not that it's a problem, it's just that we have become addicted to technology which is becoming difficult to get out of. Because of that, we are losing social skills and other skills that are important. Everything has a balance and using tech excessively is destroying it. That's why it's good for people need to moderate their use. That way, we can get that balance back. There is so much to do in the world that we are surely missing out on.


I don't understand what you are complaining about. Who gives a flying fudge what people's social skills are like? Also why does that image not make sense though? To me it illustrates perfectly the differences. Generation Y are mostly 90s babies because the pictures on the right are familiar to me but the pictures on the left aren't and I was born in '89.

I take it that you don't notice the irony to claim that "we" (not sure how you can speak for others) are addicted to technology when you are using technology to air your very complaint.

You just seem like one of these people that like to whine for the sake of it and say "It was so much better back in my days" when the 00s aren't even the olden days yet. It's not only you though it is most of the people on this website.

The reason I am nostalgic for the 00s is because they were that interesting in between time between the 90s and 2010s and they also happen to be my teenage years but whether kids played outside or not (even though I don't think it could have been much different) isn't important to me.

I mean, they actually list Snow and Kriss Kross as two reasons the early '90s were better than the Y2K era!

I think the group Kris Kross created the backwards pants for the 90's.

Most Generation Zers (2000-present) have never experienced a time when kids used to play outside or even heard of anyone ever going outside to play. Instead, Gen Zers seems to be lazy elephants playing Call of Duty, Battlefield and Halo on their Xboxes and Playstations and watching Youtube all day. I think this will continue forever because technology advances all the time, maybe the next generation (Gen AA) will always play inside.

Most Generation Zers (2000-present) have never experienced a time when kids used to play outside or even heard of anyone ever going outside to play. Instead, Gen Zers seems to be lazy elephants playing Call of Duty, Battlefield and Halo on their Xboxes and Playstations and watching Youtube all day. I think this will continue forever because technology advances all the time, maybe the next generation (Gen AA) will always play inside.


The next generation after Z is called "Alpha", and I know many people born in the early 90's who loved Call of Duty: Black Ops, doesn't mean they're apart of Z. We could say that most Gen Z members spent most of their childhoods with 7th generation gaming and on when online gaming got real big. No matter how much more fast paced technology gets over the years, it's still our choice whether we want the technology to control ourselves all day or not. In the 90's kids at the time could have played on their SNES all day or watched Nickelodeon all day instead of playing outside or getting exercise, if their parents didn't care. If someone wants to watch Youtube videos all day or play on their PS4, that's their choice, or they can actually get themselves up in the morning to run about 6 miles then go to the gym and get a good workout!

The next generation after Z is called "Alpha", and I know many people born in the early 90's who loved Call of Duty: Black Ops, doesn't mean they're apart of Z. We could say that most Gen Z members spent most of their childhoods with 7th generation gaming and on when online gaming got real big. No matter how much more fast paced technology gets over the years, it's still our choice whether we want the technology to control ourselves all day or not. In the 90's kids at the time could have played on their SNES all day or watched Nickelodeon all day instead of playing outside or getting exercise, if their parents didn't care. If someone wants to watch Youtube videos all day or play on their PS4, that's their choice, or they can actually get themselves up in the morning to run about 6 miles then go to the gym and get a good workout!


At least in the 90s, as well as the early 00s, most people still played outside and played some video games in one day.

I don't think they're playing outside, they're too busy fiddling around with the phones. Would that be 10's kids?  ???

What's really sad is thinking about how much time and energy someone put into making that thing. Sadder still is the fact that it was most likely somebody too young to remember half the stuff on the left side of the graph that they're bragging about.

It also perfectly illustrates the absurdity of that brand of "'90s kid supremacy". I mean, they actually list Snow and Kriss Kross as two reasons the early '90s were better than the Y2K era! :P
I think it was someone around your age as he kept saying anyone born in the 90s are not 90s kids. As for the supremacy, you're right. That's how I knew that photo was flawed as there is basically no research regarding everything on both sides and that it has a disclaimer saying that "if you are a 90s baby and were forced to use 90s fads due to poverty, it doesn't make you a 90s kid."  Yeah, being poor makes someone disqualified being from being a 90s kid is clearly a form of supremacy. That's exactly why that person and those arrogant "90s kids" don't represent them at all. They are mainly a minority.


The next generation after Z is called "Alpha", and I know many people born in the early 90's who loved Call of Duty: Black Ops, doesn't mean they're apart of Z. We could say that most Gen Z members spent most of their childhoods with 7th generation gaming and on when online gaming got real big. No matter how much more fast paced technology gets over the years, it's still our choice whether we want the technology to control ourselves all day or not. In the 90's kids at the time could have played on their SNES all day or watched Nickelodeon all day instead of playing outside or getting exercise, if their parents didn't care. If someone wants to watch Youtube videos all day or play on their PS4, that's their choice, or they can actually get themselves up in the morning to run about 6 miles then go to the gym and get a good workout!
That true that we all have a choice to go outside or not; however, the differences between the kids of the 90s and the ones today is that even if the former didn't go outside, they still had many things to do inside such as play kid games in the house, build things using materials, and use their imagination. Today, I don't see that with kids at all. I have been around some and they're always on a device. In fact, most playgrounds are almost empty daily thanks to the constant terrorism and technology addiction. Heck even families don't even do things together that much anymore.

I was talking with a girl who was in one my classes. She's your age and she even feels bad for the kids of today. She told me many of the things that others have said witnessing children everywhere she goes. I don't know if you noticed, but kids have shorter attention spans than we and our parents generation did.

As for Alpha, I don't think they should be described yet. I feel that they haven't even been born yet despite sources stating that the generation began in 2010.


I really don't care whether kids played outside or not in the 00s but I can tell you that it was well into the technological era then and a decade ago people were saying the same thing.
I don't understand what you are complaining about. Who gives a flying fudge what people's social skills are like? Also why does that image not make sense though? To me it illustrates perfectly the differences. Generation Y are mostly 90s babies because the pictures on the right are familiar to me but the pictures on the left aren't and I was born in '89.

I take it that you don't notice the irony to claim that "we" (not sure how you can speak for others) are addicted to technology when you are using technology to air your very complaint.

You just seem like one of these people that like to whine for the sake of it and say "It was so much better back in my days" when the 00s aren't even the olden days yet. It's not only you though it is most of the people on this website.

The reason I am nostalgic for the 00s is because they were that interesting in between time between the 90s and 2010s and they also happen to be my teenage years but whether kids played outside or not (even though I don't think it could have been much different) isn't important to me.
Many people do care about social skills. It's important that we have them or otherwise we could all be seen more as soulless zombies in the future. I'm clearly aware of that that technology took off in 2000s as I'm in the same age range as you. I recall many people back in the mid 00s having cell phones and other devices.

It doesn't make sense as it shows 90s kid arrogance and it's showing why one era was better than another without backing it up with facts from research. Furthermore, Generation Y actually spans about 20 years which is mostly from 1981 to 2000.

I'm tech savvy which is totally different from tech dependence. I'm not saying that we should all hate technology and go back to the old days; I'm saying that we need to sometimes put the tech down and go out and enjoy the world. It has much more to offer than being on a device all day.

I'm nostalgic for the decade as well as it was also my adolescence and I agree, they were a fascinating time to witness all of those changes as they gradually took place. 

That's why it has to stop. We're losing people we know and love since we're becoming that way. It makes look soulless and frozen. Because of tech, the important element that's deceasing is communication which is something we need to have. When we use digital formats to talk to others, we don't see tone of voice, verbal and/or body language at all. Even if we are using Skype, Oovoo, and video chats, we're still looking at a screen which could cause distractions and not focus on the person. You're right, depression is so high because many people are lonely and need someone to comfort (sometimes they don't). The truth is, all of us need each other in one way or another. Even if we are busy, let's take the time to say hi or call them and tell them to meet up somewhere. Doing that will increase communication where we are correcting a balance that is decreasing due to a lock of a connection. If we can bring this back, it will benefit everyone and cause a positive outcome in the end.



Yep. Communication, emotions and feelings and our abilities to share these things with others are what makes us human. Just being with people we care about, talking with friends and doing stuff with each other is what sends off the endorphins in our brains that makes us happy. A computer with Facebook and all that sh*t is gonna do more harm than good. How can somebody say they have real friends when they're too lazy to call them up for 5 minutes to ask about their day or make plans so they'd rather send a text instead? That's not healthy.


I agree. I want to participate in it so much as part of my childhood was in the decade, but not with these arrogant "90s kids" ruining all the fun. I wish the real ones started the nostalgia, not them. They understand that the 1990s were not all perfect and had its flaws. In fact, the real 90s kids would have known to began the recollection of the decade itself when it was around 20 years old. Back in 2006, the 90s were nowhere near close to being 20 at the time.


Exactly. I was a teenage during the mid-late 90's and I can tell you that things weren't all flowers and roses like these kids seem to think. Of course, when lonely fat basement dwellers get a hold of something they always seem to ruin it with their forced sense of superiority.


No, its saying that having memories between 5 and 13 during those years considers a person a 90s kid; however, that photo still makes no sense because everything on the right is considered 90s culture whether they like it or not. In addition, it's incorrect about people not remembering anything before age 5; the first memories can begin age 2 or 3 and even if they are vague or constant, they still count regardless. I don't think the person who made that photo did any research as there are some flaws in that picture. At the bottom, there's a disclaimer saying that 90s babies forced to use 90s tech/toys due to poverty doesn't equal a 90s kid. That's definitely nonsense since how does being in poverty disqualifies someone from being a 90s kid? Like I said, that image is a defect. This person doesn't represent real 90s kids; he represents those arrogant ones.


It makes no sense to me how kids born from 1993/1994 onward can have "strong 90's kid lifestyles" and if, according to this chart, memories start at 5 then how would a 1993/1994 born remember anything but the stuff on the right side? I was born in 1982 and I can recount quite a bit of stuff that happened in 1984 and 1985. There are even studies done by actual scientists (not bullsh*t pseudo-scientist basement dwellers like these kids are)  that say memories start at around 2 or 3 depending on your development. Whoever made that image is a complete dumbass. It's literally the stupidest thing I've seen all month and that's coming from the guy who watches Beavis and Butthead regularly. 

Yep. Communication, emotions and feelings and our abilities to share these things with others are what makes us human. Just being with people we care about, talking with friends and doing stuff with each other is what sends off the endorphins in our brains that makes us happy. A computer with Facebook and all that sh*t is gonna do more harm than good. How can somebody say they have real friends when they're too lazy to call them up for 5 minutes to ask about their day or make plans so they'd rather send a text instead? That's not healthy.


Exactly. I was a teenage during the mid-late 90's and I can tell you that things weren't all flowers and roses like these kids seem to think. Of course, when lonely fat basement dwellers get a hold of something they always seem to ruin it with their forced sense of superiority.

It makes no sense to me how kids born from 1993/1994 onward can have "strong 90's kid lifestyles" and if, according to this chart, memories start at 5 then how would a 1993/1994 born remember anything but the stuff on the right side? I was born in 1982 and I can recount quite a bit of stuff that happened in 1984 and 1985. There are even studies done by actual scientists (not bullsh*t pseudo-scientist basement dwellers like these kids are)  that say memories start at around 2 or 3 depending on your development. Whoever made that image is a complete dumbass. It's literally the stupidest thing I've seen all month and that's coming from the guy who watches Beavis and Butthead regularly.


I agree. Communication is a very vital aspect to everyone. By not having that, we would be seen as zombies (which is kinda happening). That important piece definitely brings people together and on top of that, we gain relationships that we wouldn't receieve on a PC as we would see the true person and not the fake on a social media account.

I know. Thanks to them, the 90s nostalgia has been ruined for everyone who wanted to turn it into a postive light. As for the decade itself, although there was some awful events, it was an era to have fun with friends, family and others. I've seen your posts regarding the music scene of the 90s and I have to say it must have been wonderful to enjoy the experience.  :)

;D ;D ;D ;D Your last post was hilarious and I agree; however, it stated that 1985 babies had "strong 90s kid lifestyle" while 1991 babies had "millennium kid lifestyles" which I'm sure isn't true. People born in the 90s (especially the first half) have absolutely experienced a small/medium portion of the decade which means they can remember things from when they were 2, 3 and 4. Like I said, that person didnt do any research for his photo and instead gave some BS to back up his claims ;D.

I agree. Communication is a very vital aspect to everyone. By not having that, we would be seen as zombies (which is kinda happening). That important piece definitely brings people together and on top of that, we gain relationships that we wouldn't receieve on a PC as we would see the true person and not the fake on a social media account.


I wish more people would realize this. So many younger kids are sitting around on their computer screens instead of living their lives, building meaningful relationships and making memories. Instead, they hide inside and do nothing productive. Facebook and Twitter aren't real life like they think it is.


I know. Thanks to them, the 90s nostalgia has been ruined for everyone who wanted to turn it into a postive light. As for the decade itself, although there was some awful events, it was an era to have fun with friends, family and others. I've seen your posts regarding the music scene of the 90s and I have to say it must have been wonderful to enjoy the experience.  :)


I agree. Acting superior because you remember the 90's is stupid. And yeah, even though there were some terrible events (in both the 90's and early 00's) I can still look back at my own personal life and think of all the things I've experienced and the memories I've made. Thanks! I am glad you enjoy my stories. I'm always happy to share my experiences about the music scene from the late 90's and early 00's. It was a special time for me.


;D ;D ;D ;D Your last post was hilarious and I agree; however, it stated that 1985 babies had "strong 90s kid lifestyle" while 1991 babies had "millennium kid lifestyles" which I'm sure isn't true. People born in the 90s (especially the first half) have absolutely experienced a small/medium portion of the decade which means they can remember things from when they were 2, 3 and 4. Like I said, that person didnt do any research for his photo and instead gave some BS to back up his claims ;D.


That photo makes no sense to me whatsoever. And there is a late 90's backlash now, too? Because a 1991 would of been 5 in 1997. 1997 is a "millennium kid" year? I think kids born from 1990-1997 were still able to experience small portions of the 90's even if just one or two years of it depending on their age. A 1990/1991 baby would probably remember a good amount of the 90's. Since I also consider 2000-2002 the extended part of the 90's, you could cheat and put that in there, too.

That photo makes no sense to me whatsoever. And there is a late 90's backlash now, too? Because a 1991 would of been 5 in 1997. 1997 is a "millennium kid" year? I think kids born from 1990-1997 were still able to experience small portions of the 90's even if just one or two years of it depending on their age. A 1990/1991 baby would probably remember a good amount of the 90's. Since I also consider 2000-2002 the extended part of the 90's, you could cheat and put that in there, too.


I was born in 1996 and to be honest I barely experienced the millennial era. I can remember some things from 1999-early 2001 but I don't consider it as apart of my core childhood. If 2002 & maybe most of 2003 count as part of the millennial then yes. However, that only be partial anyway, I can't be a true millennial kid, however, I can definitely be considered as an early 2000's kid along with the mid 2000's without a doubt. I consider late 2001-early 2007 as my core childhood duration. I think those born throughout the first half of the 90's (1990-1994) would be the prime millennial kids.

I mostly see millennial kids to be those who are mainly/mostly early 00's kids and were in their childhood by the time the core millennial era started. Basically if a majority of your 3-12 childhood years was between 1998-2002/3 then I'd see that person as a millennial kid. Someone from 1993 was 5 in their core childhood by 1998 and 9/10 when the millennial era ended. Someone from 1995 were 3 in their early childhood by 1998 and 7/8 when the millennial era ended. I see those from 1993-1995 to be the main early 2000s kid group who also had most of their childhood in the millennial era. If they were to ever pull memories of their early or core childhood it would've likely been memories from 1998-2002/3. Late childhood is something that 1993-1995 all experienced in the mid 2000s (I see late childhood as 10-12 since that's when you become a preteen, but I'm aware that everyone as their definition for what is seen as a preteen. Some same 10-13, 9-12, or 11-12, but it's usually around the time a kid ages to double digits which is usually around 5th grade at the end of elementary school).

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9e/Child_development_stages.svg/1280px-Child_development_stages.svg.png
Here is a chart for the development of a person. Keep in mind that it isn't the "definitive" chart, but hey maybe it'll prove to be useful. Also it's funny how ages 7-8 aren't a part of either toddler or even preteen years which makes as sense it's a person true peak in childhood I guess.

As for the topic well I don't think kids stopped playing outside as soon as 2000 hit. That alone sounds just odd. I'm sure in the 1980s there were TONS of kids playing outside, but by the 1990s that's where the decline would've started. 1990's kids talking about how kids in the 2000s weren't playing outside are clearly stupid. Not every 90's kid was playing outside and ever since the 1990s there was a decline. And not every 00's kid stayed inside either.

I mostly see millennial kids to be those who are mainly/mostly early 00's kids and were in their childhood by the time the core millennial era started. Basically if a majority of your 3-12 childhood years was between 1998-2002/3 then I'd see that person as a millennial kid. Someone from 1993 was 5 in their core childhood by 1998 and 9/10 when the millennial era ended. Someone from 1995 were 3 in their early childhood by 1998 and 7/8 when the millennial era ended. I see those from 1993-1995 to be the main early 2000s kid group who also had most of their childhood in the millennial era. If they were to ever pull memories of their early or core childhood it would've likely been memories from 1998-2002/3. Late childhood is something that 1993-1995 all experienced in the mid 2000s (I see late childhood as 10-12 since that's when you become a preteen, but I'm aware that everyone as their definition for what is seen as a preteen. Some same 10-13, 9-12, or 11-12, but it's usually around the time a kid ages to double digits which is usually around 5th grade at the end of elementary school).

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9e/Child_development_stages.svg/1280px-Child_development_stages.svg.png
Here is a chart for the development of a person. Keep in mind that it isn't the "definitive" chart, but hey maybe it'll prove to be useful. Also it's funny how ages 7-8 aren't a part of either toddler or even preteen years which makes as sense it's a person true peak in childhood I guess.


That's a really accurate chart. In fact, this would mean my absolute peak childhood would be the years 2003 & 2004. Which is in fact in the center of my full kid duration from 1999-2008. I'd say my absolute peak childhood was from 2003-2005 being 7-9 year's old, or at least 1st grade through 3rd grade would be my absolute peak, since I was no longer in Kindergarten or earlier learning basics, but I was not in 4th or 5th grade yet when you start having to worry about homework preparing for middle school. 1st grade through 3rd grade is like the peak of your childhood culture without having to worry about that much work yet. I disagree with 6 being preschool aged though, that would absolutely be a core childhood year. Age 5 marks the tail end of early childhood or preschool stage. However, I still had many fun childhood moments throughout 2006 too when I was 10 especially that summer and still felt like an innocent kid until the middle of 5th grade when I learned about WWII and global warming.

I think a lot of people lump the term early 2000's with millennial era. I thought millennial meant late 90's and early 2000's combined together. 1998-2002 would be the peak of the millennial era while 1997 & 2003 were transition years in and out of it. I define core childhood as ages 6-10 with age 8 being your peak, and someone born in 1990 would have been 8 in 1998 while someone born in 1994 would've been 8 in 2002, which is why I thought the 1st half 90's born's were the prime millennial kids. However, if you said prime early 2000's kids if we're talking about the early 2000's or cultural early 2000's only, then that would go to to the 1993-1995 born's as the peak of early 2000's kids, with 1992 & 1996 born's spending half of their core childhoods in that span.

That's a really accurate chart. In fact, this would mean my absolute peak childhood would be the years 2003 & 2004. Which is in fact in the center of my full kid duration from 1999-2008. I'd say my absolute peak childhood was from 2003-2005 being 7-9 year's old, or at least 1st grade through 3rd grade would be my absolute peak, since I was no longer in Kindergarten or earlier learning basics, but I was not in 4th or 5th grade yet when you start having to worry about homework preparing for middle school. 1st grade through 3rd grade is like the peak of your childhood culture without having to worry about that much work yet. I disagree with 6 being preschool aged though, that would absolutely be a core childhood year. Age 5 marks the tail end of early childhood or preschool stage. However, I still had many fun childhood moments throughout 2006 too when I was 10 especially that summer and still felt like an innocent kid until the middle of 5th grade when I learned about WWII and global warming.

I think a lot of people lump the term early 2000's with millennial era. I thought millennial meant late 90's and early 2000's combined together. 1998-2002 would be the peak of the millennial era while 1997 & 2003 were transition years in and out of it. I define core childhood as ages 6-10 with age 8 being your peak, and someone born in 1990 would have been 8 in 1998 while someone born in 1994 would've been 8 in 2002, which is why I thought the 1st half 90's born's were the prime millennial kids. However, if you said prime early 2000's kids if we're talking about the early 2000's or cultural early 2000's only, then that would go to to the 1993-1995 born's as the peak of early 2000's kids, with 1992 & 1996 born's spending half of their core childhoods in that span.


