$59 to $100 for PS3 games [Archive]

View Full Version : $59 to $100 for PS3 games

Setter32

Fri 6/30/06, 1:18PM

.....I've just heard this.........on G4.....

.....if this is true..........it's truly ridiculous....

....I can bear the pain......and invest in the expensive hardware for the "hopefully" great games.....of the PS3....

....but on top of that............to pay from 60 to 100 bucks for the games?.....

......Sony......is looking to cater to the rich only?.........

.....

......the x-box360.........and the Weeeeeeee..........is starting to look very attractive.....

........Sony......I got your next generation...right here....:finger:

:D

blndweasel

Fri 6/30/06, 1:20PM

it'll be worth it... don't worry. sony will carry the good titles, and i dunno about you but i'd pay $100 for a newer, prettier, expanded Grand Theft Auto 5.

Besides that you have your Gran Tourismos, Final Fantasies, etc... you just don't get titles like that on the other consoles IMHO

Setter32

Fri 6/30/06, 1:28PM

agirls

Fri 6/30/06, 1:32PM

I think it is stupid and bullshit that games are only released on one platform. I mean, I understand the gimmick, but it is bullshit that I have to purchase both playstation and xbox to play the games that I want. AND I have to buy the most current hardware to buy the new games. I hate them. They should just offer upgrades to the damn console that I already own.

I don't play games on my cpu. Just my big ass tv.

Setter32

Fri 6/30/06, 1:40PM

J.Moto

Fri 6/30/06, 1:43PM

Video game hobbies are just another hobby. They are cheaper than motorcycles at least...

druiid

Fri 6/30/06, 2:11PM

I'm guessing that games are going to be around the $70-$80 range, due to the development costs for the PS3. I mean, the games frankly look amazing. I stated about two years back that in ten years time games will look 99% photorealistic and the PS3 and similar are showing this will likely occur. Now, I was all set to buy a PS3 and the Wii... then the price-point of the PS3 was revealed.. and then I planned on only getting a Wii until the PS3's price dropped... and then the price of the PS3 games was revealed as likely being higher (but not $100! according to Sony) and I now plan on only getting a Wii. Most of the gaming press and consumers have also stated a similar sentiment as the Wii being the console they're most excited about. Hopefully Sony learns this quickly enough.. price does matter.

Ikazuchi

Fri 6/30/06, 2:23PM

Originally posted by Setter32
.......and the game play of the weeeeeeeee..........is intriguing me....more and more......

Yeah...I'm starting to dig the new control concept they have.

I just need to be rich...so that I don't have to choose.

jasinner

Fri 6/30/06, 2:50PM

I seem to remember shelling out $60-$80 for some SNES games back in the day. If you factor in inflation since the the early 90's its probably just about the same.

PC gaming FTW!

blndweasel

Fri 6/30/06, 2:59PM

Originally posted by jasinner
I seem to remember shelling out $60-$80 for some SNES games back in the day. If you factor in inflation since the the early 90's its probably just about the same.

PC gaming FTW!

Yeah, I was gonna say... I read some article a while back about how vid games managed to escape inflation over the past 10 years.

Now about playing games on your PC, I mean I'm all for that, and I agree it's awesome to have a versatile platform, but considering how much it takes to build a fast computer system, I think consoles are still cheaper in the long run.

PC games are developed using newer and newer video instruction codes, putting you in the position where you want to play the latest greatest game the way it was meant to be seen, you end up having to upgrade your video card at a cost of around $300. That's the cost of a console right there! With a console, at least you're not left wondering what it might look like if you upgraded (because you can't).

I play both PC and console games, but I still feel like they both serve their purposes well. Grand Theft Auto on the PC was crap compared to playing on a PSII. Same with Smash Brothers, I can't imagine playing it on anything other than a nintendo.

The trick is to have friends who own each of the various consoles : )

enos79

Fri 6/30/06, 3:44PM

Only one console will have GT5 (Vision Gran Turismo), and thats all I care about ;) So I guess its PS3 for me.

Knightshade

Fri 6/30/06, 5:29PM

if Sony is able to successfully sell games at that price point...what makes you think the greedy sobs over at Microsoft won't follow suit?

Paying that much for a damn game is ridiculous....that's like...hmmm...almost a freekin trackday!!!!!

For the record....my wife hates it when I equate something tangible into the number of trackdays that could be bought instead.

99x

Fri 6/30/06, 5:44PM

I dunno about the whole Wii thing...

I'm sure I would never live it down if my roommates walked in to find me in the middle of the room, making frantic bashing motions at the air with my controller and swearing my ass off like I always do while playing video games.

smokescreen

Fri 6/30/06, 8:22PM

that Wii sounds really interesting.... Hmm

they'll need to make a black case and control of course to cater to the macho players... Then you'll feel better about it.

chrdog

Fri 6/30/06, 11:06PM

i just dropped 3k on a new PC setup and im pretty sure it will shit on the PS3, plus the games are free!....er i mean....eh.... ..... ....

i wont be buyin a ps3 unless they have a KILLER app, from what ive seen its just eye candy and nothing revolutionary as far as gameplay goes.

DDELFIERRO

Sat 7/1/06, 2:47AM

Originally posted by agirls
I think it is stupid and bullshit that games are only released on one platform. I mean, I understand the gimmick, but it is bullshit that I have to purchase both playstation and xbox to play the games that I want. AND I have to buy the most current hardware to buy the new games. I hate them. They should just offer upgrades to the damn console that I already own.

I don't play games on my cpu. Just my big ass tv.

1. Many games are platform-specific due to licensing issues, architecture, etc. You won't see Nintendo-developed games on XBOX (e.g. Super Mario 64) because Nintendo owns the rights to it's characters and wants/needs you to buy its hardware to play the game. Otherwise, someone would just make a super cheap multi-console emulator that plays ALL games regardless of manufacturer. You may also notice that many Playstation games have that same basic character design. This is pretty obvious when you see the fighting games. There is a definite Sony "look" that I believe is directly related to the hardware architecture and related programming tools. Because many games are so reliant on programming/system tweaks/tricks to run well, they are often written specifically for use on that one particular console. 3rd party vendors (e.g. Rockstar, id, etc.) can do cross-platform games if they want or feel that there is enough of a market to do so. The most obvious example is Grand Theft Auto. GTA looks pretty much the same on every console including on the PC. Because they own/control the license, they are not tied to any one console.

