Buying an FPS is really more like buying the visuals and marketing than the actual content. Buying the marketing isn't always a bad thing ... it usually means a robust multi-player, yet just numbers + visuals (without the content) isn't for everyone, including those that prefer strategy games, tactics games (and even simulation games).
I'm nitpicking, but I'm going to disagree that people buy FPS games just for visuals without worrying about the content - there is some content. Quake (the original) plays very differently from, say, any Call of Duty, and game reviewers do note these differences (presumably because people thinking about buying the game care). Not talking at all about the way it looks, but the way you move and fight, the game itself, in both single and multiplayer. It's just that there's much much more of an emphasis on visuals, with a side of content - just like strategy games have much much more of an emphasis on content, with a side of visuals. Saying that people buying FPS games don't care at all about content is like saying people buying strategy games don't care at all about visuals - clearly it's a secondary concern, but in either case it still matters to many.
And in either genre there are games that stray outside the norm, i.e. "strategy" games that are light on content but look really good (such as some RTSs, I won't mention any specifically to avoid offense *cough*Command&Conquer*cough*), just as there are FPS games that appeal more for interesting gameplay than looks (no mainstream examples come to mind, but Red Orchestra is my personal favorite).
Again, I agree in general with what you and Brad were saying, just nitpicking and saying there are exceptions 
Yep, interview is awesome.
But this I can agree with wholeheartedly, hah.