You raise some pretty good points there. My mistake for just thinking about the early 2000's kids. You're right since millennial is both late 1990s AND early 2000s then both late 1990s and early 2000s kids would fit into the millennial kid group (makes sense the late 1990s/early 2000s aren't drastically different which is why people would lump them together). I won't say it's those born in just the 1st half of the 1990s, but rather everyone from the early-mid 1990s (those from 1990-1995/6 basically). And as for the early 2000's kid group you're right. Those from 1993-1995 are the main group because, but those from 1992 and 1996 also had half of their childhood in that time. And yeah age 6 isn't preschool. I was a bit confused on that as well. But the chart does say that definitions differ in faded areas. Age 6 is in the faded area while ages 10-12 are in the non-faded areas of their definitions.

That chart is very accurate, except I'd include 10 and most of 11 in my childhood years. Late 1998 - Mid 2004 to be precise, as a '93 born. The Y2K era was a blast ;D

2004-05 school year is when I had the kid beaten out of me in middle school. I would call that my preteen years (or year, I guess, lol)
2005-06 school year is my first full teenage year, so I still consider myself a mid-2000s teen, not really a mid-2000s kid. *shrugs* It was the last year of middle school so I guess it's still arguably preteen. It didn't feel like that though  ;D

Yeah, I sort of regret saying that kids the decline of the playground was 2003. It arguably started long before that, or it didn't even start at all. The weather over here is unbearable 9 months out of the year, so most people don't go "out" period. Kid or adult. The summer months were the best though *_*

That chart is very accurate, except I'd include 10 and most of 11 in my childhood years. Late 1998 - Mid 2004 to be precise, as a '93 born. The Y2K era was a blast ;D

2004-05 school year is when I had the kid beaten out of me in middle school. I would call that my preteen years (or year, I guess, lol)
2005-06 school year is my first full teenage year, so I still consider myself a mid-2000s teen, not really a mid-2000s kid. *shrugs* It was the last year of middle school so I guess it's still arguably preteen. It didn't feel like that though  ;D


Well hey a preteen is nothing more than just a kid who is starting to experience teen culture. So if age 10-11 didn't feel any different (or at least not drastically different) than ages 13-14 well it's understandable on why.

That's a really accurate chart. In fact, this would mean my absolute peak childhood would be the years 2003 & 2004. Which is in fact in the center of my full kid duration from 1999-2008. I'd say my absolute peak childhood was from 2003-2005 being 7-9 year's old, or at least 1st grade through 3rd grade would be my absolute peak, since I was no longer in Kindergarten or earlier learning basics, but I was not in 4th or 5th grade yet when you start having to worry about homework preparing for middle school. 1st grade through 3rd grade is like the peak of your childhood culture without having to worry about that much work yet. I disagree with 6 being preschool aged though, that would absolutely be a core childhood year. Age 5 marks the tail end of early childhood or preschool stage. However, I still had many fun childhood moments throughout 2006 too when I was 10 especially that summer and still felt like an innocent kid until the middle of 5th grade when I learned about WWII and global warming.

I think a lot of people lump the term early 2000's with millennial era. I thought millennial meant late 90's and early 2000's combined together. 1998-2002 would be the peak of the millennial era while 1997 & 2003 were transition years in and out of it. I define core childhood as ages 6-10 with age 8 being your peak, and someone born in 1990 would have been 8 in 1998 while someone born in 1994 would've been 8 in 2002, which is why I thought the 1st half 90's born's were the prime millennial kids. However, if you said prime early 2000's kids if we're talking about the early 2000's or cultural early 2000's only, then that would go to to the 1993-1995 born's as the peak of early 2000's kids, with 1992 & 1996 born's spending half of their core childhoods in that span.


Its like I have been saying for the longest time, childhood which is typically defined as age 3-12, is mathematically divided in how you personally see it. Some say their core years were 5-10, while others might say 6-10 or whatever. HOWEVER, there's no mistaken it that your absolute peak childhood, meaning your mathematical and (for most people) their nostalgic peak, is typically at around age 7 1/2. However to even things out it could be age 7 through age 8.

So for me and you mqg, since we're 96' babies we would be the ultimate early 00's and mid 00's hybrids because not only our core childhood in it's entirety was spent in the early & mid sections, but our peaks were also during the years 2003 which was early and 2004 which was mid. Similarly 1992 babies were 7 in 1999 and 8 in 2000, making them the ultimate late 90's/early 00's hybrids.

Now then those from the first half of 1996 (January-June) might be mathematically and (for most) nostalgically leaning more towards the early 00's while those from the second half of 1996 (July-December) might be mathematically and nostalgically leaning more towards the mid 00's. But in the grand scheme of things we are all hybrids.

Here's how I see it using a chart:

1992: Ultimate Late 90's/Early 00's Hybrids

1993-1995: Early 00's Kids

1996: Ultimate Early/Mid 00's Hybrids

1997-1998: Mid 00's Kids

1999: Ultimate Mid/Late 00's Hybrids

2000-2001: Late 00's Kids

2002: Ultimate Late 00's/Early 10's Hybrids


And the process continues



You raise some pretty good points there. My mistake for just thinking about the early 2000's kids. You're right since millennial is both late 1990s AND early 2000s then both late 1990s and early 2000s kids would fit into the millennial kid group (makes sense the late 1990s/early 2000s aren't drastically different which is why people would lump them together). I won't say it's those born in just the 1st half of the 1990s, but rather everyone from the early-mid 1990s (those from 1990-1995/6 basically). And as for the early 2000's kid group you're right. Those from 1993-1995 are the main group because, but those from 1992 and 1996 also had half of their childhood in that time. And yeah age 6 isn't preschool. I was a bit confused on that as well. But the chart does say that definitions differ in faded areas. Age 6 is in the faded area while ages 10-12 are in the non-faded areas of their definitions.


You make a good point! The Millennial Period is just another way of calling the Era that spanned through the Late 90's & Early 00's. Culturally I would say it began in Mid 1997 with teen pop starting peak, Nu Metal and Post Grunge getting big, Gangsta Rap evolving into Party Rap, and the internet starting to become popular (alebit Web 1.0 Net); with the era ending around early 2004 with Party Rap evolving into Crunk rap, Nu Metal evolving into Emo, and Web 1.0 evolving into Web 2.0 thanks to the launch of Facebook around this time (albeit to College campuses).

Now there's two halves to this era obviously, the Mid 1997-Mid 2000 Half which was the Cultural Late 90's aka Y2K Era and the Late 2001-Early 2004 Half which was the Cultural Early 00's aka the Lizzie McGuire Era. Late 2000-Mid 2001, was a transitional period between The Y2K Era and The Lizzie McGuire Era, arguably the peak of the Millennial Era as a whole.

Now like I said above, those who grew up primairly in the Early 00's would be those from the Second Half of 1992 through the First Half of 1996, with a heavy emphasis on 1993-1995 babies. While those who grew up primairly in the Late 90's would be those from the Second Half of 1989 through the First Half of 1992, with a heavy emphasis on 1990 and 1991 babies.

So for the Millennial Period in its entirety, the main kids of that era would be Those born from July of 1989 through June of 1996.

b. July of 1989-June of 1992: Main Y2K Era Kids

b. July of 1992-June of 1996: Main Lizzie McGuire Era Kids

Ultimate Millennial Era Kids altogether would be those born in June of 1992 and July of 1992 (or anybody relatively close within that month and year range).

Millennial Era as a whole:

First Half - Y2K Era (where those born from July of 89' through June of 92' spent most of their core years)

http://cimg.tvgcdn.net/i/2015/06/08/cf800e9b-8f85-489d-a1e8-3049462b3398/150608-news-dawsons-creek.jpg

t-knq_cJRDQ

0Bvg_EBpa-I

1iu9o0yO4_c


Second Half - Lizzie McGuire Era (where those born from July of 92' through June of 96' spent most of their core years)

http://sev.h-cdn.co/assets/15/15/1428605846-sev-lizzie-mcguire.jpg

FOEPGJ1NlN0

5hFSSoOIlY4

5487FOkYzWo

What is meant by "peak" childhood?


Well hey a preteen is nothing more than just a kid who is starting to experience teen culture. So if age 10-11 didn't feel any different (or at least not drastically different) than ages 13-14 well it's understandable on why.


Oh, no! I'm saying I was still a kid when I was 10/11. Maybe it's a transitional thing. I don't think it's 9 = kid, 10 = BAM preteen. (although that is true biologically)

What is meant by "peak" childhood?

Oh, no! I'm saying I was still a kid when I was 10/11. Maybe it's a transitional thing. I don't think it's 9 = kid, 10 = BAM preteen. (although that is true biologically)


"Peak" childhood to me is the years when a kid is just a kid. Not a toddler or preteen. It's usually right in the middle of the core childhood. Think of it as the "absolute core" childhood. I see core childhood as ages 5-9/10. So the "peak" of that would be ages 7 and 8 since they're right in the middle (and on the chart I posted you can see that neither ages 7 or 8 are included with the other groups not even in the faded areas of the toddler or preteen group. The only group they fall into is "Primary School age").

Ultimate Millennial Era Kids altogether would be those born in June of 1992 and July of 1992 (or anybody relatively close within that month and year range).


Bingo, which is why I was saying the prime millennial kids were born from 1990-1994, in other words the 1st half of the 90's born's. Makes since that 1992 born's are the ultimate millennial kids, since they were 6-10 years old from 1998-2002 which was the core millennial period, and at the same time they are the late 90's/early 2000's hybrids, which is how we define the millennial era right? The prime early 2000's kids were born from 1992-1996 (ultimate being 1994). The prime late 90's kids were born from 1988-1992 (ultimate being 1990).

"Peak" childhood to me is the years when a kid is just a kid. Not a toddler or preteen. It's usually right in the middle of the core childhood. Think of it as the "absolute core" childhood. I see core childhood as ages 5-9/10. So the "peak" of that would be ages 7 and 8 since they're right in the middle (and on the chart I posted you can see that neither ages 7 or 8 are included with the other groups not even in the faded areas of the toddler or preteen group. The only group they fall into is "Primary School age").


Ahh that makes a lot of sense.

^^ Dawson Creek came on a non-kid network here in Canada. I never saw it as a kid's show before. I remember watching Radio Active and Big Wolf on Campus in the late 90s, those shows are classics  :D

What is meant by "peak" childhood?

Oh, no! I'm saying I was still a kid when I was 10/11. Maybe it's a transitional thing. I don't think it's 9 = kid, 10 = BAM preteen. (although that is true biologically)


Personally, I define preteens as 11 & 12 years old. 11 is the transitional age when you begin to enter middle school and interests changes, and a preteen is still a kid, but it's definitely not your core kid years anymore it's late childhood. Even 13 or early 14 is not much different than 11 & 12 year old's since it's all part of your early adolescence stage when you haven't started high school yet. Age 10 is still core childhood to me along with 6 through 9 year old's.

Bingo, which is why I was saying the prime millennial kids were born from 1990-1994, in other words the 1st half of the 90's born's. Makes since that 1992 born's are the ultimate millennial kids, since they were 6-10 years old from 1998-2002 which was the core millennial period, and at the same time they are the late 90's/early 2000's hybrids, which is how we define the millennial era right? The prime early 2000's kids were born from 1992-1996 (ultimate being 1994). The prime late 90's kids were born from 1988-1992 (ultimate being 1990).


Exactly, this is is spot on! Culturally those from 88/89-92 would be the main Y2K or Late 90's Kids while those from 92/93-96 would be the Main Lizzie McGuire or Early 00's Kids.

Ahh that makes a lot of sense.

^^ Dawson Creek came on a non-kid network here in Canada. I never saw it as a kid's show before. I remember watching Radio Active and Big Wolf on Campus in the late 90s, those shows are classics  :D


Well I was just using it as a cultural examples of a popular Live action show that was in its prime in the late 90's, while Lizzie McGuire being a popular Live action show that was in its prime in the early 00's.

Don't forget that Dawson's Creek was on from 1998 to 2003. I don't know anything about this "core childhood" stuff but I can remember things pretty clearly from 2 onward when I became a "sentient being" or whatever you want to call it. Call me crazy, but I remember the exact moment I became aware of my surroundings. It felt like waking up from a deep sleep or a coma.

Anyways, I am not too familiar with the kid culture of 1998-2002 aside from cartoons and video games but as a late teen/young adult from back then, I consider those 5 years to be one full era. In my mind, I have a hard time splitting them up into two halves.

Don't forget that Dawson's Creek was on from 1998 to 2003. I don't know anything about this "core childhood" stuff but I can remember things pretty clearly from 2 onward when I became a "sentient being" or whatever you want to call it. Call me crazy, but I remember the exact moment I became aware of my surroundings. It felt like waking up from a deep sleep or a coma.

Anyways, I am not too familiar with the kid culture of 1998-2002 aside from cartoons and video games but as a late teen/young adult from back then, I consider those 5 years to be one full era. In my mind, I have a hard time splitting them up into two halves.


I can split the 5 year span into 2 halves, but I can also see why someone would have a hard time doing so. Each year from 1998-2002 has a big set of strings that link them to each other. And no matter how I try to split them it always seems odd to me. People would split in the year 2001 because of 9/11, but I don't do that mostly because while 9/11 may have affect things politically I'm sure for most younger people things felt nearly the same. The way you experienced things in mid 2001 may not have been that much different in late 2001 or early 2002. And if you were under 10 (or 13) by the time 9/11 happened then I'm certain that there wasn't that much of an effect on your childhood.

I can split the 5 year span into 2 halves, but I can also see why someone would have a hard time doing so. Each year from 1998-2002 has a big set of strings that link them to each other. And no matter how I try to split them it always seems odd to me. People would split in the year 2001 because of 9/11, but I don't do that mostly because while 9/11 may have affect things politically I'm sure for most younger people things felt nearly the same. The way you experienced things in mid 2001 may not have been that much different in late 2001 or early 2002. And if you were under 10 (or 13) by the time 9/11 happened then I'm certain that there wasn't that much of an effect on your childhood.


All the way up to late 2002, too. I feel like there is a strong enough link between 1998-2002 that makes it feel like one cohesive era. Splitting them up feels wrong. 9/11 didn't affect us much in California from what I remember. 2003 is when I can recall the music, fashion and trends really starting to change but it's only a transition and still a part of the era (the link to 1998-2002 isn't as strong, though).

Frankly, I can see why people would view the Y2K era as an entire cultural decade, beginning with the birth of the Internet Boom and fifth generation video games in 1995 and concluding around 2004/2005, when the vast bulk of Y2K technology and media began to lose popularity.  This would mean things like Friends, Web 1.0, Eminem, offline 3D gaming, nu-metal, glam/thug rap, Alanis Morissette, the peak of Japanese anime in the United States, post-grunge, South Park, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and whatever wave of pop punk JordanK1982 refers to were all things that belonged to this greater decade, even though traditionally most people still consider 1998-2001 to be the core of the Y2K era.  1999 would undoubtedly be the quintessential year of the Y2K decade, as it not only saw the actual countdown to Y2K, it seemed to be the year when almost all culture related to the millennial era hit its peak (i.e., Pokémon, teen pop, AOL, movies like The Matrix and American Pie), or was at least still relevant following the early phase of the era (Will Smith, Puff Daddy, Spice Girls, Kenan & Kel, etc.).

Bingo, which is why I was saying the prime millennial kids were born from 1990-1994, in other words the 1st half of the 90's born's. Makes since that 1992 born's are the ultimate millennial kids, since they were 6-10 years old from 1998-2002 which was the core millennial period, and at the same time they are the late 90's/early 2000's hybrids, which is how we define the millennial era right? The prime early 2000's kids were born from 1992-1996 (ultimate being 1994). The prime late 90's kids were born from 1988-1992 (ultimate being 1990).

This.

So, I guess I'm a hybrid kid of the Y2k Era and Early 2000s era, with some mid 2000s mixed in. Since I'm a (late)1995er; late 2002, 2003, and the first half of 2004 were my ALL TIME peaks as a kid, being 7-8 during that time. Also I was 5 and 6 during the late 2000/2001 period when the millennial period was still in full effect,which I DEFINITELY consider to be apart of peak childhood for me. I guess I'm a prime early 2000s kid then.

I see myself closer to the Y2K era than the Lizzie Mcguire one. The reason is that I began puberty early than others. The 2001-02 season was the last year where I felt innocence  ;D. By the next year, I was leaning towards late childhood considering I was close to 10 at that time.

I feel like my childhood was predominantly defined by the late 90s, particularly stuff from autumn 1996 through 2001, but I was also still watching Cartoon Network when I was 12 thanks to my Codename: Kids Next Door fandom.  Surprisingly, I hardly grew up with anything from the mid-90s aside from educational tools and occasionally the Super Nintendo (I didn't even watch The Lion King, Pocahontas, or The Hunchback of Notre Dame very much on VHS despite owning them), so I never got into Power Rangers, Gargoyles, Animaniacs, pogs, or the like.  I was, however, a fan of the Game Boy Advance, Yu-Gi-Oh!, and the aforementioned Codename: Kids Next Door during my late childhood.

I see myself closer to the Y2K era than the Lizzie Mcguire one. The reason is that I began puberty early than others. The 2001-02 season was the last year where I felt innocence  ;D. By the next year, I was leaning towards late childhood considering I was close to 10 at that time.


I feel the same although I'm younger than you (edit: oh wait, I'm not sure. "almost 10" in 2002 is pretty amiguous haha, i think we're the same age). Isn't Lizzie McGuire not Y2K? It's early 2000s for sure, but I'm not sure I'd call it Y2K. When I think Y2K I think my "peak" childhood as people described it here, 1998-2001 basically. A time before digital thenology had become commonplace. Maybe 2002 as well, definitely not 2003. 

This is what comes to mind when I think Y2K

plDzdgJ0iy4

Radio Active (aired 1998 - 2001)

This show was really popular in Canada, and aired in other countries of the Commonwealth. It just screams late 90s! (obviously, since it aired in the late 90s haha). Lizzie McGuire on the other hand does not scream late 90s to me. Maaaybe "late 90s/early 2000s", but mostly it's just early 2000s. :s

I feel the same although I'm younger than you. Isn't Lizzie McGuire not Y2K? It's early 2000s for sure, but I'm not sure I'd call it Y2K. When I think Y2K I think my "peak" childhood as people described it here, 1998-2001 basically. Maybe 2002 as well, definitely not 2003. 

This is what comes to mind when I think Y2K

Radio Active (aired 1998 - 2001)

This show was really popular in Canada, and aired in other countries of the Commonwealth. It just screams late 90s! (obviously, since it aired in the late 90s haha). Lizzie McGuire on the other hand does not scream late 90s to me or even "late 90s/early 2000s", it's just early 2000s. :s


You know, "Adult" Canadian Cartoons from the late 90's and early 00's were really weird. I don't know if you're old enough to remember shows like Undergrads or Clone High but man, they were strange. Right next to Home Movies, Invader Zim, Mission Hill or whatever else was on late night TV from 1998-2003. I miss those shows.

You know, "Adult" Canadian Cartoons from the late 90's and early 00's were really weird. I don't know if you're old enough to remember shows like Undergrads or Clone High but man, they were strange. Right next to Home Movies, Invader Zim, Mission Hill or whatever else was on late night TV from 1998-2003. I miss those shows.


Everything on TV from 1998-2003 was weird to me . Especially things from late night TV.

I think it was someone around your age as he kept saying anyone born in the 90s are not 90s kids. As for the supremacy, you're right. That's how I knew that photo was flawed as there is basically no research regarding everything on both sides and that it has a disclaimer saying that "if you are a 90s baby and were forced to use 90s fads due to poverty, it doesn't make you a 90s kid."  Yeah, being poor makes someone disqualified being from being a 90s kid is clearly a form of supremacy. That's exactly why that person and those arrogant "90s kids" don't represent them at all. They are mainly a minority.
That true that we all have a choice to go outside or not; however, the differences between the kids of the 90s and the ones today is that even if the former didn't go outside, they still had many things to do inside such as play kid games in the house, build things using materials, and use their imagination. Today, I don't see that with kids at all. I have been around some and they're always on a device. In fact, most playgrounds are almost empty daily thanks to the constant terrorism and technology addiction. Heck even families don't even do things together that much anymore.

I was talking with a girl who was in one my classes. She's your age and she even feels bad for the kids of today. She told me many of the things that others have said witnessing children everywhere she goes. I don't know if you noticed, but kids have shorter attention spans than we and our parents generation did.

As for Alpha, I don't think they should be described yet. I feel that they haven't even been born yet despite sources stating that the generation began in 2010.
Many people do care about social skills. It's important that we have them or otherwise we could all be seen more as soulless zombies in the future. I'm clearly aware of that that technology took off in 2000s as I'm in the same age range as you. I recall many people back in the mid 00s having cell phones and other devices.

It doesn't make sense as it shows 90s kid arrogance and it's showing why one era was better than another without backing it up with facts from research. Furthermore, Generation Y actually spans about 20 years which is mostly from 1981 to 2000.

I'm tech savvy which is totally different from tech dependence. I'm not saying that we should all hate technology and go back to the old days; I'm saying that we need to sometimes put the tech down and go out and enjoy the world. It has much more to offer than being on a device all day.

I'm nostalgic for the decade as well as it was also my adolescence and I agree, they were a fascinating time to witness all of those changes as they gradually took place.