2. If you want to play the most current games, you generally have to buy the newest equipment to do so. If that means buying an XBOX to play Halo 2 and a PS2 for Guitar Heroes, nobody is forcing to do buy or play anything. If you want to anyway, you will have to pay for the priviledge. Tying games to a particular console is nothing new. In fact, that is the whole point of consoles.

3. The concept of "They should just offer upgrades to the damn console that I already own." is absolutely baffling to me and makes absolutely ZERO business/technical sense. Why not force you to pay $150 for a PS1 when it came out, $250 for a PS2 when that came out, and upwards of $500 for a PS3? Games will rarely be playable on antiquated hardware and will be priced accordingly. Sony is a business, not a f-ing charity. To top it off, console makers actually lose money on every console and have to make it up with the cost of the games. They don't care if you can't afford to pay to play as someone else will pay them their money. There are no easy upgrades to make a console fundamentally different. Can you just upgrade to a fuel-injected engine from a carburated one? How about making an F-16 fighter a swing-wing like an F-14? Consoles, unlike PC's, are dedicated specialty equipment. There is no hardware fiddling, etc. They are like the Mac vs. PC. Apple tightly controls the hardware configurations of their machines, Microsoft has zero control of hardware configurations on PC's. Granted, the XBOX & XBOX 360 are close to being hardcore PC's but they have integrated operating systems and there is no easy way to do hardware changes. Making hardware changes means that the software must then be able to support ANY new hardware it encounters. That's why the consoles are closed architecture; it's just far easier to program and optimize that way if there are never any major hardware changes.

BTW, the last major console potential upgrade I remember was the Nintendo CD add-on for the Super Nintendo. It fell through and Nintendo stayed cartridge-based. The CD system, however, ended up being developed seperately by Sony and eventually became the PlayStation.

soulofadra6o

Sat 7/1/06, 7:21AM

i know that's expensive...xbox 360 games are normally 60 bucks...but i remember when i had the SNES and i would shell out 70 bucks for the brand new games...so to me, that amount of money for a top o the line PS3 will be worth it ONLY if the game is worth it....i guess i will be renting every single game before i buy it (with exceptions to games i already know im gonna love)

chrdog

Sat 7/1/06, 8:12AM

I think the problem (i think i saw it mentioned before) is the development cycle. back in the days there was much less development and games still costs somewhere around 40 bucks.

Look at SuperMario 3 on the SNES. Everything was 2D and the interactions to the environment were fairly limited (juming and hitting blocks, breaking blocks, jumping on koopas etc). I think it probably retailed for 40-50 dollars. Now think of soemthing like Half-Life 2, nearly everything in the environment has complex physics attached along with hi-res textures and hi-poly count models, HUGE 3d environments yada yada, they are still only charging 50-60 bucks. Obviously it takes alot longer to develop something like HL2 than SM3, and to cover the costs they need to charge more (frankly i think they made more money licensing the engine). If you dont pay good, the talented game developers will do something else. I think they are basically trying to move back to the economic model where they actually MAKE money on their games lol.

i think the charge is justified for GOOD games, the problem comes in when the crap games try to piggyback into the market at the same price as the quality games. the range should be more like "anywhere between $30-100". that seems better to me.

or maybe im just full of shit

"Can you just upgrade to a fuel-injected engine from a carburated one?" uhh, yep:) bad analogy but i agree with you

Setter32

Sat 7/1/06, 11:53AM

Originally posted by DDELFIERRO
1.

In fact, that is the whole point of consoles.

.....why?......

.....my guess.......is to monopolize......in a sense....

The concept of "They should just offer upgrades to the damn console that I already own." is absolutely baffling to me and makes absolutely ZERO business/technical sense. Why not force you to pay $150 for a PS1 when it came out, $250 for a PS2 when that came out, and upwards of $500 for a PS3? Games will rarely be playable on antiquated hardware and will be priced accordingly. Sony is a business, not a f-ing charity. To top it off, console makers actually lose money on every console and have to make it up with the cost of the games. They don't care if you can't afford to pay to play as someone else will pay them their money. There are no easy upgrades to make a console fundamentally different. Can you just upgrade to a fuel-injected engine from a carburated one? How about making an F-16 fighter a swing-wing like an F-14? Consoles, unlike PC's, are dedicated specialty equipment. There is no hardware fiddling, etc. They are like the Mac vs. PC. Apple tightly controls the hardware configurations of their machines, Microsoft has zero control of hardware configurations on PC's. Granted, the XBOX & XBOX 360 are close to being hardcore PC's but they have integrated operating systems and there is no easy way to do hardware changes. Making hardware changes means that the software must then be able to support ANY new hardware it encounters. That's why the consoles are closed architecture; it's just far easier to program and optimize that way if there are never any major hardware changes.

.....imo..........it could be designed to be upgraded......

.....but they chose.......not to take that bussiness model........cuz they'll be making less money.....

....they would have to share profits.........with third party vendors......

.....and the parts would be made cheaper........driving the price even further down......

....

......of course no bussiness is an f-ing charity.......

......all bussiness will sale stuff.........for the highest price they can get away with.......

.....lets see.........if Sony can get away with it.......

.....

......in terms of losing money on the hardware......

.....losing money on the hardware?........as in through the whole life cycle?..........don't think so..........

......could be wrong..............but if they lose money on the hardware at all........it would be initially........not through the whole life cycle....

.....lets go back to basic economy.......

......what dictates them......losing or making money.........is the number of units they sell.......

.....if they sell too few............they lose.....

.....if they sell moderately..........they break even......

.....if they sell more than moderately.........they're making a profit.......

.....if they keep on selling briskly.........it's a huge freakin profit....

.....

.....as for the game......