Glad to hear we are on the same page. My frustration was merely that the tech dependence you mention started way before the 10s or even the 00s. I thought you might have been one of those "it wasn't like this in my day" people, which I find annoying, but you are not anyway.

I feel the same although I'm younger than you (edit: oh wait, I'm not sure. "almost 10" in 2002 is pretty amiguous haha, i think we're the same age). Isn't Lizzie McGuire not Y2K? It's early 2000s for sure, but I'm not sure I'd call it Y2K. When I think Y2K I think my "peak" childhood as people described it here, 1998-2001 basically. A time before digital thenology had become commonplace. Maybe 2002 as well, definitely not 2003. 

This is what comes to mind when I think Y2K

plDzdgJ0iy4

Radio Active (aired 1998 - 2001)

This show was really popular in Canada, and aired in other countries of the Commonwealth. It just screams late 90s! (obviously, since it aired in the late 90s haha). Lizzie McGuire on the other hand does not scream late 90s to me. Maaaybe "late 90s/early 2000s", but mostly it's just early 2000s. :s


Yes we are the same age and no, Lizzie McGuire would not be considered part of the Y2K culture as it began after the vibe ended. I definitely see my peak childhood in the Y2K era as it happened more during that time. As for almost being 10 in 2002, I was already feeling the early adolesence since I began watching more mature shows and having a different outlook on the world.


Glad to hear we are on the same page. My frustration was merely that the tech dependence you mention started way before the 10s or even the 00s. I thought you might have been one of those "it wasn't like this in my day" people, which I find annoying, but you are not anyway.
Oh yeah, I acknowledge that completely; I should have been more specific as I was mainly talking about smartphones. As a tech savvy person, I'm glad they get better everyday and more useful; however, we sometimes need to put them down and enjoy the world. Everything has a balance and when there is more than the other, that can create an issue.

Yes we are the same age and no, Lizzie McGuire would not be considered part of the Y2K culture as it began after the vibe ended. I definitely see my peak childhood in the Y2K era as it happened more during that time. As for almost being 10 in 2002, I was already feeling the early adolesence since I began watching more mature shows and having a different outlook on the world.
Oh yeah, I acknowledge that completely; I should have been more specific as I was mainly talking about smartphones. As a tech savvy person, I'm glad they get better everyday and more useful; however, we sometimes need to put them down and enjoy the world. Everything has a balance and when there is more than the other, that can create an issue.


True you make a good point my apologies. I would say those from 1992 & 1993 would be slightly leaning more towards the Y2K Era rather than the early 2000's era.

True you make a good point my apologies. I would say those from 1992 & 1993 would be slightly leaning more towards the Y2K Era rather than the early 2000's era.


Ok, let's get this straight.

Y2K era = late 90's

early 2000's era = early 2000's era

millennial era = late 90's & early 2000's combined

Anyone who is confused about the Y2K era should refer to my signature. I think you'll find the right answers below.

Man, the Gamecube is the last classic Nintendo system. It didn't need online, anyway.

Neither did the Wii, DS or even 360. Online was just supplementary to the experience thanks to Nintendo and MS's choice not to implement full online infrastructure into the Wii & 360 out of the box.

Anyone who is confused about the Y2K era should refer to my signature. I think you'll find the right answers below.


I'm aware of the words "millennial" and "Y2K" is, but I get confused whether "Y2K" or "millennial" means the same thing or not. I was originally tought that the peak of the "millennial" era was from 1998-2002 with 1997 & 2003 being transition years in and out of the era, which we actually agreed with at one point. However, lately here I'm seeing people saying "Y2K" only means 1998-2001 (before 9/11) while 2002 and/or 2003 isn't apart of it, but at the same 2002 & 2003 is still considered as early 2000's culture. I'm aware that "millennial" does not mean just early 2000's only, it's both late 90's & early 2000's. However, my question is "Y2K" a symptom for "millennial"? Which would mean "Y2K" also means late 90's/early 2000's combined along with "millennial". Or is "Y2K" a completely different word from "millennial", which would mean that "Y2K" is the cultural late 90's only. Even if you look at mxcrashxm's comment, he even said that Lizzie McGuire or other early 2000's cultural trends is NOT Y2K culture, but it was still part of the millennial late 90's/early 2000's era itself.

Neither did the Wii, DS or even 360. Online was just supplementary to the experience thanks to Nintendo and MS's choice not to implement full online infrastructure into the Wii & 360 out of the box.


He was saying that the Gamecube is the last classic Nintendo system because it's part of 6th generation gaming. The Wii, DS, and 360 are all part of 7th generation, and had to have online gaming so it could compete with each other.

People were stuck to their phones in the mid-2000s as well. There were a lot of people who had their phone in their hands 24/7, they wouldn't even put it back in their pocket in case they missed a text. I also remember people having those earphone and bluetooth speakers. It would look like they're talking to you but turns out they were talking on the phone. I definitely don't want to go back to that era, mostly because of my fingers being destroyed trying to text on my 2007 Motorola phone.

I remember by 2003 when I got broadband, me and my friends would start doing indoor activities more. Cartoonnetwork.com had a lot of great flash games, as well as miniclip.com. We were also a bit naughty and went on funnyjunk.com every now and then. A lot of the teenagers at the time were on habbohotel.com from what I remember, I made an account but wasn't an active user until 2005 or so. Everyone had MSN by then. We still went outside regularly though, I loved riding my bike and there were still a lot of kids playing Yu-gi-oh and dodgeball at the playground. So yeah, I'd peg the decline of the playground at around 2003.

By this logic, you could say people were stuck to their phones and PDAs in the 90s too. Neither decade had long term entertainment on mobile devices like nowm

Neither did the Wii, DS or even 360. Online was just supplementary to the experience thanks to Nintendo and MS's choice not to implement full online infrastructure into the Wii & 360 out of the box.


You could make an argument for the Wii but I don't think by 2007 online was only a supplementary factor for the 360 experience. By then, we were already in the Call of Duty First Person online obsession era starting with Call of Duty 4. Gamecube is also viewed as the last classic Nintendo system by most people. Online wasn't big during the 6th gen as it became during the 7th gen when online became essential.


I'm aware of the words "millennial" and "Y2K" is, but I get confused whether "Y2K" or "millennial" means the same thing or not. I was originally thought that the peak of the "millennial" era was from 1998-2002 with 1997 & 2003 being transition years in and out of the era, which we actually agreed with at one point. However, lately here I'm seeing people saying "Y2K" only means 1998-2001 (before 9/11) while 2002 and/or 2003 isn't apart of it, but at the same 2002 & 2003 is still considered as early 2000's culture. I'm aware that "millennial" does not mean just early 2000's only, it's both late 90's & early 2000's. However, my question is "Y2K" a symptom for "millennial"? Which would mean "Y2K" also means late 90's/early 2000's combined along with "millennial". Or is "Y2K" a completely different word from "millennial", which would mean that "Y2K" is the cultural late 90's only. Even if you look at mxcrashxm's comment, he even said that Lizzie McGuire or other early 2000's cultural trends is NOT Y2K culture, but it was still part of the millennial late 90's/early 2000's era itself.


I think some people (on here to be exact. On other sites I've found and in real life, my viewpoint seems to be the more common one. Especially among people my age i.e. 1981-1985'ers) consider 1999-2001 the Y2K era but wouldn't that mean that, in their viewpoints, some of Lizzie McGuire would be a part of the Y2K era because it started in Jan. 2001 which was still during their view of the Y2K era? And on the topic of what it means, Y2K basically means the 2000 millennium, which is why I call it the Y2K era. That whole vibe was strong from 1998-2002 with 1996/1997 and 2003 being both transitional periods. Your viewpoint of what the core years are is correct in my eyes.

I'm aware of the words "millennial" and "Y2K" is, but I get confused whether "Y2K" or "millennial" means the same thing or not. I was originally thought that the peak of the "millennial" era was from 1998-2002 with 1997 & 2003 being transition years in and out of the era, which we actually agreed with at one point. However, lately here I'm seeing people saying "Y2K" only means 1998-2001 (before 9/11) while 2002 and/or 2003 isn't apart of it, but at the same 2002 & 2003 is still considered as early 2000's culture. I'm aware that "millennial" does not mean just early 2000's only, it's both late 90's & early 2000's. However, my question is "Y2K" a symptom for "millennial"? Which would mean "Y2K" also means late 90's/early 2000's combined along with "millennial". Or is "Y2K" a completely different word from "millennial", which would mean that "Y2K" is the cultural late 90's only. Even if you look at mxcrashxm's comment, he even said that Lizzie McGuire or other early 2000's cultural trends is NOT Y2K culture, but it was still part of the millennial late 90's/early 2000's era itself.


I agree this stuff gets really confusing sometimes. This is how I see it personally:

Millennial Era: Mid 1997 - Early 2004

Y2K Half aka Cultural Late 90's: Mid 1997 - Mid 2000

(Late 2000-Mid 2001: Absolute Peak)

Lizzie McGuire Half aka Cultural Early 00's: Late 2001 - Early 2004

He was saying that the Gamecube is the last classic Nintendo system because it's part of 6th generation gaming. The Wii, DS, and 360 are all part of 7th generation, and had to have online gaming so it could compete with each other.

Having online gaming (like XBAND on SNES) and requiring it are two different things. 7th gen didn't require always online gaming because the full infrastructure wasn't there, save the PS3. Honestly what is really the difference between getting online on SNES and getting online on the 360? Neither came with Internet out of the box and required a key component to be purchased separately. Games on both systems had to be designed around this limitation.



You could make an argument for the Wii but I don't think by 2007 online was only a supplementary factor for the 360 experience. By then, we were already in the Call of Duty First Person online obsession era starting with Call of Duty 4. Gamecube is also viewed as the last classic Nintendo system by most people. Online wasn't big during the 6th gen as it became during the 7th gen when online became essential.
Essential online means always online DRM, constant automatic updates and patches for store purchased games. None of which the '00s 360 had due to it's native lack of Internet support. CoD was only one of few known games were online was a bit more integral to the full experience than single player, and even then, single player was fully functional without the need for patches or DLC. 360 exclusives like halo had online as supplementary, many people were still raving about the single player years after release.

Essential online means always online DRM, constant automatic updates and patches for store purchased games. None of which the '00s 360 had due to it's native lack of Internet support. CoD was only one of few known games were online was a bit more integral to the full experience than single player, and even then, single player was fully functional without the need for patches or DLC. 360 exclusives like halo had online as supplementary, many people were still raving about the single player years after release.


By "essential" I meant in the eyes of the gamer of what makes a good gaming experience, not in technical terms. By the end of the 2000's, people were already raving about the 360's online and how it compared to the PS3. Most of these games featured fully functional single player that was largely ignored. This is around the time that online First Person Shooters became the forefront of gaming culture's focus and Call of Duty 4 was the beginning of that era.

By "essential" I meant in the eyes of the gamer of what makes a good gaming experience, not in technical terms. By the end of the 2000's, people were already raving about the 360's online and how it compared to the PS3. Most of these games featured fully functional single player that was largely ignored. This is around the time that online First Person Shooters became the forefront of gaming culture's focus and Call of Duty 4 was the beginning of that era.

As I said. CoD was the first console game where online surpassed single player in popularity. Later on in the 2010s, other games would follow because all popular consoles, PCs and mobile devices had a constant Internet connection by then. You were gambling if you implemented an Internet dependent single player experience on the 360. The tech wasn't there yet.

As I said. CoD was the first console game where online surpassed single player in popularity. Later on in the 2010s, other games would later follow because all popular consoles, PCs and mobile devices had a constant Internet connection by then. You were gambling if you implemented an Internet dependent single player experience on the 360. The tech wasn't there yet.


It was a build up to where we are today but even in 2009; the online was a big factor despite the 360 having the separate wi-fi adapter. The tech was there but they just didn't use it like the PS3 did. First Person games like Call of Duty, Battlefield and Gears of War pushed this multiplayer focused gaming era forward. Even Halo 3. It had a notable single player but there was a whole lot of emphasis on the online. 

By "essential" I meant in the eyes of the gamer of what makes a good gaming experience, not in technical terms. By the end of the 2000's, people were already raving about the 360's online and how it compared to the PS3. Most of these games featured fully functional single player that was largely ignored. This is around the time that online First Person Shooters became the forefront of gaming culture's focus and Call of Duty 4 was the beginning of that era.


This is so true. I remember back in middle school throughout the late 2000's when Call of Duty 4, or Modern Warfare (including the 2nd one) was one of the top online games for the XBOX 360 and PS3 since a lot of my classmates were talking about it, then in the early 2010's when I started high school it shifted over to Call of Duty Black Ops (same month Kinect came out too) and that's around the time the Wii's popularity had declined and TONS of people started jumping on the bandwagon buying XBOX 360's or PS3's, and people were asking for their friend names online to play on Zombie mode all night long with each other. What's interesting is that the same school year Call of Duty 4 came out was the same school year the Wii peaked in popularity as well. Even before then I knew people who started playing online with their DS and PSP's. I got Mario Kart DS in May 2006 when I was 10 and that's when I first started playing online. Back in the Gamecube, XBOX, PS2, and Gameboy Advance era I hardly knew anybody at all who played online and local multiplayer with your friends at home was still a huge thing with games like Tony Hawk Pro Skater 2 or Crash Nitro Kart.

It was a build up to where we are today but even in 2009; the online was a big factor despite the 360 having the separate wi-fi adapter. The tech was there but they just didn't use it like the PS3 did.
Uh huh.

First Person games like Call of Duty, Battlefield and Gears of War pushed this multiplayer focused gaming era forward.
The first Battlefield on consoles was BF3 which came out in 2011.

Even Halo 3. It had a notable single player but there was a whole lot of emphasis on the online.

Emphasized like Mortal Kombat, Street fighter and Dreamcast games, but not mandated for full experience. People yaked nonstop about the single player's campaign story like it was Star Wars. Destiny is a modern day equivalent of this.

This is so true. I remember back in middle school throughout the late 2000's when Call of Duty 4, or Modern Warfare (including the 2nd one) was one of the top online games for the XBOX 360 and PS3 since a lot of my classmates were talking about it, then in the early 2010's when I started high school it shifted over to Call of Duty Black Ops (same month Kinect came out too) and that's around the time the Wii's popularity had declined and TONS of people started jumping on the bandwagon buying XBOX 360's or PS3's, and people were asking for their friend names online to play on Zombie mode all night long with each other. What's interesting is that the same school year Call of Duty 4 came out was the same school year the Wii peaked in popularity as well. Even before then I knew people who started playing online with their DS and PSP's. I got Mario Kart DS in May 2006 when I was 10 and that's when I first started playing online. Back in the Gamecube, XBOX, PS2, and Gameboy Advance era I hardly knew anybody at all who played online and local multiplayer with your friends at home was still a huge thing with games like Tony Hawk Pro Skater 2 or Crash Nitro Kart.


And you'll be more knowledgeable about this era than I would be since you were a kid during the peak. What year would you say that online really took over? I am debating around 2009.


The first Battlefield on consoles was BF3 which came out in 2011.

Emphasized like Mortal Kombat, Street fighter and Dreamcast games, but not mandated for full experience. People yaked nonstop about the single player's campaign story like it was Star Wars. Destiny is a modern day equivalent of this.


Battlefield: Bad Company was released on the 360 and PS3 in 2008. 

I think that's taking away Halo 3's impact on the gaming community and making gaming in 2007 look like 2001. Online was on the back of our minds way back then. Just like mqg said above: During the Dreamcast days, it was more about local multiplayer in your living room with your friends. Online was advertised but never fully implemented and not what most people considered essential to a good gaming experience. Hell, who had time to hook up their dial-up adapters anyway? When Halo 3 came out, it's online play had a much, much bigger impact on the gaming community than any online Dreamcast game. It was also something that a decent amount of the gaming population actually used.

And you'll be more knowledgeable about this era than I would be since you were a kid during the peak. What year would you say that online really took over? I am debating around 2009.


Online gaming for all video games really took off in popularity around 2007 as a whole. Plain and simple. By 2007, the Wii, XBOX 360, PS3, PSP, and DS were all in full effect with some big title online games and 6th generation had started dying off for good. Now when it comes to the Wii's popularity, that's the late 2000's without a question, but for when the XBOX 360 peaked that would probably be both the very late 2000's and early 2010's but it leans towards early 2010's because I'd say Call of Duty Black Ops and the Kinect was when the 360 peaked overall. However, you're right that it was already getting big by the late 2000's with Modern Warfare.

Online gaming for all video games really took off in popularity around 2007 as a whole. Plain and simple. By 2007, the Wii, XBOX 360, PS3, PSP, and DS were all in full effect with some big title online games and 6th generation had started dying off for good. Now when it comes to the Wii's popularity, that's the late 2000's without a question, but for when the XBOX 360 peaked that would probably be both the very late 2000's and early 2010's but it leans towards early 2010's because I'd say Call of Duty Black Ops and the Kinect was when the 360 peaked overall. However, you're right that it was already getting big by the late 2000's with Modern Warfare.


Yeah, that's what I initially thought. I remember the PS3 and 360 sort of duking it out over who was the bigger online juggernaut and which had the better online service as early as 2007.

Online gaming for all video games really took off in popularity around 2007 as a whole. Plain and simple. By 2007, the Wii, XBOX 360, PS3, PSP, and DS were all in full effect with some big title online games and 6th generation had started dying off for good. Now when it comes to the Wii's popularity, that's the late 2000's without a question, but for when the XBOX 360 peaked that would probably be both the very late 2000's and early 2010's but it leans towards early 2010's because I'd say Call of Duty Black Ops and the Kinect was when the 360 peaked overall. However, you're right that it was already getting big by the late 2000's with Modern Warfare.


Agreed 100%. 2007 was the year online gaming was now mainstay.

You don't need a Wi-fi adapter to play online. Vast majority of people had LAN in the mid-2000s. Even if you had Wi-fi, you can still use LAN.

Halo 3 was the biggest game of 2007; I remember there were ads on EVERYTHING that year. Giant bus-cover ads, giant mall banner ads, and of course 24/7 TV bombardment. They even had Mountain Dew Halo edition lol. That was the first game where the online multiplayer was bigger than the single player. Actually, the first game I'd designate that to would be Gears of War, but Halo 3 would be the first really big one.

2007 being the start of the online takeover makes much more sense than it starting in the 2010's.

Agreed 100%. 2007 was the year online gaming was now mainstay.

You don't need a Wi-fi adapter to play online. Vast majority of people had LAN in the mid-2000s. Even if you had Wi-fi, you can still use LAN.

Halo 3 was the biggest game of 2007; I remember there were ads on EVERYTHING that year. Giant bus-cover ads, giant mall banner ads, and of course 24/7 TV bombardment. They even had Mountain Dew Halo edition lol. That was the first game where the online multiplayer was bigger than the single player. Actually, the first game I'd designate that to would be Gears of War, but Halo 3 would be the first really big one.


2007 was also the year the iPhone debuted and social media sites like YouTube, Myspace, and Facebook were undeniably now apart of our everyday culture. Man 2007 brings back some great memories! Economically in America, it was unfortunately when a lot of economic factors like rising gas prices and declining home value, started to become noticeable.

Battlefield: Bad Company was released on the 360 and PS3 in 2008.
While BF3 is where the BF franchise tookoff. Most hardly remember the ones prior let alone would've owned a copy bavl then. It was all about modern warfare in fps.


I think that's taking away Halo 3's impact on the gaming community and making gaming in 2007 look like 2001. Online was on the back of our minds way back then. Just like mqg said above: During the Dreamcast days, it was more about local multiplayer in your living room with your friends. Online was advertised but never fully implemented and not what most people considered essential to a good gaming experience. Hell, who had time to hook up their dial-up adapters anyway? When Halo 3 came out, it's online play had a much, much bigger impact on the gaming community than any online Dreamcast game. It was also something that a decent amount of the gaming population actually used.

I think that's where you and I start heading in two different directions. You're basing the "online gaming era" off of popularity of a particular side feature in a game while I'm basing the start of the true online gaming era on devices where the user can open up a device they just bought, hook it up, pop in a game, maybe add in patches & microtransactions, and hop online without the need to sign in and either purchase a peripheral or hook up an Ethernet cable.

The problem with grouping the Wii & 360 with the Wii U/PS4/Xbone as the "online era" is that while the online was there in 2008 and alot of people used it, there was no substantial difference between the way online was executed in games and communication on a 1999 PC and the 360. It was just used slight more on the latter, that's it. Developers could not expect the user to have Internet for their device back then the way they can now.

Xbone on the other hand almost had always on DRM and has day 1 DLC, patches, microtransactions and a slew of mandatory online features to complete the game. Very few games can be played in anyway offline anymore and lord forbid the servers get shutdown on games that needed patches to run properly if at all. Only Destiny kinda comes to mind.

It's like grouping a Motorola Razr with an iPhone just because both have Internet access.


2007 was also the year the iPhone debuted and social media sites like YouTube, Myspace, and Facebook were undeniably now apart of our everyday culture.

The first two definitely. Facebook? 2009 at earliest. I was on the Internet back then and honestly never heard of it at the the time despite being around people of all ages. It's definitely an early 2010s thing.