.....ditto for the games...........in terms of selling them for what you can get away with......

......you can not tell me.........that the developers and producers of "excellent" games.........are not rolling in dough...........with the $50 or $40 games.....

.....Bethesda.........is bathing in profit right now........from their $50 game "Oblivion"......

.....the quality is top notch.........tech is cutting edge........and it's $50.............and they're making a huge profit......

......

.......if Sony continues to charge $60 to $100.....for their games......

.....it's because we let them.......

......if they do get away with it...........of course xbox and nintendo will eventually follow......

....

......"how bad do you want that crack"...........is what Sony is thinkin.....

:D

dnakase

Sat 7/1/06, 1:53PM

I'm just now getting into the PS2.

With used games heading down into the $5 level I can buy like 7 games for the price of a new title.

DDELFIERRO

Sat 7/1/06, 8:03PM

Originally posted by Setter32
.....why?......

.....my guess.......is to monopolize......in a sense....

.....imo..........it could be designed to be upgraded......
.....but they chose.......not to take that bussiness model........cuz they'll be making less money.....
....they would have to share profits.........with third party vendors......
.....and the parts would be made cheaper........driving the price even further down......
......of course no bussiness is an f-ing charity.......
......all bussiness will sale stuff.........for the highest price they can get away with.......
.....lets see.........if Sony can get away with it......

......in terms of losing money on the hardware......
.....losing money on the hardware?........as in through the whole life cycle?..........don't think so..........
......could be wrong..............but if they lose money on the hardware at all........it would be initially........not through the whole life cycle....
.....lets go back to basic economy.......
......what dictates them......losing or making money.........is the number of units they sell.......
.....if they sell too few............they lose.....
.....if they sell moderately..........they break even......
.....if they sell more than moderately.........they're making a profit.......
.....if they keep on selling briskly.........it's a huge freakin profit....

.....as for the game......
.....ditto for the games...........in terms of selling them for what you can get away with......
......you can not tell me.........that the developers and producers of "excellent" games.........are not rolling in dough...........with the $50 or $40 games.....
.....Bethesda.........is bathing in profit right now........from their $50 game "Oblivion"......
.....the quality is top notch.........tech is cutting edge........and it's $50.............and they're making a huge profit......

.......if Sony continues to charge $60 to $100.....for their games......
.....it's because we let them.......
......if they do get away with it...........of course xbox and nintendo will eventually follow......

......"how bad do you want that crack"...........is what Sony is thinkin.....

:D

Actually, if you consider the "average life-cycle" of a console, the XBOX (not the XBOX 360, mind you) only became profitable for Microsoft as of the beginning of 2005. http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/multimedia/display/20050130063954.html Unfortunately, a great deal of the profit is actually due to sales of Halo & Halo 2 which means that profit coming from the hardware alone is relatively minimal and probably still a loss for MS. Take into account that the XBOX 360 was released only 6 months or so later (implication being that the XBOX life-cycle was pretty much over) and XBOX sales were further degraded by cannibilized sales going to the XBOX 360 instead. Now, if the XBOX took at least 5 years to turn a profit (if it took less, MS would have bragged about it to be sure) and that profit pretty much took until the realistic END of the XBOX life-cycle (i.e. 5 yrs of XBOX sales then XBOX 360 took over), then it's pretty clear that the XBOX itself was only minimally profitable during it's life-cycle (if it was EVER profitable at all). The "basic economy" as you put it, only applies to software units and not hardware unit sales. Why? Because, you have no choice as to the hardware in comparison to the software. If you want to play an XBOX 360 game, you must buy an XBOX 360 unit first. If you have an XBOX 360, you can always choose not to buy a particular game but you will probably buy some eventually otherwise you waste the purchase price of the XBOX 360 console. Furthermore, sales are not "continually brisk" unless there's a killer must-have title out there pushing sales.

However, MS claims that the XBOX 360 will become profitable as of this month http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051228-5862.html Wow, only a year after being released and without a real killer game for it right now. It's all business posturing and trying to make Sony look even worse than they are. Sony has really flubbed the PS3 release since I thought it was supposed to be out in time to directly compete with the 360. If it looks/performs better than the 360, well it's because it should. They've had more than enough time to make it better. Sony's misguided (IMHO) gamble to go with Blu-Ray will probably cause them problems as well if HD-DVD ends up winning out. Don't know why they didn't just stick with DVD and an internal hard drive.

You do mention that makers of "excellent" games are rolling in dough. For example, Bethesda Software. Bethesda Software is a 3rd party vendor. They do not have to put in the R&D money to develop any hardware, only make sure that it works on an XBOX 360 and then port it over to the PC. Software manufacturers come and go on a daily basis but the big 3 console manufacturers seem to have weathered the storms pretty well. Did you know that makers of total crap games are rolling in even more dough than they are? Look at the Deer Hunter & Cabela series of shooting simulations. Total crap. But very profitable nonetheless because the programming is simple, pretty much the same idea for every game, and they have that mouth-breather demographic to play on. Some of the cost of games has to do with the licensing as well. The cost of the Madden series has gone up steadily now that there is NFL-exclusive licensing, NFLPA fees to pay, etc. But the point is that it is far easier for a 3rd party software vendor to turn a profit since their costs are so much less than Sony or Microsoft's to begin with. Nintendo does pretty well because they do a lot of in-house software creation as does Sony but Microsoft doesn't really concentrate on game production that much. MS likes to do exclusive licensing or buy up controlling interest in game developers like Bungie and do exclusive contracting instead.

Sony may very well be leading PS3 buyers into a continual pay-to-play scenario. Don't forget that SOE (based here in SD), spawned EverCrack and EverCrack 2. Sony (hell, ALL of the manufacturers) would love to make you pay $50/game and $15-20/month additional to play online for each and every game you own. XBOX Live folks, beware.... You know that Microsoft would love to have World of Warcraft on XBOX Live especially if it's exclusive to them.