While BF3 is where the BF franchise tookoff. Most hardly remember the ones prior let alone would've owned a copy bavl then. It was all about modern warfare in fps.


I remember a lot of promotion of Bad Company but I can't really say. I'll let someone else with more overall knowledge for the era step in with that one.


I think that's where you and I start heading in two different directions. You're basing the "online gaming era" off of popularity of a particular side feature in a game while I'm basing the start of the true online gaming era on devices where the user can open up a device they just bought, hook it up, pop in a game, maybe add in patches & microtransactions, and hop online without the need to sign in and either purchase a peripheral or hook up an Ethernet cable.

The problem with grouping the Wii & 360 with the Wii U/PS4/Xbone as the "online era" is that while the online was there in 2008 and alot of people used it, there was no substantial difference between the way online was executed in games and communication on a 1999 PC and the 360. It was just used slight more on the latter, that's it. Developers could not expect the user to have Internet for their device back then the way they can now.

Xbone on the other hand almost had always on DRM and has day 1 DLC, patches, microtransactions and a slew of mandatory online features to complete the game. Very few games can be played in anyway offline anymore and lord forbid the servers get shutdown on games that needed patches to run properly if at all. Only Destiny kinda comes to mind.

It's like grouping a Motorola Razr with an iPhone just because both have Internet access.


It was absolutely nothing like 1999 gaming. You do realize the huge rise of online gamers in between 1999 and 2009, right? Slight more?? In 1999, most of us had dial-up internet connections and gaming online was a pain in the ass to set up which turned a lot of people off from it. By 2007, people were beginning to get Wi-Fi and because of this convenience, they got more invested in online gaming. Not to mention that most people had internet connections in 2007 while half the world didn't in 1999. You're saying that 2012 was the beginning of the online era? Online gaming was still a popular activity in 2007-2011 despite the fact that you needed some extra peripherals. Gamers expected to see some online play in their games back then and developers adapted to their expectations. When the second Modern Warfare came out, online was in full demand. Even back to the World at War days with Zombies mode. It wasn't 100% online like today but how do you think we got there? You're also ignoring the impact online already had on gamers and comparing way things in 2007 were to 1999 is really far-fetched.

No, because the Wii was more focused on family gaming than the 360 which is why I haven't been mentioning it.

It's not at all like that. The 360's online was something people actually used.

It was absolutely nothing like 1999 gaming. You do realize the huge rise of online gamers in between 1999 and 2009, right? Slight more??
Compared to now? Yes 2009 was more like 1999, I own games from then that have online smattered across the front as a big feature. 2015 online is too far ahead to be compared to either.


In 1999, most of us had dial-up internet connections and gaming online was a pain in the ass to set up which turned a lot of people off from it. By 2007, people were beginning to get Wi-Fi and because of this convenience, they got more invested in online gaming. Not to mention that most people had internet connections in 2007 while half the world didn't in 1999.
In 2009 there were 1.7 Billion Internet users out of a world of 6 Billion, it would be kinda hard for 1999 to come close to half when not even the 00s could.


You're saying that 2012 was the beginning of the online era?
No, I said 2010-2011 saw the online era in full swing.

Online gaming was still a popular activity in 2007-2011 despite the fact that you needed some extra peripherals.
Online gaming is popular now too. But no one who lived through both decades would say gaming in 2007 was like gaming now. Online was a feature, not a requirement.


Gamers expected to see some online play in their games back then and developers adapted to their expectations. When the second Modern Warfare came out, online was in full demand. Even back to the World at War days with Zombies mode. It wasn't 100% online like today but how do you think we got there? You're also ignoring the impact online already had on gamers and comparing way things in 2007 were to 1999 is really far-fetched.
Something tells me you didn't touch a PC game from the 80s or 90s when the servers were up. Online gaming has been a part of PC gaming literally for decades. This is so universally notable that even Wiki's "1990s in gaming" mentions online spreading to consoles after long being on PC. How the hell did yoy think MMOs became so huge?


No, because the Wii was more focused on family gaming than the 360 which is why I haven't been mentioning it.
Both won't let you online with ease, though.

It's not at all like that. The 360's online was something people actually used.

Face it, online by the 7th gen was nothing new to a 30 year old gamer. The 7th gen was revolutionary in which it established a fixed online platform, but only the PS3 offered the full infrastructure for online gaming right out of the box. People with 360s and Wiis who wanted to go online had to just put up with the limitations because online was more hyped in the 00s than previous decades. Hooking up an Ethernet or purchasing a peripheral is not 21st century at all, and certainly nothing we have to deal with today.

Compared to now? Yes 2009 was more like 1999, even I would know, I own games from then that have online smatteres across the front as a feature. 2015 online is too far ahead to be compared to either.


2007-2009 was the middle-man that was close to today than 1999. 2000-2006 was closer to 1999.


In 2009 there were 1.7 Billion Internet users out of a world of 6 Billion. Half the world wasn't online then either.


I was being hyperbolic.


No, I said 2010-2011 saw the online era in full swing.


But the Xbox One came out in 2013. You said the 360 wasn't an accurate representation of online gaming.


Online gaming is popular now too. But no one who lived through both decades would say gaming in 2007 was like gaming now. Online was a feature, not a requirement.


I never said it was like gaming now. I simply said it was much closer to today than it was back in the 90's.


Something tells me you didn't touch a PC game from the 80s or 90s when the servers were up. Online gaming has been a part of PC gaming literally for decades. This is so universally notable that even Wiki's "1990s in gaming" mentions online spreading to consoles after long being on PC. How the hell did yoy think MMOs became so huge?


No, I played tons of games on my PC. I played little online, though. I focused more on my PS1 and my N64. It's a fact. Online PC gaming in the 90's wasn't as big as today. It wasn't something your average Joe invested in. It was something for nerdy kids. If you think any jock in 1999 was playing Quake online in 1999, you're sadly mistaken. In 2007, that started to change. You're ignoring all the major technical advancements between that time period. Also, Wiki isn't always the best source. 


Both won't let you online with ease, though.


The Wii never really focused on online gaming in the first place, though. The 360 had much more emphasis.


Face it, online by the 7th gen was nothing new to a 30 year old gamer. The 7th gen was revolutionary in which it established a fixed online platform, but only the PS3 offered the full infrastructure for online gaming right out of the box. People with 360s and Wiis who wanted to go online had to just put up with the limitations because online was more hyped in the 00s than previous decades. Hooking up an Ethernet or purchasing a peripheral is not 21st century at all, and certainly nothing we have to deal with today.


Dude, serious gamers never bought the Wii. Who the hell bought a Wii thinking "Yeah, gonna get some sweet online play!" like they did with the 360 and Xbox Live.

The Wii never really focused on online gaming in the first place, though. The 360 had much more emphasis.

Dude, serious gamers never bought the Wii. Who the hell bought a Wii thinking "Yeah, gonna get some sweet online play!" like they did with the 360 and Xbox Live.


True, that the XBOX 360 had a lot more emphasis with online gaming and still does today. The Wii's popularity in the late 2000's was the last time that living room culture with video games really existed with games like Wii Sports or Wii Fit. However, even the Wii was the first major Nintendo console with a lot of popular games that featured the fun online experience. It was around the same time games like Halo or Call of Duty 4 got big for the XBOX 360. Like for games like Super Smash Bros. Brawl or Mario Kart Wii, friends in school or users you knew on internet forums would trade friend codes to play online with each other frequently. Some Wii games or even other games from other consoles would require you to unlock certain stuff from the single player/story mode so you'd be more powerful online.

Back when Mario Kart Double Dash or Super Smash Bros Melee were in its prime for the Gamecube, nobody was saying "oh hey you got lan cable or ethernet cable so we can play online?", you'd just be excited to play the single player mode or grab some personal friends you know in real life to set up tournaments up to 4 players. Heck, even commercial ad's on TV, like when did you start hearing the advertisers convince gamers to "get XBOX Live" or "Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection"?

I don't understand why someone could compare the capability of online gaming around 1999-2004 to how it was by 2007 & onwards. Sure, there might have been XBOX live for the original XBOX or ethernet lan cables for the Gamecube then, but hardly anybody was using it. I didn't know about it and neither did most of my friends then. My 6th grade year (2007-2008) was the first full year I noticed a lot of people talking about online gaming and trading their friend codes, not just for the XBOX 360 or PS3, but even for the Wii, DS, and PSP as well. I've done research and archived other websites and people agree that 2007 was the year it really took off. Which still continues today with 8th generation obviously. It's obvious that the amount of internet users around the world is going to keep increasing year after year, but that doesn't change the fact that online gaming had truly became major factor in the gaming industry by the late 2000's. 7th generation gaming & this current 8th generation gaming is a lot more similar to each other. 5th generation & 6th generation gaming is separate and felt like its own era.

True, that the XBOX 360 had a lot more emphasis with online gaming and still does today. The Wii's popularity in the late 2000's was the last time that living room culture with video games really existed with games like Wii Sports or Wii Fit. However, even the Wii was the first major Nintendo console with a lot of popular games that featured the fun online experience. It was around the same time games like Halo or Call of Duty 4 got big for the XBOX 360. Like for games like Super Smash Bros. Brawl or Mario Kart Wii, friends in school or users you knew on internet forums would trade friend codes to play online with each other frequently. Some Wii games or even other games from other consoles would require you to unlock certain stuff from the single player/story mode so you'd be more powerful online.

Back when Mario Kart Double Dash or Super Smash Bros Melee were in its prime for the Gamecube, nobody was saying "oh hey you got lan cable or ethernet cable so we can play online?", you'd just be excited to play the single player mode or grab some personal friends you know in real life to set up tournaments up to 4 players. Heck, even commercial ad's on TV, like when did you start hearing the advertisers convince gamers to "get XBOX Live" or "Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection"?

I don't understand why someone could compare the capability of online gaming around 1999-2004 to how it was by 2007 & onwards. Sure, there might have been XBOX live for the original XBOX or ethernet lan cables for the Gamecube then, but hardly anybody was using it. I didn't know about it and neither did most of my friends then. My 6th grade year (2007-2008) was the first full year I noticed a lot of people talking about online gaming and trading their friend codes, not just for the XBOX 360 or PS3, but even for the Wii, DS, and PSP as well. I've done research and archived other websites and people agree that 2007 was the year it really took off. Which still continues today with 8th generation obviously. It's obvious that the amount of internet users around the world is going to keep increasing year after year, but that doesn't change the fact that online gaming had truly became major factor in the gaming industry by the late 2000's. 7th generation gaming & this current 8th generation gaming is a lot more similar to each other. 5th generation & 6th generation gaming is separate and felt like its own era.


Exactly. This is what I'm talking about. The Wii may have had some online capabilities but it was very family focused and targeted more casual gamers than the 360, which targeted the Hardcore crowds. Even games with online capability such as Brawl and Mario Kart Wii or other titles like Wii Sports and Wii Fit, they focused on "family togetherness" and were the last of the family living room gaming era. I feel like the Wii's online was still very for the family and didn't focus on competition as much. I remember when the Wii came out. The whole getting people active with motion control and being family friendly were two points that Nintendo heavily advertised.

Yep. Sounds right to me. I was in my early 20's when those games came out so I was still more involved in gaming (on a very casual level, I may add) and online was never even spoken of. Back then it was all about the split screen multiplayer for me and my younger cousins. Yeah, Xbox Live and Nintendo Wi-Fi? That train got rolling in 2006 but really gained momentum during 2007-2010.

You younger dudes are much more knowledgeable on the topic since this is around the time I was transitioning out of gaming so you got much more personal experience with this but I do know that online definitely wasn't stuck in 1999-2004 during 2007. Hell, it was even a step up from 2005 and 2006. Majority of you guys on here, people on other sites and my cousins all point to the year 2007, Gears of War and Halo being the beginning of the online craze. I agree about the generations, too. The 6th generation was definitely an updated 5th. Both generations complemented each other. Especially during the days when the PS1 and the PS2 both had their own versions of Tony Hawk or Harry Potter. Same with the 7th and 8th.

2007-2009 was the middle-man that was close to today than 1999. 2000-2006 was closer to 1999.
I don't have to sign in and hook up my Internet everytime I want to do online. Xbox live back then was in the realm of msn messenger-tier online, which in turn is commonly compared to 90s online more often than today.

But the Xbox One came out in 2013. You said the 360 wasn't an accurate representation of online gaming.
You're aware there was a slim model of the 360 that came out in 2010 with built in wifi support right? I distinctly recall it was roughly around that time that games started being made like they are today with DLC and patches taking centre stage. The rise of more advanced smartphone gaming started influencing microstransaction models in games. Indie games took off around this time too, I used to see alot of physical release-only indie games for consoles prior to the 2010s. All of this was possible because by then all machines had guaranteed Internet support. There was essentially zero excuse for hords of customers to complain that the userbase was being split.

I never said it was like gaming now. I simply said it was much closer to today than it was back in the 90's.
Which is why I pointed out the stark differences between then and now, as well as 90s style technology used in the 7th gen gaming experience.


No, I played tons of games on my PC. I played little online, though. I focused more on my PS1 and my N64. It's a fact. Online PC gaming in the 90's wasn't as big as today. It wasn't something your average Joe invested in. It was something for nerdy kids. If you think any jock in 1999 was playing Quake online in 1999, you're sadly mistaken. In 2007, that started to change. You're ignoring all the major technical advancements between that time period. Also, Wiki isn't always the best source.
That's if you were willing to shell out extra for a peripherals to get online, or you were tech savvy and could hook up Ethernet. Maybe you might've just stuck to single player back then. But people playing MMOs fir instance needed to go through similar steps that one would with the 360 in order to get online. And believe me, online MMOs were big prior to the 21st century.

The Wii never really focused on online gaming in the first place, though. The 360 had much more emphasis.
The 360 had more games that supported online mode. But Nintendo actually did push Nintendo wifi connection pretty considerably with games like Mario kart and Metroid Prime. But that's not my point. The Wii was just as 7th gen as the 360 & PS3 but  lacked features even 90s online had like messaging and friends lists. And only the PS3's online shared most in common with today's online gaming put of the 3.

Dude, serious gamers never bought the Wii. Who the hell bought a Wii thinking "Yeah, gonna get some sweet online play!" like they did with the 360 and Xbox Live.

Explained above.

I don't have to sign in and hook up my Internet everytime I want to do online. Xbox live back then was in the realm of msn messenger-tier online, which in turn is commonly compared to 90s online more often than today.


Neither did you have to wait for your dial-up to load and make sure nobody picked up the phone while you were online like it was when I was in High School. Broadband changed all of this and made it much more convenient.


You're aware there was a slim model of the 360 that came out in 2010 with built in wifi support right? I distinctly recall it was roughly around that time that games started being made like they are today with DLC and patches taking centre stage. The rise of more advanced smartphone gaming started influencing microstransaction models in games. Indie games took off around this time too, I used to see alot of physical release-only indie games for consoles prior to the 2010s. All of this was possible because by then all machines had guaranteed Internet support. There was essentially zero excuse for hords of customers to complain that the userbase was being split.

Which is why I pointed out the stark differences between then and now, as well as 90s style technology used in the 7th gen gaming experience.


Yes. Even though online was already a huge phenomenon throughout the late 2000's (which was why developers adapted and took advantage of it with their bullsh*t DLC's and micro-transactions), the online era began in 2010. 2007-2009 might as well have been the 90's with it's faster internet speeds and broadband internet connections (both weren't even widespread until the mid 2000's). I'm glad 90's internet was so convenient that online gaming was a total breeze yet late 2000's internet was so difficult to use because we had to buy extra parts for our 360's.


That's if you were willing to shell out extra for a peripherals to get online, or you were tech savvy and could hook up Ethernet. Maybe you might've just stuck to single player back then. But people playing MMOs fir instance needed to go through similar steps that one would with the 360 in order to get online. And believe me, online MMOs were big prior to the 21st century.


Not as big as they are today or even in the mid-2000's. Like I said, only kids who were seen as nerdy were the main audience. World of Warcraft was when those types of games expanded to other cliques and it wasn't even really until 2008 or 2009 when that fully took effect.

Online gaming in the 90's (in High School):

Nerds: "Hey, you wanna come play some Everquest or Nexus? I got that sweet new expansion pack!"

*Jock walks by*

Jock: What are you sissies talking about!? *Slams nerds into trash can*

The late 2000's (in High School):

Jock 1: "Hey, bro! You wanna come over and play Call of Duty with the guys?"

Jock 2: "Yeah, bro! Sounds pretty sweet if you ask me!"


The 360 had more games that supported online mode. But Nintendo actually did push Nintendo wifi connection pretty considerably with games like Mario kart and Metroid Prime. But that's not my point. The Wii was just as 7th gen as the 360 & PS3 but  lacked features even 90s online had like messaging and friends lists. And only the PS3's online shared most in common with today's online gaming put of the 3.
Explained above.


So Nintendo didn't focus on getting the family together and being active? They were the only 7th gen company who didn't target the Hardcore crowds. Their attention towards online was significantly low which was why messaging and friend lists weren't present features on the Wii. Xbox live had the reputation of having the better service than the PSN even back in the late 2000's. This was the stuff that mattered to gamers. Even the casual gamers because by then, everyone was getting into online. Unlike 1999 or 2000-2002. Even 2005, you barely had console gamers getting excited over online. Hell, don't ask me! Ask some younger dudes with more knowledge about the time period and they'll tell you the same thing they've been telling me about the late 2000's gaming experience. 

Neither did you have to wait for your dial-up to load and make sure nobody picked up the phone while you were online like it was when I was in High School. Broadband changed all of this and made it much more convenient.
Shows how far we've come in the past 6 years alone.


Yes. Even though online was already a huge phenomenon throughout the late 2000's (which was why developers adapted and took advantage of it with their bullsh*t DLC's and micro-transactions), the online era began in 2010.
Thanks for picking out a rare and unpopular age old freemium technique to pin to late 00s developers. Free-to-play has literally been around since the 1990s in games like Achaea, Furcadia, and Neopets, but as you would expect, were never popular among the game industry until the rise of smartphone gaming.
And point to one instance of day 1 DLC in the late 00s console games.


2007-2009 might as well have been the 90's with it's faster internet speeds and broadband internet connections (both weren't even widespread until the mid 2000's). I'm glad 90's internet was so convenient that online gaming was a total breeze yet late 2000's internet was so difficult to use because we had to buy extra parts for our 360's.
Yes, convenience was what I was discussing. That's why I spent the last 5 posts complaining about late 90s and late 00s Internet. And showing how far we've come since those times.


Not as big as they are today or even in the mid-2000's. Like I said, only kids who were seen as nerdy were the main audience. World of Warcraft was when those types of games expanded to other cliques and it wasn't even really until 2008 or 2009 when that fully took effect.
The online MMOs took tried to reach other audiences too from time, like kids. But WoW is probably the worst example, even as late as 2008 people who played that were depicted as fat nerds.


Online gaming in the 90's (in High School):

Nerds: "Hey, you wanna come play some Everquest or Nexus? I got that sweet new expansion pack!"

*Jock walks by*

Jock: What are you sissies talking about!? *Slams nerds into trash can*

The late 2000's (in High School):

Jock 1: "Hey, bro! You wanna come over and play Call of Duty with the guys?"

Jock 2: "Yeah, bro! Sounds pretty sweet if you ask me!"
Yes, I'm sure this is how Neopets failed and faded into total obscurity.


So Nintendo didn't focus on getting the family together and being active? They were the only 7th gen company who didn't target the Hardcore crowds. Their attention towards online was significantly low which was why messaging and friend lists weren't present features on the Wii.
One only needs to look at the majority of the first party games to see the first point to be true. But did you not see how they almost aggressively marketed Nintendo wifi connection? It was seldom successful, but they did try to draw some of the hardcore crowd back in, they have a shelfs worth of first party titles that promote online play on the DS and Wii. The Wii U carried on these attempts, again unsuccessfully.


Xbox live had the reputation of having the better service than the PSN even back in the late 2000's. This was the stuff that mattered to gamers. Even the casual gamers because by then, everyone was getting into online. Unlike 1999 or 2000-2002. Even 2005, you barely had console gamers getting excited over online. Hell, don't ask me! Ask some younger dudes with more knowledge about the time period and they'll tell you the same thing they've been telling me about the late 2000's gaming experience.

Sega channel had the best online back in 1994 too. But of course we don't group that with the PS4 & Xbone.
Why do you think services such as XBAND, the Sega channel, SegaNet and even Atari online came about? 'Cause the companies didn't know where to spend their money wisely? Consoles just as are seen today, were competing with PCs and Macs for users. Services such as Sega Channel were implemented because people already expected online in their PC games. If online was as fringe as you say, these services wouldn't have even been made, they were a huge investment.
The 360 and PS3 were the first to successfully commercially  support online in an organized and somewhat cohesive, consistent way. Period. People over the age of 9 who have been gaming for decades saw the 360 as a PC they always knew in a console, there were no real changes to the way online was accessed, just that you could do it on a console the same way you always did it for decades on PC.
The Xbone and PS4, however, were the first to standardize the infrastructure for easy universal access to the system's online services, and link between devices, which is a much bigger leap foreword that between online on a 90s PC and online on a 360. The 360 only showed that there was widespread demand for PC style online in gaming consoles, the 8th gen actually made online integral to the gaming experience.

Shows how far we've come in the past 6 years alone.


What? 6 years ago, hardly anyone was using dial-up!


Thanks for picking out a rare and unpopular age old freemium technique to pin to late 00s developers. Free-to-play has literally been around since the 1990s in games like Achaea, Furcadia, and Neopets, but as you would expect, were never popular among the game industry until the rise of smartphone gaming.
And point to one instance of day 1 DLC in the late 00s console games.


Online era doesn't exclusively mean DLC. Online era still started in 2007, DLC or not. But, if you insist, I am pretty sure Dragon Age: Origins had Day 1 DLC. I think the greedy bastards at EA pioneered this new way of gaming.


Yes, convenience was what I was discussing. That's why I spent the last 5 posts complaining about late 90s and late 00s Internet. And showing how far we've come since those times.


Even in the late 00's, we had come a long way from the late 90's and early 00's internet. We already had high speed Wi-Fi by then. How long do you think the 90's lasted!?


The online MMOs took tried to reach other audiences too from time, like kids. But WoW is probably the worst example, even as late as 2008 people who played that were depicted as fat nerds.


Dude, people who played online games in general were depicted as fat nerds until the mid to late 00's.


Yes, I'm sure this is how Neopets failed and faded into total obscurity. 


What High Schoolers played Neopets!? The only time I'd even heard about that site was when I'd babysit my cousins and I haven't heard anybody mention it since 2005. Never heard of anyone in my High School playing those kiddie games.


One only needs to look at the majority of the first party games to see the first point to be true. But did you not see how they almost aggressively marketed Nintendo wifi connection? It was seldom successful, but they did try to draw some of the hardcore crowd back in, they have a shelfs worth of first party titles that promote online play on the DS and Wii. The Wii U carried on these attempts, again unsuccessfully.
Sega channel had the best online back in 1994 too. But of course we don't group that with the PS4 & Xbone.


I only remember Nintendo advertising the family aspects of the system. No, it's not similar at all. When I was a kid, my older brother had the Genesis. Comparing the impact of the Sega Channel in 1994 to Xbox Live makes no sense whatsoever and is ignoring the technological developments and cultural impacts of online gaming that's built up over the years. Gamers actually debated Xbox Live vs. PSN and both services had a good amount of recognition in the late 2000's. The average person didn't use Sega Channel during the genesis days. Most people didn't even know about it. I don't seem to recall any friends of mine debating Sega Channel with XBAND or whatever. I first heard about it when the Dreamcast came out and Sega discontinued the service.


Why do you think services such as XBAND, the Sega channel, SegaNet and even Atari online came about? 'Cause the companies didn't know where to spend their money wisely? Consoles just as are seen today, were competing with PCs and Macs for users. Services such as Sega Channel were implemented because people already expected online in their PC games. If online was as fringe as you say, these services wouldn't have even been made, they were a huge investment.


Why do you think online was so huge in the 90's yet go on to say how it was difficult during the 360 days because of an extra device? I'll say it again. These services weren't well known and in demand by the casual gamer like Xbox Live and PSN were. 


The 360 and PS3 were the first to successfully commercially  support online in an organized and somewhat cohesive, consistent way. Period. People over the age of 9 who have been gaming for decades saw the 360 as a PC they always knew in a console, there were no real changes to the way online was accessed, just that you could do it on a console the same way you always did it for decades on PC.
The Xbone and PS4, however, were the first to standardize the infrastructure for easy universal access to the system's online services, and link between devices, which is a much bigger leap foreword that between online on a 90s PC and online on a 360. The 360 only showed that there was widespread demand for PC style online in gaming consoles, the 8th gen actually made online integral to the gaming experience.


You mean "Hardcore gamers, who have invested huge amounts of time getting the most out of gaming and educating themselves about the different ways to play, saw little difference as they've been doing this for decades" but even then, I am sure a tech-savvy dude would probably know so much more about internet connections and wouldn't bother to compare 1994 and 2007 as if they were the same thing. The XBL and PSN brought online gaming to the Average Joe's played games every once in a while. Jocks and geeks both played Call of Duty 4, Gears of War and Halo 3. I can't say the same about Quake or Doom. Those games were "for nerds". So, what you're saying is that 1994 and 2007 might as well be the same thing. The internet was accessed the exact same way even with 2007's high speed Wi-Fi and 1994's Dial-Up. It's all the same thing and everybody and their mothers knew what the Sega Channel was back in the day.

I don't get what the hassle is with connecting your Xbox 360 to the ethernet? You may as well complain about entering Wi-fi passwords. :s

Xbox 360 actually had the highest online connectivity rate throughout the entire 7th gen. The theory that people didn't connect their Xboxes to the Internet doesn't hold water.

If your game didn't have online by 2007, you could expect it to bomb spectacularly.

And just because it was fat nerds depicted as playing WoW, that doesn't literally mean it was only fat nerds playing it. The game was huge in the mid-2000s and a lot of people played it. Period.

Neither did you have to wait for your dial-up to load and make sure nobody picked up the phone while you were online like it was when I was in High School. Broadband changed all of this and made it much more convenient.

That was the most annoying is making sure nobody picked up the line or your connection would be messed up.

That was the most annoying is making sure nobody picked up the line or your connection would be messed up.


And if they did, there goes your entire game!

And if they did, there goes your entire game!


and you'd have to wait till they hung up.  ::)

and you'd have to wait till they hung up.  ::)


Yep! What a pain in the ass that was, eh?

Yep! What a pain in the ass that was, eh?


My mom was a housewife aka on the phone 24/7. There was essentially no internet in my house  ;D

What? 6 years ago, hardly anyone was using dial-up!
Since you wanna be technical.
Statistically speaking, 10% of the US population wad subscribed to dial-up in '09. An unrelated, but visible comparison would be the the demographics of the US. 11% of the population identified as African American at the time for instance.

I don't know if you saw the post I made on another one of the top threads earlier, but I posted stats showing that only 34% of worldwide Internet users were subscribed to dial-up in 2000. Dial-up was likely the single most wildly used service(I had it myself), but it was not the majority service of the late 90s. There was satellite, mobile subscriptions, cable and early broadband.

Online era doesn't exclusively mean DLC. Online era still started in 2007, DLC or not. But, if you insist, I am pretty sure Dragon Age: Origins had Day 1 DLC. I think the greedy bastards at EA pioneered this new way of gaming.
This sounds pretty accurate as EA was also the first publisher to have a YouTube account back in 2009. They have a tendency to be an outlier in that they magnetize to underused marketing strategies and popularize them. They are infamous, especially in recent years, for basically inventing new ways to rack in money and exploit customers. They were aggressively investing in mobile back when nobody thought tablets could viably compete 1:1 with consoles. I wouldn't, however, consider them doing day 1 DLC or youtube marketing in the 00s as a sign of the times as that would be equivalent to suggesting Nintendo popularized virtual reality with the Virtual Boy.


Even in the late 00's, we had come a long way from the late 90's and early 00's internet. We already had high speed Wi-Fi by then. How long do you think the 90's lasted!?
Cable broadband was faster & more reliable than WiFi. Wifi was a shaky service to rely on. Not to dial-up levels, but close to satellite Internet levels.

Dude, people who played online games in general were depicted as fat nerds until the mid to late 00's.

What High Schoolers played Neopets!? The only time I'd even heard about that site was when I'd babysit my cousins and I haven't heard anybody mention it since 2005. Never heard of anyone in my High School playing those kiddie games.
So you're saying kids were ahead of you in tech because they played games aimed toward them that supported online? Must be a generational view.

I only remember Nintendo advertising the family aspects of the system.
I suppose you didn't own one, then.


No, it's not similar at all. When I was a kid, my older brother had the Genesis. Comparing the impact of the Sega Channel in 1994 to Xbox Live makes no sense whatsoever and is ignoring the technological developments and cultural impacts of online gaming that's built up over the years. Gamers actually debated Xbox Live vs. PSN and both services had a good amount of recognition in the late 2000's. The average person didn't use Sega Channel during the genesis days. Most people didn't even know about it. I don't seem to recall any friends of mine debating Sega Channel with XBAND or whatever. I first heard about it when the Dreamcast came out and Sega discontinued the service.
Many people were aware of it and do mention it when talking about the Genesis. They were aware because they were the PC gamers who pressured Sega for it. Even after the Sega channel ended Sega kept implementing online into their consoles more and more with the Saturn and Dreamcast with the competition in close pursuit, indicating a clear demand for it. They were the trailblazers at the time because they (attempted to) respond to gamers wants with wireless controllers and CDs. People played online MMOs and co-op on PC, and questioned why this feature couldn't be on consoles too.


Why do you think online was so huge in the 90's yet go on to say how it was difficult during the 360 days because of an extra device? I'll say it again. These services weren't well known and in demand by the casual gamer like Xbox Live and PSN were. 
The causal gamer was playing Wii sports in their living room and could care less about online gaming.


You mean "Hardcore gamers, who have invested huge amounts of time getting the most out of gaming and educating themselves about the different ways to play, saw little difference as they've been doing this for decades" but even then, I am sure a tech-savvy dude would probably know so much more about internet connections and wouldn't bother to compare 1994 and 2007 as if they were the same thing. The XBL and PSN brought online gaming to the Average Joe's played games every once in a while. Jocks and geeks both played Call of Duty 4, Gears of War and Halo 3. I can't say the same about Quake or Doom. Those games were "for nerds". So, what you're saying is that 1994 and 2007 might as well be the same thing. The internet was accessed the exact same way even with 2007's high speed Wi-Fi and 1994's Dial-Up. It's all the same thing and everybody and their mothers knew what the Sega Channel was back in the day.

Where do you get the idea that anyone here is suggesting 1994 and 2007 online was the same? You are the one comparing 2007 online to 2016 and saying they are the same. I listed all the ways in which they weren't by pointing out some commonalities 2007 Xbox live shared with 90s PC online access that wouldn't fly today. The so called "online era" could just as easily be painted as the broad era from early 90s MMOs to today, but on closer inspection, one can divide the era into:

Pre-7th gen online = Web 1.0
Wii/360 gen online = Web 2.0
PS3+Post 2010 online = Web 3.0

Each share some commonalities but are largely different from one another. The first two wouldn't fly today.


If your game didn't have online by 2007, you could expect it to bomb spectacularly.

I dare you guys to make a console for Kickstarter, ok? It's gotta be the top cutting edge MS/Sony killer that every gamer in 2016 will put on their Christmas list.

When you do, make sure the user has to seek out an extra component that only some stores carry to hook their account up online so that developers hesitate to include any Internet related functions into their main game for risk of fragmenting their userbase with a broken, unplayable, Internet dependent game. Make it so the user has to activate the online functions everytime they boot up the console as if online itself was an afterthought. Make it so interaction with your friends feels like MSN messenger, Yahoo, or Pictochat on DS. Make sure only 2/3rd of it's library runs at 720p, and don't pressure your devs to maintain that resolution as a standard. Design it's OS to give the 2004 Nintendo DS a run for it's money. The first step to designing multitasking is to not think about it at all. Cross-buy? What's that? Smartphones? What are those?
Make sure it takes a few minutes to access the marketplace, confirming their suspicion that a snappy, seamless online experience wasn't your top priority. Organize your marketplace currency in points instead of real money. No forced installations, those are for PC peasants. Offer no options for an Internet browser out of the box until the user pays for the extra component and the inevitable subscription service to get online in the first place. If your console includes Youtube and Netflix, make sure navigating it feels like a stripped down HTML web browser that only takes you to said services. Don't include SD card slots, only USB ports. Give it less RAM than mid-tier mobile devices. Make your consoles so not all batches support HDMI. Throw in wires to connect the controller to the console. Make your controllers only run on store bought batteries. No Bluetooth support; just iR so the user must point the controller directly at the console for response. Only package it with R/G/B cables. Throw in Memory card slots just to make your users go WTF.  Make it big and noisy like a 2002 PC.

Now put that Kickstarter up and watch it bomb like fireworks on NYE. That's 2010s console standards for you.

I had Wi-fi in 2006. I don't remember it being any more shaky than it is today...

You can hook your account up online without the wi-fi adapter, it's what I've been saying! People connected their Xbox to the internet the same way they connected their computers: with an ethernet cable. It's actually a lot easier to set up than Wi-fi, and gives a much more reliable connection. The only reason a console without Wi-fi would bomb in the 2010s is because everyone has Wi-fi now, and buying an ethernet cable would be a hassle. But it wasn't back then.

I had Xbox Live in 2007. I could talk to my friend over voice chat, so I don't know what you're talking about comparing it to MSN. By the way, there's nothing outdated about MSN. MSN lives on today in the form of Skype. 720p has nothing to do with online gaming. It did not take a few minutes to access the marketplace. The reason they use money instead of points now is because Canada banned points for gift cards (because adding sales tax was weird and inconsistent). Only Xbox 360 had paid online, PS3's online was free. You did not need a massive HD drive to play games, and still don't if you buy your games physically. R/G/B cables worked fine, and again have nothing to do with online gaming. The Xbox 360 and PS3 took in only hard drives from what I remember.

No one's denying there's a difference between 7th gen and 8th gen gaming. 8th gen is more advanced, no doubt. But you're out to lunch if you think gaming in 2009 is in any way comparable to gaming in 1999. They're worlds apart.
Here are the world-wide best selling games of 5th Gen (1995 - 2001), 6th Gen (2000 - 2007), and 7th Gen (I'll keep it to 2005-2008 for the sake of comparison)

5th Gen

1. Super Mario 64 (1996) (no DLC, no online)
2. Gran Turismo (1998) (no DLC, no online)
3. Mario Kart 64 (1997) (no DLC, no online)
4. Final Fantasy VII (1997) (no DLC, no online)
5. Gran Turismo II (1999) (no DLC, no online)
6. Resident Evil (1996) (no DLC, no online)
7. Tekken 3 (1998) (no DLC, no online)
8. Final Fantasy VIII (1997) (no DLC, no online)
7. GoldenEye 007 (1997) (no DLC, no online)
8. Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (2001) (no DLC, no online)
9. The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time (1998) (no DLC, no online)
10. Crash Bandicoot: Warped (1998) (no DLC, no online)

6th gen

1. Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas (2004) (no online, no DLC)
2. Gran Turismo 3 (2001) (no online, no DLC)
3. Gran Turismo 4 (2004) (no online, no DLC)
4. Grand Theft Auto: Vice City (2002) (no online, no DLC)
5. Halo 2 (2004) (online, DLC)
6. Grand Theft Auto III (2001) (no online, no DLC)
7. Super Smash Bros. Melee (2001) (no online, no DLC)
8. Mario Kart: Double Dash (2003) (no online, no DLC)
9. Metal Gear Solid II (2001) (no online, no DLC)
10. Super Mario Sunshine (2002) (no online, no DLC)

7th gen (2005 - 2008 only)

1. Mario Kart Wii (2008) (online, no DLC)
2. Wii Fit (2007) (no online, no DLC)
3. Halo 3 (2007) (online, DLC)
4. Super Smash Bros. Brawl (2008) (online, no DLC)
5. Mario Party 8 (2007) (no online, no DLC)
6. The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess (2006) (no online, no DLC)
7. Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games (2007) (online, no DLC)
8. Metal Gear Solid 4 (2008) (no online, DLC)
9. Gears of War (2006) (online, DLC)
10. ?

Not including multiplats or games bundled with console or controllers.

You can compare for yourself https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_video_games#Xbox_360

Really if we don't include Wii the list will be even more biased towards games with DLC/online. None of the 5th gen or 6th gen top selling games had online or DLC (with the exception of Halo 2), unlike 7th gen where the list is proliferated with them. Your video game history is extremely shoddy.

My mom was a housewife aka on the phone 24/7. There was essentially no internet in my house  ;D


Hahaha, my parents had cell phones but they'd still hold up the phone lines!


Since you wanna be technical.
Statistically speaking, 10% of the US population wad subscribed to dial-up in '09. An unrelated, but visible comparison would be the the demographics of the US. 11% of the population identified as African American at the time for instance.


A whopping 10%.


I don't know if you saw the post I made on another one of the top threads earlier, but I posted stats showing that only 34% of worldwide Internet users were subscribed to dial-up in 2000. Dial-up was likely the single most wildly used service(I had it myself), but it was not the majority service of the late 90s. There was satellite, mobile subscriptions, cable and early broadband.


Yes. In the 90's and early 2000's, most people still had dial-up. This changed in 2004 and 2005 when broadband gained popularity. I pointed out in my other post that high speed internet and broadband weren't "widespread" in the 90's but did exist. Dial-Up was still what the Average Joe's had in their homes and it wasn't until Broadband was introduced that online gaming became easier for the dudes who don't really invest too much time in gaming and use it as a stress reliever, for example.


This sounds pretty accurate as EA was also the first publisher to have a YouTube account back in 2009. They have a tendency to be an outlier in that they magnetize to underused marketing strategies and popularize them. They are infamous, especially in recent years, for basically inventing new ways to rack in money and exploit customers. They were aggressively investing in mobile back when nobody thought tablets could viably compete 1:1 with consoles. I wouldn't, however, consider them doing day 1 DLC or youtube marketing in the 00s as a sign of the times as that would be equivalent to suggesting Nintendo popularized virtual reality with the Virtual Boy.


You asked me to provide one example of Day 1 DLC in the late 00's and I did. How!? You're comparing Nintendo's failed virtual reality attempt with EA's online attempts which were actually successful and changed the gaming landscape.


Cable broadband was faster & more reliable than WiFi. Wifi was a shaky service to rely on. Not to dial-up levels, but close to satellite Internet levels.


I don't remember Wi-Fi having shaky service. I also remember it being quite popular during the time.


So you're saying kids were ahead of you in tech because they played games aimed toward them that supported online? Must be a generational view.


That's not what I'm saying at all. I am saying that Neopets was targeted towards a specific audience which had clearly moved on. If it faded into obscurity, then that is probably the reason why. What high school kids played Neopets!? I would really like to meet some because I'm sure it'd be quite the treat. The '97' in your name means 1997, right? If so, we're two ends of the same generation and I know most latter Millennials didn't hold on to pre-school kid games like Neopets well into their adolescence so I don't see how this is an exclusively early Millennial view. 


I suppose you didn't own one, then.


Of course not. I got the PS3 instead. Too bad it was a huge disappointment compared to the great PS2.


Many people were aware of it and do mention it when talking about the Genesis. They were aware because they were the PC gamers who pressured Sega for it. Even after the Sega channel ended Sega kept implementing online into their consoles more and more with the Saturn and Dreamcast with the competition in close pursuit, indicating a clear demand for it. They were the trailblazers at the time because they (attempted to) respond to gamers wants with wireless controllers and CDs. People played online MMOs and co-op on PC, and questioned why this feature couldn't be on consoles too.


No, they weren't. I clearly remember nobody talking about these services. Not my brother nor the kids in my neighborhood/schoolyard. You seem to think that every second person was a serious online gamer totally invested in Sega Channel and XBAND in the 1990's when that was far from the case.


The causal gamer was playing Wii sports in their living room and could care less about online gaming.


So, the casual gaming teenager in high school would care more about Wii Sports than that new Call of Duty online all the other kids are talking about? Good to know.


Where do you get the idea that anyone here is suggesting 1994 and 2007 online was the same? You are the one comparing 2007 online to 2016 and saying they are the same. I listed all the ways in which they weren't by pointing out some commonalities 2007 Xbox live shared with 90s PC online access that wouldn't fly today. The so called "online era" could just as easily be painted as the broad era from early 90s MMOs to today, but on closer inspection, one can divide the era into:

Pre-7th gen online = Web 1.0
Wii/360 gen online = Web 2.0
PS3+Post 2010 online = Web 3.0



I didn't say they're the same. I said 2007 is closer to today than 1999. You're the one continuously bringing up how everyone and their mother's went out and got Sega Channel and compared them with XBAND and Atari Online in 1994 so they could get the best online service since everyone knew what an 'online' was. That is also entirely subjective. A good amount of people would say we are still in Web 2.0 and others would say 2008 is the start of 3.0.


Each share some commonalities but are largely different from one another. The first two wouldn't fly today.
I dare you guys to make a console for Kickstarter, ok? It's gotta be the top cutting edge MS/Sony killer that every gamer in 2016 will put on their Christmas list.