RE: designing consoles to be upgraded... It's just not worth it to the console manufacturers because of hardware compatibility/liability issues. Unless the peripheral is manufactured/licensed by the console manufacturer itself, it may have a lot of problems. e.g. Do you realize that after all this time of burnable DVD's that there is still no single industry standard? Not all DVD players can play/read DVD+ & DVD-. In fact, Sony drives are suspiciously difficult in regards to format. Now, how do you regulate the hardware that goes into the console if you don't manufacture it yourself? In my previous example, I mentioned Apple being that way. Mac's have a limited amount of supported video cards (at least that's how I remember them being) but PC's can pretty much run whatever one you want as long as there is a driver available. Apple builds the Mac with only certain parts in mind being on board. If you want a customized Mac, you have to have Apple do the customization. There are thousands of places to to PC customization if you don't do it yourself. Now, back to the point... Microsoft, for example, doesn't want the added hassle of updating it's embedded XBOX 360 operating system lest it go nuts and become inoperable. Furthermore, just cracking open the case may void the warranty anyway. They design it that way to ensure that the software will run the same on all XBOX 360's. How would you like to buy Halo 3 and find out that even though it's labelled XBOX 360 you need an XBOX 360 with the "XBOX 360+ superDRIVE" (and it has to be the DVD+ not the DVD- version) to run it? Either you pay the $100 or so for the above listed imaginary gadget or you're SOL. Again, if you want to play a game on a console, you have to do it by THEIR rules.

Ikazuchi

Sun 7/2/06, 10:56AM

It's real simple... the games will sell for as much as people will pay for them. Supply and Demand people. If not enough people want to spend that much, you'll see the price drop real quick. If all our asshole friends can't stand not having the latest and greatest games then we'll get screwed.

Monte

Sun 7/2/06, 12:03PM

I buy most of my games used for under $20 (or borrow them from friends). If you don't keep up on the latest games too closely, all the used stuff is as good as new. Ignorance isn't just bliss, in this case, it's cheaper! :D

chrdog

Sun 7/2/06, 10:06PM

heres a little taste i found of the PS3's graphical power for those of you who havent really seen any of it. if you got a good connection DL the divx vid instead of the regular flash one:
http://www.ageia.com/flash/heavyrain.swf

i believe it also doubles as a tech demo for the ageia physx card. There are some parts where its obviously a 3d model, but there are a few times when it blurs the line between real and fake pretty damn good.

Sinaz

Tue 8/1/06, 6:38PM

Originally posted by blndweasel
it'll be worth it... don't worry. sony will carry the good titles, and i dunno about you but i'd pay $100 for a newer, prettier, expanded Grand Theft Auto 5.

Besides that you have your Gran Tourismos, Final Fantasies, etc... you just don't get titles like that on the other consoles IMHO

Most games won't have the amped up content to make the game worth $100.

For instance... if you are thinking that a $100 dollar version of Grand Theft Auto will have twice as long a story-line, and twice as big a world as GTA:SA, then you are going to be disappointed... sorely disappointed.

Almost all companies except for those like EA, Konami, and Square have the resources to commit to such a huge production value.

Although technology is getting better, it would take a rediculously large and expensive team to put together such a game, produce, and debug it before the system's life time were nearly over.

Also, for those who would rather help the PC market make a resurgeance, Computer Gaming World just published an article on how to build a power-gaming PC for the same price as the premium PS3 system. They also included how to build the top-end gaming rig to last you for the next-gen console cycle for around $1600.

Frankly, I'll be using $600 to buy me both a Wii and an XBox360... and a couple games.

Oh yeah... one last thing. If the suggested price for the PS3 is 600 dollars... how much do you imagine the introductory packages are going to cost... as that's pretty much the only way to get a launch system now-a-days. Console, controllers, and three games. That's what... 850-900 dollars?

At least I can write that shit off my taxes... not so lucky for those not in the industry.

Darth Lefty

Tue 8/1/06, 8:38PM

The PS3 is looking too far ahead of its time in terms of the blue laser drive and the super high def graphics. Most people won't be able to use them. If the system and games really cost that much more it's going to flop.

soulofadra6o

Tue 8/1/06, 10:40PM

Originally posted by Sinaz
At least I can write that shit off my taxes... not so lucky for those not in the industry.

ya but can you write off your tools and probably every maintence item you can think of :D

Sinaz

Tue 8/1/06, 11:50PM

Originally posted by Darth Lefty
The PS3 is looking too far ahead of its time in terms of the blue laser drive and the super high def graphics. Most people won't be able to use them. If the system and games really cost that much more it's going to flop.

Apparently they're looking far enough ahead to see inflation in a few years.

Originally posted by soulofadra6o
ya but can you write off your tools and probably every maintence item you can think of :D

Well, no... but if its entertaining then its a tool of my trade.

Videogames, stereos, televisions, headphones, iPods, etc etc etc... if it has anything to do with the video game industry... write off.

DDELFIERRO

Wed 8/2/06, 1:06AM

Originally posted by Sinaz
Well, no... but if its entertaining then its a tool of my trade.

Videogames, stereos, televisions, headphones, iPods, etc etc etc... if it has anything to do with the video game industry... write off.

Aaaarghhhh!!! Nerdgasm!!!:D

Setter32

Wed 8/2/06, 1:50PM

Originally posted by Sinaz
Apparently they're looking far enough ahead to see inflation in a few years.

Well, no... but if its entertaining then its a tool of my trade.

Videogames, stereos, televisions, headphones, iPods, etc etc etc... if it has anything to do with the video game industry... write off.

.....what is it.......that you do?......

.....and can we do it......part time......so we can write off our addiction....

:D

Knightshade

Wed 8/2/06, 1:55PM

Originally posted by chrdog
heres a little taste i found of the PS3's graphical power for those of you who havent really seen any of it. if you got a good connection DL the divx vid instead of the regular flash one:
http://www.ageia.com/flash/heavyrain.swf

i believe it also doubles as a tech demo for the ageia physx card. There are some parts where its obviously a 3d model, but there are a few times when it blurs the line between real and fake pretty damn good.

that looks like crap, animation is horrible.

take a look at the high res extended trailer here. now that's impressive.

http://media.ps3.ign.com/media/714/714044/vids_1.html

I've been told by my nerd friend, who has already pre-paid for the ps3 in full like 6 months ago that gameplay will look the same and will be seamless when compared to the in game movie scenes.