When you do, make sure the user has to seek out an extra component that only some stores carry to hook their account up online so that developers hesitate to include any Internet related functions into their main game for risk of fragmenting their userbase with a broken, unplayable, Internet dependent game. Make it so the user has to activate the online functions everytime they boot up the console as if online itself was an afterthought. Make it so interaction with your friends feels like MSN messenger, Yahoo, or Pictochat on DS. Make sure only 2/3rd of it's library runs at 720p, and don't pressure your devs to maintain that resolution as a standard. Design it's OS to give the 2004 Nintendo DS a run for it's money. The first step to designing multitasking is to not think about it at all. Cross-buy? What's that? Smartphones? What are those?
Make sure it takes a few minutes to access the marketplace, confirming their suspicion that a snappy, seamless online experience wasn't your top priority. Organize your marketplace currency in points instead of real money. No forced installations, those are for PC peasants. Offer no options for an Internet browser out of the box until the user pays for the extra component and the inevitable subscription service to get online in the first place. If your console includes Youtube and Netflix, make sure navigating it feels like a stripped down HTML web browser that only takes you to said services. Don't include SD card slots, only USB ports. Give it less RAM than mid-tier mobile devices. Make your consoles so not all batches support HDMI. Throw in wires to connect the controller to the console. Make your controllers only run on store bought batteries. No Bluetooth support; just iR so the user must point the controller directly at the console for response. Only package it with R/G/B cables. Throw in Memory card slots just to make your users go WTF.  Make it big and noisy like a 2002 PC.

Now put that Kickstarter up and watch it bomb like fireworks on NYE. That's 2010s console standards for you.


If I am trying to make a console like it's from 2007 what the hell would I make it noisy like a 2002 computer? What? Have you used a big, white and bulky 2002 computer?? The 360 was not that loud! How is 2002 comparable to 2007, anyway? Now if you said 2002 was comparable to the 90's, I would agree but I wasn't talking about 2002.


I had Xbox Live in 2007. I could talk to my friend over voice chat, so I don't know what you're talking about comparing it to MSN. By the way, there's nothing outdated about MSN. MSN lives on today in the form of Skype. 720p has nothing to do with online gaming. It did not take a few minutes to access the marketplace. The reason they use money instead of points now is because Canada banned points for gift cards (because adding sales tax was weird and inconsistent). Only Xbox 360 had paid online, PS3's online was free. You did not need a massive HD drive to play games, and still don't if you buy your games physically. R/G/B cables worked fine, and again have nothing to do with online gaming. The Xbox 360 and PS3 took in only hard drives from what I remember.

No one's denying there's a difference between 7th gen and 8th gen gaming. 8th gen is more advanced, no doubt. But you're out to lunch if you think gaming in 2009 is in any way comparable to gaming in 1999. They're worlds apart.
Here are the world-wide best selling games of 5th Gen (1995 - 2001), 6th Gen (2000 - 2007), and 7th Gen (I'll keep it to 2005-2008 for the sake of comparison)

5th Gen

1. Super Mario 64 (1996) (no DLC, no online)
2. Gran Turismo (1998) (no DLC, no online)
3. Mario Kart 64 (1997) (no DLC, no online)
4. Final Fantasy VII (1997) (no DLC, no online)
5. Gran Turismo II (1999) (no DLC, no online)
6. Resident Evil (1996) (no DLC, no online)
7. Tekken 3 (1998) (no DLC, no online)
8. Final Fantasy VIII (1997) (no DLC, no online)
7. GoldenEye 007 (1997) (no DLC, no online)
8. Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (2001) (no DLC, no online)
9. The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time (1998) (no DLC, no online)
10. Crash Bandicoot: Warped (1998) (no DLC, no online)

6th gen

1. Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas (2004) (no online, no DLC)
2. Gran Turismo 3 (2001) (no online, no DLC)
3. Gran Turismo 4 (2004) (no online, no DLC)
4. Grand Theft Auto: Vice City (2002) (no online, no DLC)
5. Halo 2 (2004) (online, DLC)
6. Grand Theft Auto III (2001) (no online, no DLC)
7. Super Smash Bros. Melee (2001) (no online, no DLC)
8. Mario Kart: Double Dash (2003) (no online, no DLC)
9. Metal Gear Solid II (2001) (no online, no DLC)
10. Super Mario Sunshine (2002) (no online, no DLC)

7th gen (2005 - 2008 only)

1. Mario Kart Wii (2008) (online, no DLC)
2. Wii Fit (2007) (no online, no DLC)
3. Halo 3 (2007) (online, DLC)
4. Super Smash Bros. Brawl (2008) (online, no DLC)
5. Mario Party 8 (2007) (no online, no DLC)
6. The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess (2006) (no online, no DLC)
7. Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games (2007) (online, no DLC)
8. Metal Gear Solid 4 (2008) (no online, DLC)
9. Gears of War (2006) (online, DLC)
10. ?

Not including multiplats or games bundled with console or controllers.

You can compare for yourself https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_video_games#Xbox_360

Really if we don't include Wii the list will be even more biased towards games with DLC/online. None of the 5th gen or 6th gen top selling games had online or DLC (with the exception of Halo 2), unlike 7th gen where the list is proliferated with them. Your video game history is extremely shoddy.


MSN got much better over the years. MSN in 1999 had so little features, it's not even funny. I think it was 2005 when it got this major update which added all these new features that the XBL also had. I remember I downloaded MSN on my wife's (then girlfriend) PC in 2005 and it was the older version and she said "Jordan? Why'd you download some old messenger from the 90's on my PC?" This would of been perfectly acceptable in 2000-2002 (considering I remember most people using 98 or ME, too), but wasn't even something people wanted to deal with in 2005. In 2007? Ha, nobody would touch outdated tech like that with a ten foot pole. And don't get me started on AOL chat. If XBL was anything like that, I'd be concerned about the quality of their services, 2007 or not. 

It seems that 2004 was the starting point for console online/DLC. Who did it first? Microsoft. Even then, it took until Gears of War in 2006 for it to really get started.

It was absolutely nothing like 1999 gaming. You do realize the huge rise of online gamers in between 1999 and 2009, right? Slight more?? In 1999, most of us had dial-up internet connections and gaming online was a pain in the ass to set up which turned a lot of people off from it. By 2007, people were beginning to get Wi-Fi and because of this convenience, they got more invested in online gaming. Not to mention that most people had internet connections in 2007 while half the world didn't in 1999. You're saying that 2012 was the beginning of the online era? Online gaming was still a popular activity in 2007-2011 despite the fact that you needed some extra peripherals. Gamers expected to see some online play in their games back then and developers adapted to their expectations. When the second Modern Warfare came out, online was in full demand. Even back to the World at War days with Zombies mode. It wasn't 100% online like today but how do you think we got there? You're also ignoring the impact online already had on gamers and comparing way things in 2007 were to 1999 is really far-fetched.


Yeah, online gaming was literally a pipe dream in the very rural area I lived in back in the '90s. Hell, when my parents finally got a PC in 1999, we were, even then, like only the second house on our entire block that had one. My friends used to come over to my house just to go on the web because they didn't have an internet connection at their own. Plus, the terrible ISP that we had around here back then (Sowega) was one of the worst in the country. As in, we were lucky if we got a 16kbps connection speed most days. It could take as long as 30 seconds to load a single, text-only page. And that was what the internet was probably like for the majority of the country in 1999.

So, for us, online gaming just wasn't feasible back then. And, even if we'd had a broadband connection, the cheap little Compaq Presario that we had would've only barely been able to boot most newer PC games of the day anyway. There were maybe two guys I knew growing up that actually had parents with the disposable cash to buy them a computer with the type of specs to really game on them.

Console online gaming was more plausible, but still out of our reach. We thought it was awesome that both the Dreamcast and PS2 came out online compatible, but knew at the same time that it wasn't going to happen for us. Funny story: I actually purchased an online adapter for my PS2 back in 2003, just to see if I could make it work on a dial-up connection. Needless to say, after playing about ten minutes of Madden 2004, and having my players creeping across the screen at a snails pace, I took the adapter back to the store and got my money back.

Yeah, online gaming was literally a pipe dream in the very rural area I lived in back in the '90s. Hell, when my parents finally got a PC in 1999, we were, even then, like only the second house on our entire block that had one. My friends used to come over to my house just to go on the web because they didn't have an internet connection at their own. Plus, the terrible ISP that we had around here back then (Sowega) was one of the worst in the country. As in, we were lucky if we got a 16kbps connection speed most days. It could take as long as 30 seconds to load a single, text-only page. And that was what the internet was probably like for the majority of the country in 1999.

So, for us, online gaming just wasn't feasible back then. And, even if we'd had a broadband connection, the cheap little Compaq Presario that we had would've only barely been able to boot most newer PC games of the day anyway. There were maybe two guys I knew growing up that actually had parents with the disposable cash to buy them a computer with the type of specs to really game on them.

Console online gaming was more plausible, but still out of our reach. We thought it was awesome that both the Dreamcast and PS2 came out online compatible, but knew at the same time that it wasn't going to happen for us. Funny story: I actually purchased an online adapter for my PS2 back in 2003, just to see if I could make it work on a dial-up connection. Needless to say, after playing about ten minutes of Madden 2004, and having my players creeping across the screen at a snails pace, I took the adapter back to the store and got my money back.


Even in San Jose, where I come from, online gaming wasn't an easy thing. My family first got internet back in late 1996 (Was 1996 early to get internet? I know my parents were always early adapters aside from the fact it took them until 2004/2005 to get DVD and Broadband. Parents got both cable and a VCR around 1980. Though, my uncle tells me cable was already common in the late 70's) and it was a pain in the ass to use because everyone would hog up the phone lines. Plus, you could never sneak on to your PC at night because of the loud noise the modem made. It was much less convenient than it became in the mid 2000's.

I knew one kid personally. He was pretty "nerdy" and moved to my block in the mid 90's. Really nice guy, though. He first introduced me to the internet way back in 1995 and eventually got broadband in... either, 1997 or 1998? I don't remember but he had it before anyone else I knew did. He was the only one I knew who was into all this stuff. Everyone else was just glad to get 30 minutes of PC time.

Extremely accurate description of how even 2003 was. Console online was slow as hell for the 6th generation and if you weren't completely invested in this stuff and had the money, you'd probably stick to single player and split screen multiplayer.

I had Wi-fi in 2006. I don't remember it being any more shaky than it is today...
My 2008 wifi was. And I find many people say cable broadband was the closest to today's Internet in speed and reliability.


You can hook your account up online without the wi-fi adapter, it's what I've been saying! People connected their Xbox to the internet the same way they connected their computers: with an ethernet cable. It's actually a lot easier to set up than Wi-fi, and gives a much more reliable connection. The only reason a console without Wi-fi would bomb in the 2010s is because everyone has Wi-fi now, and buying an ethernet cable would be a hassle. But it wasn't back then.
I've mentioned the Ethernet in my previous posts. It's a close cousin to the way you set up XBAND, Sega Channel or SegaNet in the 90s which is why I compared it to them.

And of course any device without WiFi would bomb today, it's about as standard as using a controller to play console games.

I had Xbox Live in 2007. I could talk to my friend over voice chat, so I don't know what you're talking about comparing it to MSN. By the way, there's nothing outdated about MSN. MSN lives on today in the form of Skype.
AOL messenger, MSN, Yahoo, Paltalk and the Dreamcast had voicechat. Not terribly new tech by that time. The fact that MSN needed to merge with skype, completely changing it's function is a sign that it was outdated.


720p has nothing to do with online gaming.
It's yet another example of the 360's dated hardware.


It did not take a few minutes to access the marketplace.
Always did on mine before I updated it, whenever I hooked up Ethernet.


The reason they use money instead of points now is because Canada banned points for gift cards (because adding sales tax was weird and inconsistent).
That's progress. Like how the 3DS is Nintendo's last system to measure storage space in blocks.


Only Xbox 360 had paid online, PS3's online was free.
Online has been paid for decades. PSN was new because it offered it for free. Now we went backwards and only the Wii U has it free.


You did not need a massive HD drive to play games, and still don't if you buy your games physically.
RoosterTeeth would beg to differ.
ZQ8NhxD0-Ek



R/G/B cables worked fine, and again have nothing to do with online gaming. The Xbox 360 and PS3 took in only hard drives from what I remember.
None of the 8th gen consoles nowadays come with R/G/B cables except the Wii U if I recall correctly. Only HDMI.



No one's denying there's a difference between 7th gen and 8th gen gaming. 8th gen is more advanced, no doubt. But you're out to lunch if you think gaming in 2009 is in any way comparable to gaming in 1999. They're worlds apart.
How is this anymore out to lunch than suggesting this...
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/NyoGxtnFo6w/0.jpg
Has anything in common with the way we access Internet on devices in 2016?


Here are the world-wide best selling games of 5th Gen (1995 - 2001), 6th Gen (2000 - 2007), and 7th Gen (I'll keep it to 2005-2008 for the sake of comparison)

5th Gen

1. Super Mario 64 (1996) (no DLC, no online)
2. Gran Turismo (1998) (no DLC, no online)
3. Mario Kart 64 (1997) (no DLC, no online)
4. Final Fantasy VII (1997) (no DLC, no online)
5. Gran Turismo II (1999) (no DLC, no online)
6. Resident Evil (1996) (no DLC, no online)
7. Tekken 3 (1998) (no DLC, no online)
8. Final Fantasy VIII (1997) (no DLC, no online)
7. GoldenEye 007 (1997) (no DLC, no online)
8. Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (2001) (no DLC, no online)
9. The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time (1998) (no DLC, no online)
10. Crash Bandicoot: Warped (1998) (no DLC, no online)

6th gen

1. Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas (2004) (no online, no DLC)
2. Gran Turismo 3 (2001) (no online, no DLC)
3. Gran Turismo 4 (2004) (no online, no DLC)
4. Grand Theft Auto: Vice City (2002) (no online, no DLC)
5. Halo 2 (2004) (online, DLC)
6. Grand Theft Auto III (2001) (no online, no DLC)
7. Super Smash Bros. Melee (2001) (no online, no DLC)
8. Mario Kart: Double Dash (2003) (no online, no DLC)
9. Metal Gear Solid II (2001) (no online, no DLC)
10. Super Mario Sunshine (2002) (no online, no DLC)

7th gen (2005 - 2008 only)

1. Mario Kart Wii (2008) (online, no DLC)
2. Wii Fit (2007) (no online, no DLC)
3. Halo 3 (2007) (online, DLC)
4. Super Smash Bros. Brawl (2008) (online, no DLC)
5. Mario Party 8 (2007) (no online, no DLC)
6. The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess (2006) (no online, no DLC)
7. Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games (2007) (online, no DLC)
8. Metal Gear Solid 4 (2008) (no online, DLC)
9. Gears of War (2006) (online, DLC)
10. ?

Not including multiplats or games bundled with console or controllers.

You can compare for yourself https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_video_games#Xbox_360

Really if we don't include Wii the list will be even more biased towards games with DLC/online. None of the 5th gen or 6th gen top selling games had online or DLC (with the exception of Halo 2), unlike 7th gen where the list is proliferated with them. Your video game history is extremely shoddy.

First of all, lets clean up on your lacklustre gaming history.

90s 5th gen = 00s 6th gen
90s Dreamcast = 00s 7th gen

The 5th gen was never bleeding edge when they came out, the closest being maybe the Saturn. The first two came out in the first half of the decade unlike the 7th gen. Only the N64 came late and still used cartridges.

Both PS1 & N64 were missing features the Genesis had. Even one of the old Atari models featured wireless controllers.

The Dreamcast had a built in modem, a screen on it's controller and could natively render 480p ED (600p if you used a VGA cable with a computer monitor). And the Saturn retained the wireless controller feature.

Dreamcast

1. Phantasy Star Online (2001) (DLC, online)
2. 4x4 Evolution (2000) (no DLC, online)
3. Quake III Arena (1999) (DLC, online)
4. Planet Ring (2000) (DLC?, online at all times)
5. Alien Front Online (2001) (DLC?, online)
To name a few...

And a list of DC DLC
http://www.racketboy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=48311

Saturn

1. Daytona USA (1995) (online)
2. Duke Nukem 3D (1997) (online)
3. Saturn Bomberman (1996) (online)
4. Sega Rally (1994) (online)
5.Cyber Troopers Virtual-On: Operation Moongate (1996) (online)

Not sure about DLC with the saturn, yet, but the Sega Channel was known to have it.

A whopping 10%.
Considering Sony refuses to introduce streaming full games over Internet to the PS4 for fear of alienating the 2% still on dial-up, yeah, 10% is quite the userbase to anger when your product's image is at stake.


Yes. In the 90's and early 2000's, most people still had dial-up. This changed in 2004 and 2005 when broadband gained popularity. I pointed out in my other post that high speed internet and broadband weren't "widespread" in the 90's but did exist. Dial-Up was still what the Average Joe's had in their homes and it wasn't until Broadband was introduced that online gaming became easier for the dudes who don't really invest too much time in gaming and use it as a stress reliever, for example.
In what world is 34% "most people"?


You asked me to provide one example of Day 1 DLC in the late 00's and I did. How!? You're comparing Nintendo's failed virtual reality attempt with EA's online attempts which were actually successful and changed the gaming landscape.
Really? I don't remember anyone else jumping on the day 1 DLC wagon immediately as soon as they saw EA do it. That practice took off around the time of the 360 S model and the rise of smartphone gaming.


I don't remember Wi-Fi having shaky service. I also remember it being quite popular during the time.
At McDonalds and Starbucks. And maybe if they leeched off a neighbour who had it. But at home, most used cable of some sort.


That's not what I'm saying at all. I am saying that Neopets was targeted towards a specific audience which had clearly moved on. If it faded into obscurity, then that is probably the reason why. What high school kids played Neopets!? I would really like to meet some because I'm sure it'd be quite the treat. The '97' in your name means 1997, right? If so, we're two ends of the same generation and I know most latter Millennials didn't hold on to pre-school kid games like Neopets well into their adolescence so I don't see how this is an exclusively early Millennial view.
Developers don't usually use children as guinea pigs for testing things like online gaming before they use older people. Neopets was huge for the span of a decade before declining, but it's online feature was implemented as a reaction, not in a vacuum.


Of course not. I got the PS3 instead. Too bad it was a huge disappointment compared to the great PS2.
Never owned one personally so I can't give a full opinion other than it feels more like 2010s hardware than the other two.


No, they weren't. I clearly remember nobody talking about these services. Not my brother nor the kids in my neighborhood/schoolyard. You seem to think that every second person was a serious online gamer totally invested in Sega Channel and XBAND in the 1990's when that was far from the case. 
Well they each garnered hundreds of thousands of subscribers so they were certainly not unknown. Sports illustrated released a stat revealing:
"children between 9 and 13 years old were five times more likely to subscribe to Sega Channel than to purchase a Sega Saturn or the upcoming Nintendo 64 or PlayStation."
http://www.sega-16.com/2004/12/sega-channel-the-first-real-dowloadable-content/


So, the casual gaming teenager in high school would care more about Wii Sports than that new Call of Duty online all the other kids are talking about? Good to know.
They're called "causal" for a reason right?


I didn't say they're the same. I said 2007 is closer to today than 1999. You're the one continuously bringing up how everyone and their mother's went out and got Sega Channel and compared them with XBAND and Atari Online in 1994 so they could get the best online service since everyone knew what an 'online' was.
I actually didn't make those claims, but the link from the quote ironically does. Head over and debate it with the writer.


That is also entirely subjective. A good amount of people would say we are still in Web 2.0 and others would say 2008 is the start of 3.0.
Web 3.0 is the new phase of the Internet that has different definitions but is generally agreed to be "the web of things" involving services that weren't around in 2008.
http://webtrends.about.com/od/web20/a/what-is-web-30.htm


If I am trying to make a console like it's from 2007 what the hell would I make it noisy like a 2002 computer?
Enter the 360...

My 2008 wifi was. And I find many people say cable broadband was the closest to today's Internet in speed and reliability.

I've mentioned the Ethernet in my previous posts. It's a close cousin to the way you set up XBAND, Sega Channel or SegaNet in the 90s which is why I compared it to them.

And of course any device without WiFi would bomb today, it's about as standard as using a controller to play console games.
AOL messenger, MSN, Yahoo, Paltalk and the Dreamcast had voicechat. Not terribly new tech by that time. The fact that MSN needed to merge with skype, completely changing it's function is a sign that it was outdated.
It's yet another example of the 360's dated hardware.
Always did on mine before I updated it, whenever I hooked up Ethernet.

That's progress. Like how the 3DS is Nintendo's last system to measure storage space in blocks.
Online has been paid for decades. PSN was new because it offered it for free. Now we went backwards and only the Wii U has it free.

RoosterTeeth would beg to differ.
ZQ8NhxD0-Ek

None of the 8th gen consoles nowadays come with R/G/B cables except the Wii U if I recall correctly. Only HDMI.


How is this anymore out to lunch than suggesting this...
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/NyoGxtnFo6w/0.jpg
Has anything in common with the way we access Internet on devices in 2016?
First of all, lets clean up on your lacklustre gaming history.

90s 5th gen = 00s 6th gen
90s Dreamcast = 00s 7th gen

The 5th gen was never bleeding edge when they came out, the closest being maybe the Saturn. The first two came out in the first half of the decade unlike the 7th gen. Only the N64 came late and still used cartridges.

Both PS1 & N64 were missing features the Genesis had. Even one of the old Atari models featured wireless controllers.

The Dreamcast had a built in modem, a screen on it's controller and could natively render 480p ED (600p if you used a VGA cable with a computer monitor). And the Saturn retained the wireless controller feature.