Setter32

Wed 8/2/06, 1:57PM

....I'm more excited......about the "cell" processor...

....wonder when that will be implemented.......into the PC....

:D

Sinaz

Wed 8/2/06, 2:03PM

Originally posted by Setter32
.....what is it.......that you do?......

.....and can we do it......part time......so we can write off our addiction....

:D

Video Game artist.

Setter32

Wed 8/2/06, 3:04PM

Originally posted by Sinaz
Video Game artist.

....what does that mean?.....

....you draw draw stick figures......for story boards?......

....3d animations?.....

:D

Tillers_Rule

Wed 8/2/06, 3:04PM

Originally posted by Knightshade
that looks like crap, animation is horrible.

take a look at the high res extended trailer here. now that's impressive.

http://media.ps3.ign.com/media/714/714044/vids_1.html

That would be cool if you could post a link that requires a user name and password to view....

Sinaz

Wed 8/2/06, 3:10PM

Originally posted by Setter32
....what does that mean?.....

....you draw draw stick figures......for story boards?......

....3d animations?.....

:D

Mostly I doodle extra zeroes onto my paycheck.

Setter32

Wed 8/2/06, 3:12PM

...ummm..........that would be a "forger"..........according to the FBI.....

.....not a "video game artist".....

.....but if you can write off your toys..........who cares about the details....

:D

No_Brakes23

Wed 8/2/06, 5:34PM

Originally posted by Sinaz
M if you are thinking that a $100 dollar version of Grand Theft Auto will have twice as long a story-line, and twice as big a world as GTA:SA, then you are going to be disappointed... sorely disappointed.

Uh, why not? GTA:SA had 9-18 times the cubic game area of GTA:VC, and a much longer story line.

Fortunately, Rockstar said they are gonna release GTA4 on all three platforms simultaneously, so fuck Sony and their Playstation. The only PS-exclusive title I want is Gran Turismo/Tourist Trophy, and that ain't worth $700.

I would think about buying a $300 console, but $600 is out of hand. I didn't even pay $200 for the PS2, and I only paid $45 for the PS1, so the only way I am shelling out the better part of a grand for a fucking game is if I win the lottery.

Sinaz

Wed 8/2/06, 6:34PM

Originally posted by No_Brakes23
Uh, why not? GTA:SA had 9-18 times the cubic game area of GTA:VC, and a much longer story line.

Well, yeah, I should rephrase that... What I meant to say, is if you expect a proportionate increase to the price...

For instance, since San Andreas was six times the area of Vice City (I guess if you compared the environments ceiling you could construe your 9-18 times the volume... but whatever... I care about acrage) and you expect the next comparable GTA game to be another increase in six times times the increase in price... you're not going to get it.

So what I mean is that I would expect GTA to get bigger and better with each iteration due to adding cars and production streamlining to the game... and expect the next series in the game to have the same price tag. For an increase of 20 to 40 dollars in the price tag, I can't see the production value of the game increasing by 50-100% beyond what would be expected of a next gen game.

LOL... point is... I doubt whatever Rockstar is capable or willing to add to the production of the game is going to be worth a 70-100 dollar price tag (well, maybe 70... but I certainly wouldn't buy it until it hit the bargain bins.)

No_Brakes23

Thu 8/3/06, 7:27PM

Originally posted by Sinaz
Well, yeah, I should rephrase that... What I meant to say, is if you expect a proportionate increase to the price...

Oh yeah, that makes sense. I agree, most games aren;t gonna be $20-$100 better than current PS2 games.

Originally posted by Sinaz
For instance, since San Andreas was six times the area of Vice City (I guess if you compared the environments ceiling you could construe your 9-18 times the volume... but whatever... I care about acrage)

I noticed and really liked the raised ceiling. Flying in GTA:VC was awesome, but the ceiling was low as hell. And yeah, 3x6 is how I got 18, I just couldn't remember if it was 3 times the area or 6 times the area. I am still amazed at the area in GTA:SA. I hardly even notice the goofy graphics.

Originally posted by Sinaz
but I certainly wouldn't buy it until it hit the bargain bins.)

That's my attitude about the entire PS3 system at this point. Provided this isn't a ruse to get folks to go "Whew, they only want $400 for the system and $60 pre game, I will pay that."

I didn't buy a PS1 until mid '99, (and no PS2 until '02) and I got it for $45. There were simply no console games worth getting into a system for between NES and PS1. (PC was better for almost everything.) Well actually I never had anything between Atari 2600 and PS1 except C64 and PC, having become bored with Nintendo's DK/Mario line buy the time I could afford a console. Gran Turismo 1 and THPS were why I finally broke down and bought the PS1.

Even today there are very few titles I enjoy, (GT, GTA, THPS.) I only own a Game Cube for the kids, and I never found anything worth playing on Xbox, (I hate shooters on the console, PCs and their ability to customize key assignment are far better for shooters, IMO.)

Since my kids are absolutely hooked on GBA/Game Cube, DS and Wii are a foregone conlusion. Since GTA and THPS are coming out on Wii, that leaves only Gran Turismo/Tourist Trophy for the Playstation, and as I stated 1 game is not worth $700.

The fact that I have no interest in Blue-Ray or HD just compunds my lack of interest PS3. If they were smart, they would make an HD/blue-Ray free version and sell it for less. That's about the only way they are gonna get my money.

soulofadra6o

Thu 8/3/06, 8:03PM

by having GT4 not being a Playstation only title i think sony is gonna lose out on a lot of PS3 people who will just buy the cheaper xbox 360 instead

Monte

Thu 8/3/06, 10:27PM

Originally posted by soulofadra6o
by having GT4 not being a Playstation only title i think sony is gonna lose out on a lot of PS3 people who will just buy the cheaper xbox 360 instead
You mean GTA, right? GT4 is PS only.