Dreamcast

1. Phantasy Star Online (2001) (DLC, online)
2. 4x4 Evolution (2000) (no DLC, online)
3. Quake III Arena (1999) (DLC, online)
4. Planet Ring (2000) (DLC?, online at all times)
5. Alien Front Online (2001) (DLC?, online)
To name a few...

And a list of DC DLC
http://www.racketboy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=48311

Saturn

1. Daytona USA (1995) (online)
2. Duke Nukem 3D (1997) (online)
3. Saturn Bomberman (1996) (online)
4. Sega Rally (1994) (online)
5.Cyber Troopers Virtual-On: Operation Moongate (1996) (online)

Not sure about DLC with the saturn, yet, but the Sega Channel was known to have it.


I think you're talking about ping. The response time for WiFi is slower than a LAN connection. The connection itself is very stable however, and the ping isn't any better in 2016 than it was in 2006.

How much did those games sell? They don't even sound like the best selling games on their respective systems :s Those are just random games you listed.

Considering Sony refuses to introduce streaming full games over Internet to the PS4 for fear of alienating the 2% still on dial-up, yeah, 10% is quite the userbase to anger when your product's image is at stake.


That's the reason?



In what world is 34% "most people"?


"Dial-up still dominant

While broadband Internet access is growing rapidly, the vast majority of consumers continue to surf the Internet using dial-up connections that transmit data at a maximum of 56 kbps. Much of the growth in standard dial-up access is coming from companies that provide access free of charge, such as 1stUp.Net, Freeinternet.com, Juno Web, and Net Zero.

"Free Internet service providers fueled the tremendous growth in Internet access accounts in the second quarter and have reshuffled the lineup of the nation's largest consumer-oriented online service providers," said Amy Fickling, a managing editor at Telecommunications Reports International, a telecom news service based in Washington, D.C. "Most of the leading fee-based dial-up ISPs showed only single-digit percentages in their growth rates, if that."

Telecommunications Reports reported last August that about 58 million consumers accessed the Internet through a dial-up connection in the second quarter of this year. By contrast, 2.8 million accessed the Net through cable modems, 1.1 million through Internet TV, and 286,000 through DSL. Thus, cable modems and DSL combined accounted for only 5 percent of consumer access to the Internet in the second quarter."

http://money.cnn.com/2000/11/01/technology/fcc_dsl/


Really? I don't remember anyone else jumping on the day 1 DLC wagon immediately as soon as they saw EA do it. That practice took off around the time of the 360 S model and the rise of smartphone gaming.


You asked and I delivered. The technology was clearly there and was implemented on both of the two biggest systems. I can also send you forums from 2009 where kids complain about the evils of Day 1 DLC but I don't know if anyone wants to voluntarily read that kind of sh*t. So, this means that it makes sense to compare the Virtual Boy to the Xbox 360's Online. I forgot how much the Xbox 360's online was such a failure just like the Virtual Boy.


At McDonalds and Starbucks. And maybe if they leeched off a neighbour who had it. But at home, most used cable of some sort.


http://www.pewinternet.org/2009/07/22/wireless-internet-use/

"An April 2009 survey conducted by the Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project asked respondents whether they had used a variety of devices – laptops, cell phones, game consoles, and more – to go online using a wireless network. Altogether, 56% of Americans said they have at some point used wireless means for online access." Seems like Wi-Fi was pretty popular among American's in 2009.


Developers don't usually use children as guinea pigs for testing things like online gaming before they use older people. Neopets was huge for the span of a decade before declining, but it's online feature was implemented as a reaction, not in a vacuum.


Yes, this means that Neopets were all the rage in every high school during the late 90's and early 00's. I forgot about how high school kids are usually into pre-school games and young children's entertainment.


Never owned one personally so I can't give a full opinion other than it feels more like 2010s hardware than the other two.


It's still 2000's technology whether it feels like 2010's or not.


Well they each garnered hundreds of thousands of subscribers so they were certainly not unknown. Sports illustrated released a stat revealing:
"children between 9 and 13 years old were five times more likely to subscribe to Sega Channel than to purchase a Sega Saturn or the upcoming Nintendo 64 or PlayStation."
http://www.sega-16.com/2004/12/sega-channel-the-first-real-dowloadable-content/


Last time I checked, the Sega Channel wasn't available to everyone because it relied on certain service providers. I also always read Sports Illustrated for the recent gaming news.

"1995 was a year of decline for the Genesis, and nothing on Earth was going to stop it -- certainly not some weird little streaming thing that wasn't available everywhere. The Sony PlayStation was a reality, and Genesis was on its way out. A service as technically complex to maintain as Sega Channel would have required a substantial subscriber base to be viable, and the number of Genesis owners was heading into permanent decline. At the same time, Sega as a company was shifting much of its focus to the Saturn, leaving fewer resources to support the odd little last-gen service."

http://www.gamecrate.com/throwback-thursday-sad-death-sega-channel/10075

The Playstation really was a reality. That thing murdered Sega. And the sales speak for themselves. Most kids bought a PS1 or an N64 than held on to their Genesis systems.


They're called "causal" for a reason right?


In 2007, the casual landscape changed. Doors were opened for people who aren't normally invested in video games to take part in online play thanks to Gears of War, Call of Duty 4 and Halo 3.


I actually didn't make those claims, but the link from the quote ironically does. Head over and debate it with the writer.


Good idea. I'll consider it. ;)


Web 3.0 is the new phase of the Internet that has different definitions but is generally agreed to be "the web of things" involving services that weren't around in 2008.
http://webtrends.about.com/od/web20/a/what-is-web-30.htm


That's subjective but whatever. People on here have different ideas on web 3.0 and when it started. I personally don't care either way.


Enter the 360...


Yes, the 360 might as well have been made in the 90's or the 2000-2002 era. Going online on the PS2 was pretty much the same as the 360 and even though the mid-2000's is when online games stopped having dial-up settings. It's all the same thing.

How much did those games sell? They don't even sound like the best selling games on their respective systems :s Those are just random games you listed.


Here's a list of the best selling Dreamcast games:

Sonic Adventure - 2.5 million
Soulcalibur - 1.3 million
Crazy Taxi - 1.225 million approximately: 1.11 million in the US, 115,039 in Japan (Crazy Taxi is rad and gets points for The Offspring and Bad Religion soundtrack)
Shenmue - 1.2 million
Resident Evil Code: Veronica - 1.14 million
NFL 2K - 1.13 million in the US
NFL 2K1 - 1.01 million in the US

http://www.listal.com/list/bestselling-dreamcast-games

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_video_games#Dreamcast

Now for the Sega Horsesh*t Saturn:

Virtua Fighter 2 - Over 2.5 million; 1.7 million in Japan, at least 500,000 bundled in US, 200,000 sold in US in December 1995
Sega Rally Championship - 1.2 million
Virtua Fighter - 1.2 Million
Grandia - No info

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_video_games#Sega_Saturn

http://www.listal.com/list/bestselling-saturn-games

I don't think any of these games used online.

Yep! What a pain in the ass that was, eh?


and that was a long wait.  ::)

My mom was a housewife aka on the phone 24/7. There was essentially no internet in my house  ;D


So what did you use?

and that was a long wait.  ::)


Good thing we had that pleasant dial-up sound. Soothes the soul.

Good thing we had that pleasant dial-up sound. Soothes the soul.


What was pleasant about it?

What was pleasant about it?


I was being sarcastic, dude. ;D It was like nails on a chalkboard.

I think you're talking about ping. The response time for WiFi is slower than a LAN connection. The connection itself is very stable however, and the ping isn't any better in 2016 than it was in 2006.
Guess that explains the atrocious uploads speeds for anything more than a GB at a time.
http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/technology/why-internet-upload-speed-in-canada-lags-behind-world-average-1.2578682


How much did those games sell? They don't even sound like the best selling games on their respective systems :s Those are just random games you listed.

These are very famous multiplatform games complete with crossplatform online, unlike the 360 games you listed.



That's the reason?
Sony and a few other companies expressed interest in streaming games to consoles, but then later backtracked with uncertainty. I a came across a couple famous youtubers covering that story that have both cited Internet availability as the reason Sony & co backpeddled on the idea, as it seems to be the most likely reason.



"Dial-up still dominant

While broadband Internet access is growing rapidly, the vast majority of consumers continue to surf the Internet using dial-up connections that transmit data at a maximum of 56 kbps. Much of the growth in standard dial-up access is coming from companies that provide access free of charge, such as 1stUp.Net, Freeinternet.com, Juno Web, and Net Zero.

"Free Internet service providers fueled the tremendous growth in Internet access accounts in the second quarter and have reshuffled the lineup of the nation's largest consumer-oriented online service providers," said Amy Fickling, a managing editor at Telecommunications Reports International, a telecom news service based in Washington, D.C. "Most of the leading fee-based dial-up ISPs showed only single-digit percentages in their growth rates, if that."

Telecommunications Reports reported last August that about 58 million consumers accessed the Internet through a dial-up connection in the second quarter of this year. By contrast, 2.8 million accessed the Net through cable modems, 1.1 million through Internet TV, and 286,000 through DSL. Thus, cable modems and DSL combined accounted for only 5 percent of consumer access to the Internet in the second quarter."

http://money.cnn.com/2000/11/01/technology/fcc_dsl/
http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/08/26/home-broadband-2013/



You asked and I delivered. The technology was clearly there and was implemented on both of the two biggest systems. I can also send you forums from 2009 where kids complain about the evils of Day 1 DLC but I don't know if anyone wants to voluntarily read that kind of sh*t. So, this means that it makes sense to compare the Virtual Boy to the Xbox 360's Online. I forgot how much the Xbox 360's online was such a failure just like the Virtual Boy.
And I can say the same thing about the Dreamcast and Genesis too. Even more so as day 1 DLC was the norm for online compatible games back then, so some presence of late 00s day 1 DLC is not far fetched but not at all common. The 6th gen seemed to have temporarily killed demand for online features the Dreamcast was trying to push into people's homes before EA stumbled along in the late 7th gen and rediscovered them.


http://www.pewinternet.org/2009/07/22/wireless-internet-use/

"An April 2009 survey conducted by the Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project asked respondents whether they had used a variety of devices – laptops, cell phones, game consoles, and more – to go online using a wireless network. Altogether, 56% of Americans said they have at some point used wireless means for online access." Seems like Wi-Fi was pretty popular among American's in 2009.
This isn't evidence for your statement. It just tells me they brought their laptops to McDonalds once or twice, not that they owned Wifi. This statistics on the other hand states that Wifi users have only just recently become the majority in households.
http://broadbandnow.com/Fixed-Wireless


Yes, this means that Neopets were all the rage in every high school during the late 90's and early 00's. I forgot about how high school kids are usually into pre-school games and young children's entertainment.
So you're saying high schoolers didn't play online games, but refuse the notion that young kids were ahead of you in online gaming access, despite the popularity of Neopets? One phenomenon not occuring automatically leads to the other. Pick one.


It's still 2000's technology whether it feels like 2010's or not.
Which is why it cost $600.


Last time I checked, the Sega Channel wasn't available to everyone because it relied on certain service providers. I also always read Sports Illustrated for the recent gaming news.

"1995 was a year of decline for the Genesis, and nothing on Earth was going to stop it -- certainly not some weird little streaming thing that wasn't available everywhere. The Sony PlayStation was a reality, and Genesis was on its way out. A service as technically complex to maintain as Sega Channel would have required a substantial subscriber base to be viable, and the number of Genesis owners was heading into permanent decline. At the same time, Sega as a company was shifting much of its focus to the Saturn, leaving fewer resources to support the odd little last-gen service."

http://www.gamecrate.com/throwback-thursday-sad-death-sega-channel/10075

The Playstation really was a reality. That thing murdered Sega. And the sales speak for themselves. Most kids bought a PS1 or an N64 than held on to their Genesis systems.
Hmm
http://m.ca.ign.com/articles/2008/06/11/the-sega-channel

Sega Channel declined because the Genesis was at the end of it's life cycle (coupled with some bad decisions unrelated to the service) . They kept online support through the Saturn and Dreamcast years, still popular as ever.


In 2007, the casual landscape changed. Doors were opened for people who aren't normally invested in video games to take part in online play thanks to Gears of War, Call of Duty 4 and Halo 3.
Yes, I'm sure millions of grandmas and grandchildren got together on family game night to engage in a swell match of CoD.


Good idea. I'll consider it. ;)
http://www.sega-16.com/contact-us/
Fire away ;D



That's subjective but whatever. People on here have different ideas on web 3.0 and when it started. I personally don't care either way.
Sure they have different definitions for particular aspects of Web 3.0, bug analysts have generally distinguished it from 2.0 as the web of things.



Yes, the Xbox One might as well have been made in the late 00s era. Going online on the 360 was pretty much the same as the Xbone and even though the early 2010s is when online games began streaming functions. It's all the same thing.

You may as well have typed this since it's your argument summed up.

The funny part is that, using your logic that popular use of a feature initiates the start of it's defined era, 2001 basically destroyed the argument by posting a list showing a majority of the top selling 7th gen games being Wii games &  games with strong single player campaigns. To put the icing on the cake, we know casuals bought the Wii for single player experiences,  where are the casuals nowadays? On their phones/tablets playing Clash of Clans online?

You edited my quotes to make it look like I said sh*t I didn't say! >:(

http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/f5/f581fb2db36498fe952d5192bd7eb37f2c57cccc036cfb73b2076eac49cf6760.jpg


Sony and a few other companies expressed interest in streaming games to consoles, but then later backtracked with uncertainty. I a came across a couple famous youtubers covering that story that have both cited Internet availability as the reason Sony & co backpeddled on the idea, as it seems to be the most likely reason.


So, speculation basically.


http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/08/26/home-broadband-2013/


It appears that Dial-Up is still the king over Broadband from 2000-2004. Unlike the late 2000's when Broadband was the leader.


And I can say the same thing about the Dreamcast and Genesis too. Even more so as day 1 DLC was the norm for online compatible games back then, so some presence of late 00s day 1 DLC is not far fetched but not at all common. The 6th gen seemed to have temporarily killed demand for online features the Dreamcast was trying to push into people's homes before EA stumbled along in the late 7th gen and rediscovered them.


Yeah, people used online more in 1999 than they did in 2007 because 2007 is somehow more like 90's technology than 1999 was.


This isn't evidence for your statement. It just tells me they brought their laptops to McDonalds once or twice, not that they owned Wifi. This static on the other hand stats that Wifi users have only just recently become the majority in households.


This stuff was already getting recognition and people were aware of their options in the late 2000's unlike the late 90's. 


So you're saying high schoolers didn't play online games, but refuse the notion that young kids were ahead of you in online gaming access, despite the popularity of Neopets? One phenomenon not occuring automatically leads to the other. Pick one.


When you were in High School did you and your pals play Neopets and other children's games like Pee Wee Herman's Online Adventure? Online gaming like Nexus and Everquest was targeted to a specific type of adolescent. The nerdy types who were willing to shell out serious bucks. Neopets was targeted towards children as a time killing activity that was viewed similarly to how consoles were viewed in the late 80's and early 90's. I really want to know what High Schoolers played Neopets. I really do.


Which is why it cost $600. Because it was really expensive, that means it was actually from the 2010's but it was misplaced in time due to the malfunctioning DeLoreans.


Yeah, this sounds about right.


http://www.sega-16.com/contact-us/
Fire away ;D


I will write him a very stern letter.


Sure they have different definitions for particular aspects of Web 3.0, bug analysts have generally distinguished it from 2.0 as the web of things.


Sure. That's one way of looking at it.


Your argument summed up.


How very rude of you! That is not what I'm saying at all. It's closer to today but I didn't say it was exactly the same. I fail to see how there were no technological developments between 1999 and 2009.


Yes, I'm sure millions of grandmas and grandchildren got together on family game night to engage in a swell match of CoD.


Why not? That sounds like an excellent way to spend time with the old folks.
Anyways, not all causal gamers are the same. Do you think the hardcore gaming community actually accepts Call of Duty players as "legitimate players"? Are all those jocks and 12 year olds on XBL hardcore gamers?


The funny part is that, using your logic that popular use of a feature initiates the start of it's defined era, 2001 basically destroyed the argument by posting a list showing a majority of the top selling 7th gen games being Wii games &  games with strong single player campaigns. To put the icing on the cake, we know casuals bought the Wii for single player experiences,  where are the casuals nowadays? On their phones/tablets playing Clash of Clans online?


You mean games that had both strong single player modes and multiplayer modes that got tons of recognition? Then yes, I agree. 2001 did totally destroy this argument by showing how online was gaining momentum in the late 2000's the late 2000's were more like 1993 with it's ancient technology. Casual families only being one example of a casual gamer. Casual gamers come in all ages.

You edited my quotes to make it look like I said sh*t I didn't say! >:(
No, I was making a point. The statement you typed before was eerily similar to the argument you've been peddling about 2007 Xbox live during the entire debate. So similar in fact that it was possible to edit it and condense your entire stance into the quote.


So, speculation basically.
On Sony's part, yes. They can't damage their brand by selling unusable products to customers. So they have no choice but to speculate.


It appears that Dial-Up is still the king over Broadband from 2000-2004. Unlike the late 2000's when Broadband was the leader.
I repeat, 34% of all Internet users is not king.

Yeah, people used online more in 1999 than they did in 2007 because 2007 is somehow more like 90's technology than 1999 was.
2007? No. 2002 would've been more accurate as 6th gen hardware like GCN that didn't support PC style online overtook the Dreamcast, original Xbox and Genesis in popularity, effectively slowing the evolution of console online gaming. 7th gen saw a resurgence because most hardware by then supported it in some form by then.


This stuff was already getting recognition and people were aware of their options in the late 2000's unlike the late 90's.
Which is why services such as Sega Channel gained 250, 000 subscribers in 3 years?


When you were in High School did you and your pals play Neopets and other children's games like Pee Wee Herman's Online Adventure? Online gaming like Nexus and Everquest was targeted to a specific type of adolescent. The nerdy types who were willing to shell out serious bucks. Neopets was targeted towards children as a time killing activity that was viewed similarly to how consoles were viewed in the late 80's and early 90's. I really want to know what High Schoolers played Neopets. I really do.
Yes, 50, 000 nerds bought Quake 3 Arena in only 3 days of release:
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/quake-iii-sales-through-the-roof/1100-2440372/

Nexus and Everquest gained around half a million subs within 4 years if their release. The latter had tons of expansion packs and won awards. 


Yeah, this sounds about right.
Does this happen to be the same DeLorean that transported the 2007 IBM Simon back to 1994, charged $900 for it and coined the term "smart phone"?


I will write him a very stern letter.
I'm sure he'll consider.


Sure. That's one way of looking at it.
Based on Moore's law.


How very rude of you! That is not what I'm saying at all. It's closer to today but I didn't say it was exactly the same. I fail to see how there were no technological developments between 1999 and 2009.
But you seem to have an easy time glossing over technological developments between 2007 and 2016.


Why not? That sounds like an excellent way to spend time with the old folks.
Yep, remember when the PS3 outsold the Wii because grandmas the world over wanted an easy way to show off their kill streak to their friends?  ;D


Anyways, not all causal gamers are the same. Do you think the hardcore gaming community actually accepts Call of Duty players as "legitimate players"? Are all those jocks and 12 year olds on XBL hardcore gamers?
Were those jocks even playing video games? Because they didn't at my school.
How many 12 year olds were actually on XBL compared to Wii? How many had ethernet cables or could persuad their parent to pay extra for a wireless cord? Is that why Viva Pinata was one of the 360s top selling titles?


You mean games that had both strong single player modes and multiplayer modes that got tons of recognition? Then yes, I agree. 2001 did totally destroy this argument by showing how online was maintaning momentum in the late 2000's the late 2000's were more like 1993 with it's ancient technology. Casual families only being one example of a casual gamer. Casual gamers come in all ages.

Fixed. At least I'm acknowledging advancements between 90s online and late 00s online. But you seem to insist 360 online and Xbone Live are one in the same.

Every time you play online on Xbox Live or PlayStation Network, you hear a lot of Gen Zers trash talking and playing loud music over their headsets, which those Gen Zers are annoying. Thankfully, there is a mute option if you don't want to hear those Gen Zers. Plus, as a almost 20 year old millennial, I feel embarrassed when I get owned by a group of Gen Zers on most games such as Call of Duty and Halo.

Every time you play online on Xbox Live or PlayStation Network, you hear a lot of Gen Zers trash talking and playing loud music over their headsets, which those Gen Zers are annoying. Thankfully, there is a mute option if you don't want to hear those Gen Zers. Plus, as a almost 20 year old millennial, I feel embarrassed when I get owned by a group of Gen Zers on most games such as Call of Duty and Halo.


I did not know you were near my age. I'll be 20 next month. I've played COD: Black Ops many times and I only keep the speakers on if it's my personal friends or cousins I'm playing online with, otherwise I always mute it.

These are very famous multiplatform games complete with crossplatform online, unlike the 360 games you listed.