Sinaz

Thu 8/3/06, 11:11PM

I'm thinking... when Metal Gear Solid is available, I'll split the cost of renting the console and the game and just spend a hard focused weekend on it.

Problem solved... and under budget, too!

No_Brakes23

Fri 8/4/06, 11:32AM

Originally posted by Sinaz
I'm thinking... when Metal Gear Solid is available, I'll split the cost of renting the console and the game and just spend a hard focused weekend on it.

Problem solved... and under budget, too!

My parents flat out refused to buy an NES, ("You already have all those 2600 games what do you need an NES for?", they said,) so I would rent one for a few days and run through games. It works great.

Not good for games that take months to enjoy like Gran Turismo, though.

Sinaz

Fri 8/4/06, 11:34AM

Originally posted by No_Brakes23
My parents flat out refused to buy an NES, ("You already have all those 2600 games what do you need an NES for?", they said,) so I would rent one for a few days and run through games. It works great.

Not good for games that take months to enjoy like Gran Turismo, though.

By split, I meant split it with a friend, btw.

But yeah, totally. Fortunately, I'm not a GT fan.

towman

Sun 10/15/06, 10:21AM

Mark this thread, come back 3 years from now, and laugh your ass off. Got to love comments that coming from people who have no idea what are they talking about...

DDELFIERRO

Sun 10/15/06, 9:24PM

Originally posted by towman
Mark this thread, come back 3 years from now, and laugh your ass off. Got to love comments that coming from people who have no idea what are they talking about...

How so? It would appear that some folks here work in some game development related field, others (like myself) may have experience in game testing/development as well. So, at least personally speaking, I think I have a pretty good idea about what I'm talking about.

Certainly, most of us are sufficiently experienced with the consoles themselves, their capabilities, costs, and shelf-life to make substantive statements and comments in relation to such... It's kind of like you're saying that people who play music have no authority or valid opinion when discussing their likes/dislikes or opinions RE: their instruments or how they will progress in the future. (In regards to that topic, I still think that Fender bass guitar necks are too chunky for my taste. I prefer Ibanez but really like the Alembic ones. I use Yamaha keyboards but really am starting to look seriously at some of the Korg and Roland's... but I digress.)

I honestly don't see anything revolutionary happening w/in the next 3 years that would make us laugh at our comments RE: the XBOX 360, PS3 or the Wii and all of the current consoles will be at the end or near the end of their effective sales shelf life by that time. If anything, many of our comments will likely prove to be true no later than the end of this very year when all the next-gen consoles are on the market. What revolutionary change would you expect any of these consoles to undergo in order to invalidate our opinions? Remember that they will be handicapped by using current technology so they can only improve via better programming or by introduction of some new peripherals...

No doubt, in 3 years, we'll be discussing the potential of the recently released 3rd gen XBOX, Sony would have announced a PS4 (and STILL boast how it is compatable with PS1 games), while Nintendo would have put out 2 more different handhelds and announced a Wii2. Game distribution will likely favor downloadable media much like an iTunes music store format saved to an online-accessible only folder keyed to your registered unit/account. PC/console interplay for certain games will be commonplace and Microsoft will sign an exclusive development deal with Blizzard for World of Starcraft or World of Diablo on MS consoles and Windows only while Sony counters with Everquest or a potential Rockstar deal on their console.

towman

Mon 10/16/06, 9:37AM

Let me rephrase that...comments coming from some people...

No_Brakes23

Mon 10/16/06, 10:02AM

Originally posted by DDELFIERRO
while Nintendo would have put out 2 more different handhelds and announced a Wii2.

I disagree, they have to come-up with wacky, only loosely related names. If we are lucky it will only be WiiAdvance, SuperWii, but more likely it will be Nintendo SuperGamecubospheremoshimoshi DXLS or something.

DDELFIERRO

Mon 10/16/06, 12:11PM

Yeah, probably. But Nintendo has been on this trend of either initial names (GBA, DS, DS Lite) or semi-initial names (Wii). If they ever came out with a Engrish-ified name for their machines like the "Hello Pretty Kitty Super Fun-Time Game Play For Maximum Joy", I'd HAVE to buy it just to say the name to people.

But I still see Nintendo announcing the Wii's follow-up in about 3 years. Maybe not release a new system until the other 2 release their machines/specs. If anything, Nintendo has been the most imaginative of the big 3 console companies when it comes to control and peripherals. Those that protest that Sony is the one with cool controls/peripherals forget that DDR (with floor-pad) was 3rd party (Konami) and Guitar Hero (obviously, guitar controller) was also 3rd party (RedOctane - Incidently, GH is a clone/remake of Konami's own game Guitar Freaks). The Eye-Toy was old hat for anyone with a webcam. Nintendo hasn't always succeeded (Virtual Boy) but the Wii's control system looks like it will be pretty cool.

Why Nintendo just doesn't get on it and build me my giant robot already, I'll never know...

DethMetal

Mon 10/16/06, 2:09PM

Originally posted by DDELFIERRO
1. Many games are platform-specific due to licensing issues, architecture, etc. You won't see Nintendo-developed games on XBOX (e.g. Super Mario 64) because Nintendo owns the rights to it's characters and wants/needs you to buy its hardware to play the game. Otherwise, someone would just make a super cheap multi-console emulator that plays ALL games regardless of manufacturer. You may also notice that many Playstation games have that same basic character design. This is pretty obvious when you see the fighting games. There is a definite Sony "look" that I believe is directly related to the hardware architecture and related programming tools. Because many games are so reliant on programming/system tweaks/tricks to run well, they are often written specifically for use on that one particular console. 3rd party vendors (e.g. Rockstar, id, etc.) can do cross-platform games if they want or feel that there is enough of a market to do so. The most obvious example is Grand Theft Auto. GTA looks pretty much the same on every console including on the PC. Because they own/control the license, they are not tied to any one console.

2. If you want to play the most current games, you generally have to buy the newest equipment to do so. If that means buying an XBOX to play Halo 2 and a PS2 for Guitar Heroes, nobody is forcing to do buy or play anything. If you want to anyway, you will have to pay for the priviledge. Tying games to a particular console is nothing new. In fact, that is the whole point of consoles.