What?? The games I listed are the best selling games of the generation. The games you listed don't even crack the top 200 let alone the top 10 of the generation.  :o

What?? The games I listed are the best selling games of the generation. The games you listed don't even crack the top 200 let alone the top 10 of the generation.  :o


Shemp97 is from Canada I think, so his viewpoint about online gaming when it got popular or how it got popular throughout certain generations might be different from ours. However, all I know is when things apply to here in the U.S. he's listing a bunch of useless misinformation. Especially rewording people's quotes from what I heard. Bottom line is, whether it's Nintendo, Microsoft, Sega, or Sony. Online gaming was NOT a huge thing back in the 6th generation era of gaming or earlier, period, point blank. Hardly any of those popular games back then had the online option at the start menu. I don't understand why he keeps arguing this. It doesn't matter how many people or who had dial up, broadband, high speed internet, or whatever at the time. Low class, middle class, upper class, or whatever. Do the research and you'll see for yourself. Since 7th generation or the late 2000's to present it has always been a requirement for most games to have online. Even Nintendo games like Super Smash Bros Brawl or Mario Kart Wii too the Wi-Fi mode was just as important as single player or more regardless of Microsoft having more popular online games like COD 4 or Black Ops. It's over, and I think many others on here who haven't jumped into this conversation would agree as well.

However, all I know is when things apply to here in the U.S. he's listing a bunch of useless misinformation.
The "misinformation" is from carefully organized census, issued by reputable sources. Denying them does not invalidate them.


Especially rewording people's quotes from what I heard.
When? The closest thing to that in the last 24 hours was a paraphrase by from another user for the purpose of making a point.


Bottom line is, whether it's Nintendo, Microsoft, Sega, or Sony. Online gaming was NOT a huge thing back in the 6th generation era of gaming or earlier, period, point blank.
Source? And by what criteria do you measure big if half a million online users per game is not at least notable? Does this include Elder scrolls?


Hardly any of those popular games back then had the online option at the start menu.
What?! How do you think people access the feature then?


I don't understand why he keeps arguing this. It doesn't matter how many people or who had dial up, broadband, high speed internet, or whatever at the time. Low class, middle class, upper class, or whatever. Do the research and you'll see for yourself. Since 7th generation or the late 2000's to present it has always been a requirement for most games to have online.
Name 5 MMOs and sandbox shooters from before the late 00s that didn't have online. Then find 5 platformers or superhero games  from the late 00s that did. Only 3 out of the 6 Wii games 2001 listed had online and still sold like hotcakes. Metal Gear Solid 5, Elder Scrolls IV, Bioshock, Fallout 3, Mass Effect, Just Cause, Enslaved: Odyssey to the West, Ninja Gaiden 2, Left 4 Dead, Assassins Creed and even flipping Batman Arkham City were single player only games that still smashed the charts. You know, for the dawn of the online era, that's an awful lot of big name AAA titles that didn't support it.



Even Nintendo games like Super Smash Bros Brawl or Mario Kart Wii too the Wi-Fi mode was just as important as single player or more regardless of Microsoft having more popular online games like COD 4 or Black Ops. It's over, and I think many others on here who haven't jumped into this conversation would agree as well.

Two or three online multiplayer Nintendo games out of a vast library of single player-only games. And I assure you, the only multiplayer people had on their minds when buying Wii & DS games was local. Literally few people talk about WiFi mode as it lacked so many features and few cried out when Nintendo abruptly gave it the axe.

And I already put up a list of the fraction of single player-only games for 360. A user came easily buy a pre-S model 360 with half it's library worth of best known games, and never need to connect to the Internet to complete the game, or get their full money's worth (largely because many like the ones above don't support it to begin with).

Shemp97 is from Canada I think, so his viewpoint about online gaming when it got popular or how it got popular throughout certain generations might be different from ours. However, all I know is when things apply to here in the U.S. he's listing a bunch of useless misinformation. Especially rewording people's quotes from what I heard. Bottom line is, whether it's Nintendo, Microsoft, Sega, or Sony. Online gaming was NOT a huge thing back in the 6th generation era of gaming or earlier, period, point blank. Hardly any of those popular games back then had the online option at the start menu. I don't understand why he keeps arguing this. It doesn't matter how many people or who had dial up, broadband, high speed internet, or whatever at the time. Low class, middle class, upper class, or whatever. Do the research and you'll see for yourself. Since 7th generation or the late 2000's to present it has always been a requirement for most games to have online. Even Nintendo games like Super Smash Bros Brawl or Mario Kart Wii too the Wi-Fi mode was just as important as single player or more regardless of Microsoft having more popular online games like COD 4 or Black Ops. It's over, and I think many others on here who haven't jumped into this conversation would agree as well.


I'm from Canada! Online gaming got big as the same time as the US. 2006-2008ish. I remember being super excited for the Nintendo Revolution. I could play Mario Party 8 online with my friends with voice chat, and we'd bring 1999 back, except online!  :D They also said Pokémon Battle Revolution was basically Pokémon Stadium 3 with online! Shame on them for playing with my emotions. Too bad the Wii was a dud there, even though it had great local multiplayer games.

I played Xbox  360 instead; some great online multiplayer games on there. I bought Xbox 360 and Live in 2008 to catch up with my friends who bought it in 2007. That's exactly the period online gaming hit it big. Even all the kids Shemp's age at the time (8-12 y/os) were playing Halo. I strongly doubt that went passed him.

Name 5 MMOs and sandbox shooters from before the late 00s that didn't have online. Then find 5 platformers or superhero games  from the late 00s that did.


I'm not entirely sure what the arguement between you guys is going on about, but I am a bit confused on something. Why for the games before the late 2000s you specifically asked for games that are MMOs and sandbox shooters (the genres known to have online play with MMOs being popular well before 2000). And why in the late 00s you asked for platformers and superhero games (games of which are usually known for single player or overall lacking online play with very few exceptions). For a better comparison just look at all of the top selling games released (on all platforms in all generations) before the late 2000s and after instead of just picking genres.

Also in terms of games they don't normally require online play unless it was a multiplayer game. Back then before the late '00s you could have a multiplayer heavy game that lacked online play and hear hardly any complaints from people. Nowadays if you have a multiplayer game and it didn't include online play people will get upset. Companies such as Nintendo got people upset when games like Donkey Kong Country Tropical Freeze or Super Mario 3D World lacked online, but no one complained back in 2001-2003 when Super Smash Bros Melee and Mario Kart Double Dash didn't have them. Online play increases play time enjoyment for gamers. Heck we've gotten to a point where online gaming is VERY important when it comes to multiplayer games that E-Sports is now a very big thing especially with Fighters, MOBAs, FPS, Strategy, and MMOs(genres known for being multiplayer focused). Single player games normally don't need online features although companies still put in online features mostly for things like DLC.

In the 6th console gen online gaming was not a big requirement for games to have. You had games that were online, but it wasn't quite the norm yet overall. Nowadays it's the norm. Nowadays if you released a game with multiplayer and it didn't have online play then some critics and gamers alike will start removing points from the game and complain. But back then online gaming was just a novelty feature. Sure it was cool to see, but not many games overall had it or needed it. Nowadays you can't have a multiplayer game that doesn't have online play (well you can, but people will complain and critical reception won't be as positive). Single player games no one cares if it lacks online nowadays. I'm not saying that EVERY big/popular multiplayer game in the late 2000s onward had online play, but there were much more online games from the 7th gen onward that had online play compared to the 6th gen and before.

I'm not entirely sure what the arguement between you guys is going on about, but I am a bit confused on something. Why for the games before the late 2000s you specifically asked for games that are MMOs and sandbox shooters (the genres known to have online play with MMOs being popular well before 2000). And why in the late 00s you asked for platformers and superhero games (games of which are usually known for single player or overall lacking online play with very few exceptions). For a better comparison just look at all of the top selling games released (on all platforms in all generations) before the late 2000s and after instead of just picking genres.

Also in terms of online games they don't normally require online play unless it was a multiplayer game. Back then before the late '00s you could have a multiplayer heavy game that lacked online play and hear hardly any complaints from people. Nowadays if you have a multiplayer game and it didn't include online play will get upset. Companies such as Nintendo got upset when games like Donkey Kong Country Tropical Freeze or Super Mario 3D World lacked online, but no one complained back in 2001-2003 when Super Smash Bros Melee and Mario Kart Double Dash didn't have them. Online play increases play time enjoyment for gamers. Heck we've gotten to a point where online gaming is VERY important when it comes to multiplayer games that E-Sports is now a very big thing especially with Fighters, MOBAs, FPS, Strategy, MMOs, (genres known for being multiplayer focused). Single player games normally don't need online features although companies still put in online features mostly for things like DLC.

In the 6th console gen online gaming was not a big requirement for games to have. You had games that were online, but it wasn't quite the norm yet overall. Nowadays it's the norm. Nowadays if you released a game with multiplayer and it didn't have online play then some critics and gamers alike will start removing points from the game and complain. But back then online gaming was just a novelty feature. Sure it was cool to see, but not many games overall had it or needed it. Nowadays you can't have a multiplayer game that doesn't have online play (well you can, but people will complain and critical reception won't be as positive). Single player games no one cares if it lacks online nowadays.


ALL of this, especially your 2nd paragraph.

The three dudes above have basically said what I was going to say. Online gaming was clearly getting big for everybody around the same time and it seems most of our experiences don't really differ much at all.

I did not know you were near my age. I'll be 20 next month. I've played COD: Black Ops many times and I only keep the speakers on if it's my personal friends or cousins I'm playing online with, otherwise I always mute it.


I'm going to be 42 in March and I still play WWE wrestling games on my PS3.

I'm not entirely sure what the arguement between you guys is going on about, but I am a bit confused on something. Why for the games before the late 2000s you specifically asked for games that are MMOs and sandbox shooters (the genres known to have online play with MMOs being popular well before 2000). And why in the late 00s you asked for platformers and superhero games (games of which are usually known for single player or overall lacking online play with very few exceptions). For a better comparison just look at all of the top selling games released (on all platforms in all generations) before the late 2000s and after instead of just picking genres.
The bold is exactly this. The people I responded to made the mountainous claim that no games before the late 00s required online and no gamers came to expect it. They way they worded it, at least, would cover all game genres. They then make the claim that most gamers in the late 00s expected online functions in all their games and a game without online support was an oddity that consistently received blacklash. You pretty much just hit the nail on the head in the bold. Both were popular in the respective eras and what they are known for is what people came to expect of them regardless of time frame.


Also in terms of games they don't normally require online play unless it was a multiplayer game. Back then before the late '00s you could have a multiplayer heavy game that lacked online play and hear hardly any complaints from people. Nowadays if you have a multiplayer game and it didn't include online play people will get upset. Companies such as Nintendo got people upset when games like Donkey Kong Country Tropical Freeze or Super Mario 3D World lacked online, but no one complained back in 2001-2003 when Super Smash Bros Melee and Mario Kart Double Dash didn't have them. Online play increases play time enjoyment for gamers. Heck we've gotten to a point where online gaming is VERY important when it comes to multiplayer games that E-Sports is now a very big thing especially with Fighters, MOBAs, FPS, Strategy, and MMOs(genres known for being multiplayer focused). Single player games normally don't need online features although companies still put in online features mostly for things like DLC.
Which exemplifies the difference between the late 00s and today. Majority of games today support online whether single player or multiplayer. I listed a bunch of games from the late 00s that had multiplayer but didn't support online and received no documented complaints.

That's the major difference between the 7th and 8th gens. In 8th gen, online is standard and 90% of games have it. Back in 7th gen, nobody expected online in Left for Dead, Skyrim or Assassin's creed. Yet those three games added online support post-2010 because online play was standardized by that time.


In the 6th console gen online gaming was not a big requirement for games to have. You had games that were online, but it wasn't quite the norm yet overall. Nowadays it's the norm. Nowadays if you released a game with multiplayer and it didn't have online play then some critics and gamers alike will start removing points from the game and complain. But back then online gaming was just a novelty feature. Sure it was cool to see, but not many games overall had it or needed it. Nowadays you can't have a multiplayer game that doesn't have online play (well you can, but people will complain and critical reception won't be as positive). Single player games no one cares if it lacks online nowadays. I'm not saying that EVERY big/popular multiplayer game in the late 2000s onward had online play, but there were much more online games from the 7th gen onward that had online play compared to the 6th gen and before.

Some best selling 00s offline-only 360 games.

*2010s sequel supports online

Metal Gear Solid 5*
Elder Scrolls IV*
Bioshock, Fallout 3
Mass Effect*
Just Cause
Portal*
Army of Two*
Tekken 6 (got online patch in 2010)
Dead Rising*
Dead Space*
Ninja Gaiden 2*
Dragon age: origins*
Left 4 Dead* (very late 2009)
Assassins Creed*
Batman Arkham Asylum*

This is almost half the 360's best selling AAA library from years gone by. Why didn't I hear complaints about lack of online in these games back then?

Notice the amount of offline-only games that have gained online support since the launch of the S model and the rise of mobile gaming. The PC racked more titles with online support in any given 4 years since 1993 than the 360 had in the late 00s.

It's natural progression that pre-7th gen would have less games supporting online(except the PC), but the 7th gen was not a time where any(practically every) given game of every genre supports an online multiplayer mode. Nowadays you would be hard pressed to find recently released games that don't have online, most depend on it in the main game.

*2010s sequel supports online

Metal Gear Solid 5*
Elder Scrolls IV*
Bioshock, Fallout 3
Mass Effect*
Just Cause
Portal*
Army of Two*
Tekken 6 (got online patch in 2010)
Dead Rising*
Dead Space*
Ninja Gaiden 2*
Dragon age: origins*
Left 4 Dead* (very late 2009)
Assassins Creed*
Batman Arkham Asylum*

This is almost half the 360's best selling AAA library from years gone by. Why didn't I hear complaints about lack of online in these games back then?

Notice the amount of offline-only games that have gained online support since the launch of the S model and the rise of mobile gaming. The PC racked more titles with online support in any given 4 years since 1993 than the 360 had in the late 00s.

It's natural progression that pre-7th gen would have less games supporting online(except the PC), but the 7th gen was not a time where any(practically every) given game of every genre supports an online multiplayer mode. Nowadays you would be hard pressed to find recently released games that don't have online, most depend on it in the main game.



The thing about online gaming is that it's been around since the 1990s. When it got REALLY big is something I'm entirely sure as I can only make my guess depending on the amount of big games had them.  Also those games you just mentioned that didn't have online and no one complained about. Most of those are single player games. As I said before single player games normally don't need online features. It's normally the multiplayer games that have them. Those games you've mentioned are between 2006-2009 and most of them aren't multiplayer which is why no one complained about the games. The other things you've mentioned I do agree with. Online game from 2010 onward is even more common than it was in the late '00s (again if it's a multiplayer game). Online existed well before the 7th gen as we've seen games on the 6th gen that used online (although it wasn't as popular or even that good due to connection issues) and MMOs have been popular since the 1990s. The 7th gen is where the rise in online is most popular, but the beginning of the the 7th gen is a bit transisitonal as most devs still had the 6th gen mindset where they don't need/want to add online. But 2010-2016 it's more common to see multiplayer games with online features. Single player games still don't need online. But companies would sometimes add online features (mostly just DLC which is the norm in almost all games nowadays) in their single player games. PC gaming has always had online for the longest time though. The 7th gen is still going on today due to the PS3 and XB360 still being manufactured and sold in stores. Early 7th is basically a 6th gen continuation where not EVERY games had online (unless it was a PC game), but late 7th gen is identical to the 8th gen in terms of the amount of online games.

PC gaming has always had online for the longest time though.


I can definitely agree with this though. PC gaming whether it's certain CD-ROM games or multiplayer websites have always been online as long as I can remember. Even in 2002-2003 I used to go on this Planet Hot Wheels website where you'd built custom tracks and races with tons of people worldwide. By then my family already had Windows XP and broadband. I can say that the transition period from online gaming not being popular for consoles or handhelds yet to it becoming fully popular for consoles and handhelds occurred throughout 2005-2006. Which was the transition period from 6th gen to 7th gen gaming, or late 6th/early 7th as you already stated. It started with the release of the Nintendo DS which was the first to have the Nintendo Wi-Fi connection, and then the PSP and XBOX 360 came out with its online features. You had many online games released throughout that span which was slowly the beginning of online gaining popularity. Then the Wii and PS3 came towards the end of 2006, so by 2007 the transition was fully complete.

The thing about online gaming is that it's been around since the /1990s. When it got REALLY big is something I'm entirely sure as I can only make my guess depending on the amount of big games had them.  Also those games you just mentioned that didn't have online and no one complained about. Most of those are single player games. As I said before single player games normally don't need online features. It's normally the multiplayer games that have them. Those games you've mentioned are between 2006-2009 and most of them aren't multiplayer which is why no one complained about the games. The other things you've mentioned I do agree with. Online game from 2010 onward is even more common than it was in the late '00s (again if it's a multiplayer game). Online existed well before the 7th gen as we've seen games on the 6th gen that used online (although it was as popular or even that good due to connection issues) and MMOs have been popular since the 1990s. The 7th gen is where the rise in online is most popular, but the beginning of the the 7th gen is a bit transisitonal as most devs still had the 6th gen mindset where they don't need/want to add online. But 2010-2016 it's more common to see multiplayer games with online features. Single player games still don't need online. But companies would sometimes add online features (mostly just DLC which is the norm in almost all games nowadays) in their single player games. PC gaming has always had online for the longest time though. The 7th gen is still going on today due to the PS3 and XB360 still being manufactured and sold in stores. Early 7th is basically a 6th gen continuation where not EVERY games had online (unless it was a PC game), but late 7th gen is identical to the 8th gen in terms of the amount of online games.

Fully agree. Albeit online play isn't as absent in single player games as it used to be. Assassin's creed is one big name example, Nintendo's Xenoblade Chronicles X is another. If not that, then developers with tack on microtransactions in games like Resident Evil: Revelations 2. This is because the hardware the game is played on ships with fully developed infrastructure. It's become more common to link up single player games because gamers & developers alike come to expect online to be omnipresent in their games.



It started with the release of the Nintendo DS which was the first to have the Nintendo Wi-Fi connection, and then the PSP and XBOX 360 came out with its online features. You had many online games released throughout that span which was slowly the beginning of online gaining popularity. Then the Wii and PS3 came towards the end of 2006, so by 2007 the transition was fully complete.

Subjective opinion based on certain criteria. Sure if you consider just having online infrastructure as a feature, then PC and Dreamcast started the online trend from years ago, but declined slightly with the GC & PS2. But if you measure by built in online infrastructure, and the share of a system's library that supports online features, the online era began in 2007 on PC, then spread to consoles around 2011.

2007 in console gaming has way more in common with 2015 in gaming than it does with even 2005 imo. Everything changed with online multiplayer (obscure Saturn games notwithstanding).

2007 in console gaming has way more in common with 2015 in gaming than it does with even 2005 imo. Everything changed with online multiplayer (obscure Saturn games notwithstanding).


Everyone knows the Sega Saturn was the biggest smash hit on the market in the mid to late 90's. The N64 and PS1 couldn't keep up with it's horsesh*t games and useless, unplayable controls vast library of games and advanced online multiplayer. It truly felt like a console of the future. ;D

Everyone knows the Sega Saturn was the biggest smash hit on the market in the mid to late 90's. The N64 and PS1 couldn't keep up with it's horsesh*t games and useless, unplayable controls vast library of games and advanced online multiplayer. It truly felt like a console of the future. ;D


Damn the Saturn was sooooo gooood, it made the Dreamcast look like Glass Joe  ;D ;D ;D

2007 in console gaming has way more in common with 2015 in gaming than it does with even 2005 imo. Everything changed with online multiplayer (obscure Saturn games notwithstanding).

Tethering your PS4 to your laptop for Internet must be a real chore ;D

And absolutely unacceptable that the new Assassins Creed still doesn't have online multiplayer!

Tethering your PS4 to your laptop for Internet must be a real chore ;D

And absolutely unacceptable that the new Assassins Creed still doesn't have online multiplayer!


I don't have a PS4. Who the hell can afford those $80 games  ;D

Rocket League is by far my favourite 8th console game lol, and it's only $10  ;D

Damn the Saturn was sooooo gooood, it made the Dreamcast look like Glass Joe  ;D ;D ;D


This game puts everyone of those sh*tty Dreamcast games to shame:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b6/Sonic_R.jpg

Only on the Saturn! ;)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/49/Sonic_X-treme_Coverart.png

In my opinion, that Saturn classic puts to shame any game that ever came out for the Dreamcast, or, hell, even the Genesis for that matter.

I think that all the Sonic games for the Saturn are much better than Sonic 1-3. Sonic R and Xtreme defined Sonic.

Can you feel the sunshine? I sure can.

This was the definitive fighting game in the 90's!

http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/virtuafighter/images/1/18/VF_Saturn_JP.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20130530234946

Who needs Tekken or Street Fighter  ::)

This was the definitive fighting game in the 90's!

http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/virtuafighter/images/1/18/VF_Saturn_JP.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20130530234946

Who needs Tekken or Street Fighter  ::)


That game is one of the true masterpieces.

Mega Man X3 on the Saturn is the only Mega Man anyone needs to play for the best Mega Man experience.  ;)

http://img.gamefaqs.net/box/1/1/8/20118_front.jpg