3. The concept of "They should just offer upgrades to the damn console that I already own." is absolutely baffling to me and makes absolutely ZERO business/technical sense. Why not force you to pay $150 for a PS1 when it came out, $250 for a PS2 when that came out, and upwards of $500 for a PS3? Games will rarely be playable on antiquated hardware and will be priced accordingly. Sony is a business, not a f-ing charity. To top it off, console makers actually lose money on every console and have to make it up with the cost of the games. They don't care if you can't afford to pay to play as someone else will pay them their money. There are no easy upgrades to make a console fundamentally different. Can you just upgrade to a fuel-injected engine from a carburated one? How about making an F-16 fighter a swing-wing like an F-14? Consoles, unlike PC's, are dedicated specialty equipment. There is no hardware fiddling, etc. They are like the Mac vs. PC. Apple tightly controls the hardware configurations of their machines, Microsoft has zero control of hardware configurations on PC's. Granted, the XBOX & XBOX 360 are close to being hardcore PC's but they have integrated operating systems and there is no easy way to do hardware changes. Making hardware changes means that the software must then be able to support ANY new hardware it encounters. That's why the consoles are closed architecture; it's just far easier to program and optimize that way if there are never any major hardware changes.

BTW, the last major console potential upgrade I remember was the Nintendo CD add-on for the Super Nintendo. It fell through and Nintendo stayed cartridge-based. The CD system, however, ended up being developed seperately by Sony and eventually became the PlayStation.

You need to bring these points up to every person you see wearing Oakley sunglasses...

Setter32

Thu 11/16/06, 4:46PM

...so it looks like........Sony will have no prob moving the PS3s......at 500 to 600 a pop..........judging from all the long lines that are forming outside of stores.....

....amazing.....

...and I hear.......that on ebay......some were selling for about 5x the listed price?.....

.....amazing...............and so very wasteful......

:D

J.Moto

Thu 11/16/06, 4:49PM

Sony loses money on each PS3 sold.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/20061116/tc_pcworld/127906

sr9004u

Thu 11/16/06, 7:04PM

I remeber ColecoVision as being the one to have than Intellevision, how much better can these be than those? And will DonkeyKong be available?

Adam Carrola this morning offered nerds in line a 3 some at the Bunny Ranch with 2 girls of his choice all expenses paid......NO TAKERS how fuckin lame is that nerds Nerds NErds NERds NERDs
NERDS!

J.Moto

Thu 11/16/06, 9:45PM

Originally posted by sr9004u
I remeber ColecoVision as being the one to have than Intellevision, how much better can these be than those? And will DonkeyKong be available?

Adam Carrola this morning offered nerds in line a 3 some at the Bunny Ranch with 2 girls of his choice all expenses paid......NO TAKERS how fuckin lame is that nerds Nerds NErds NERds NERDs
NERDS!

Hahaha, I didn't get to listen to that part 'cause my commute was over, but that is LAME! Nerds...

DDELFIERRO

Fri 11/17/06, 1:19AM

Originally posted by Setter32
...so it looks like........Sony will have no prob moving the PS3s......at 500 to 600 a pop..........judging from all the long lines that are forming outside of stores.....

....amazing.....

...and I hear.......that on ebay......some were selling for about 5x the listed price?.....

.....amazing...............and so very wasteful......

:D

Actually, a good many of the early adopters are buying it simply to turn around and immediately sell it for a profit. Last verified price I heard on eBay was $2800 for a PS3. Hmmm. If you are a college student with your 1st credit card and have like $1000 free space on it, sounds like a good deal to 3X the investment. You'd probably sell it easy for $1000+ cash in the parking lot should you bother to risk it and don't just get mugged.

As for the lines, some want to buy a PS3 but some of the front-liners are hoping and gambling that someone will simply buy their spot from them. Happened in a bunch of places like Wal-Mart, etc.

I think though that a better system though is the way they sometimes do tickets. Issue a limited amount of #'d wristbands (e.g. 50) to the time-wasters already on line so you don't have a huge wall of unwashed gamerdom and profiteers hanging out in front of the store the whole time, then at the appointed hour announce the line beginning with #x and then on down the line. If you are there 1st and get #1 but they start on #30 then you are SOL but if you are #32 you get the chance to buy. The problem is to randomize the chosen # you are going to start with so that some unscrupulous store manager doesn't get bought off. Heck, put all the numbers on a spinning wheel and let it choose right there in front of the crowd. This would probably work because they'll probably have around 10-15 systems max in each store and can send everyone else away that didn't get into the selected queue.

One thing though... You know that at least one person's credit card didn't go through when they try to buy a PS3 tonight/this morning. Imagine how pissed they must be that after all the wait and actually getting their hands on the system, they got DENIED!!! right there at the finish line...

BTW, I loved my ColecoVision. Donkey Kong was a spot-on perfect port. But now you can just MAME the actual arcade ROM for the real game. Look for more classic arcade and console ports coming to the new-gen consoles...

sdlnxgk

Fri 11/17/06, 5:23AM

Originally posted by supaPhatty J
Sony loses money on each PS3 sold.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/20061116/tc_pcworld/127906

Just remember Sony maybe loosing money on there PS3 but you bet your ass they will make it up on software side of the house with games going for a pretty penny...

DDELFIERRO

Fri 11/17/06, 6:28AM

Actually, that's always been the gameplan for consoles. Nintendo was infamous for restricting/licensing the cartridge design to any 3rd party outfit that wanted to make games for them and got their money whether the game sold or not. I believe that Sony tried a similar monopoly on black-bottom CD-media. It's not easy to find blank black-bottom cd's unless you know where to look.

Software is where the console manufacturers always make their money and I'll bet every console has lost money for a good while upon release. Took MS about 3 yrs to break even on XBOX hardware, about 8-10 months on the 360. Sony though will be losing money for a bit longer though due to the high cost of Blu-Ray R&D, Blu-Ray media, the drives, marketing push, etc.

If Sony sold the PS3 at the true cost, it would probably be over a grand and even then they'd only be making slim profit on the hardware. The Wii is probably about $400 true price but Nintendo gets over because most of their best selling software is done in-house rather than 3rd party nowadays.

Without massive 3rd party support, MS & Sony would be pretty much dead in the water. Just think of each console's massive hits... MS: Halo by Bungie, Madden by EA, Gears of War by Epic, etc. Sony: Final Fantasy by Square/Enix, GTA by Rockstar, Guitar Hero by Konami, etc. Nintendo: Mario series by Nintendo, Zelda series by Nintendo, Pokemon series by Nintendo, etc. Nintendo has taken the strategy of in-house development to avoid sharing of profit and to prevent their biggest hits from going to other consoles. In essence, Nintendo owns all the rights to its most popular franchises which could not be said for the other 2. MS and Sony directly compete with each other for the GTA series, for example. Neither developed GTA and make money from licensing deals but the big $$$ goes to Rockstar.

MS chooses to compete by folding in successful developers like Bungie to make them exclusive MS product. At some point, you really have to see Sony considering a majority stake in Rockstar or Konami just to keep their products exclusive to the PS.

Ikazuchi

Fri 11/17/06, 8:32AM

Originally posted by DDELFIERRO
If Sony sold the PS3 at the true cost, it would probably be over a grand...

Or $800 according to the article...

Ikazuchi

Fri 11/17/06, 12:40PM

Ouch...
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1560635,00.html

DDELFIERRO

Fri 11/17/06, 1:18PM

Originally posted by Ikazuchi
Or $800 according to the article...

I was just taking a bit of a guess on my estimate but $800 still seems low when Sony itself is selling Blu-Ray players like it's BDP-S1 model for $999.00 and a model (BWU-100A) that goes in a PC internal bay for $749. Now those aren't MSRP figures, those are the actual retail sale prices I just picked up off of Best Buy's site. http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp;jsessionid=GJ4M01C01KIXDKC4D3DFAGA?_dy ncharset=ISO-8859-1&id=pcat17071&type=page&st=blu-ray&sc=Global&cp=1&nrp=15&sp=&qp=&list=n&iht=y&usc=All+Categories

Since the Blu-Ray desktop player is $1000 (Sony is likely losing money there too) and the drive alone being $750 I don't know how the PS3 is only $800 true price. Just look at the cost of processing power alone nowadays and add in a hot video card. Buying parts for a PC alone that would match the PS3's specs is probably closer to the current sell point of the PS3 now. Don't forget that at some point Sony will have to discount the PS3 as well and its software.

One thing that Microsoft is trying to do though is undercut the drive market. You can get the HD-DVD drive for the 360 for about $250-300 and simply plug it in to a USB port for your PC.

Ikazuchi

Fri 11/17/06, 1:30PM

Eh.. I don't know... I'm not the PS3 production manager... the guys who say it's $800 are just pulling numbers out of their ass anyways.

Monte

Fri 11/17/06, 2:00PM

Originally posted by Ikazuchi
Eh.. I don't know... I'm not the PS3 production manager... the guys who say it's $800 are just pulling numbers out of their ass anyways.
Maybe not entirely. They have number for each component, but then, I guess we don't know how accurate those numbers are...
http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/home-entertainment/ps3-a-bargain-worth-840-powerful-as-a-supercomputer-215203.php

Here's some information on iSuppli's teardown analysis service:
http://www.isuppli.com/catalog/l2_CMCA.asp

DDELFIERRO

Sat 11/18/06, 2:28AM

I do know one thing though...

Had Sony not been so hard-headed and try to force Blu-Ray into the market via the PS3, they could have pretty much ground 360 sales to a halt this holiday season. Instead, people that can't get a Wii or PS3 may just end up with a 360 if they don't already have one. If someone has the $$$ for a PS3 but got denied and gets pissed, they may just buy a Wii and a 360 plus have money left over for games and online services.

I imagine that the basic bundle PS3 could have been priced at $400 OTD with the big bundle maybe $500 had they just stuck with the standard DVD. They would have been able to build more systems, done so faster, and met their original release dates. Software would have been cheaper and good luck getting replacement parts out of warranty once the drive goes wonky. Think anybody would consider buying a new 360 Pro bundle for the cost of the replacement Blu-Ray drive alone?

Hey, does the average person use their game system as their main DVD player anyway? I have just over 500 DVD's now and don't plan on replacing them out. The Blu-Ray and HD DVD's out now have less features on them on the regular DVD's I already have and my favorites aren't even on the new format much less worth buying again to replace them.

There was no real need to go Blu-Ray other than as a big pissing contest with MS. Sony wanted technological superiority and to set a new media standard yet I bet that the best selling games on PS3 will not look substantially different from 360 games as the major 3rd party developers like Rockstar and EA will not want to make their games look that much different from system to system lest it cut into their profits from that console's software. GTA will look pretty much the same on 360 and PS3 as will Madden. There will be a few system specific wrinkles but not enough to kill a portion of their product line.

Personally, I hope Blu-Ray dies a slow death like Beta, MiniDisc, and UMD. What is it with Sony and proprietary storage anyway?

Twitch

Sat 11/18/06, 6:33AM

As far as racing games:

I played Grand Turismo 4 on the PS2 and yes, it kicked ass. But then Forza Motorsport came out for the XBOX and with actual damage modeling, I found it superior.
I've since upgraded to the 360 and I can't wait for Forza 2 to come out.

RGSPro

Sat 11/18/06, 6:43PM

Yeah me too, I love forza motorsport. I can't wait to get 2 for my 360,

but I guess in the meantime I have motoGP06, which is a blastie blast.

Tillers_Rule

Sat 11/18/06, 7:32PM

Originally posted by DDELFIERRO

Personally, I hope Blu-Ray dies a slow death like Beta, MiniDisc, and UMD. What is it with Sony and proprietary storage anyway?

Yea,

Lots of good points.

They were however VERY sucessful with the Walkman though:groove:

New PS2's are going for $130 now, I may just have to pick one up! I paid more than that for my Playstation when it came out.