Gaiseric wrote:True, but other than God of War, how many were first-party?
Gonna sound like a fanboy, but Final Fantasy series, cuz Sony knows it will sell. Kingdom Hearts series will go far. What about Dragon Quest? Jax and Daxter? Rachet and Clank? Armored Core has always been a loyal series. Front Mission has been home to Sony for some time now. Ape Escape uses the dual shock soo well. Tekken has been with Sony for all of the games. Shin Megami Tensei anyone? Wild Arms? Grand Turismo will forever be with Sony. Ico and Shadow of the Colossus, i bet we can expect more.
Sony's E3 this year is a complete let down, but i doubt that this is what we will see in the future from Sony.
/edit crap, i said the same thing as femto, w/e yeah as long as the trend from PS2 goes to the PS3, the PS3 will sell.
psi29a wrote:Seriously, for $600 (which is what the Sony VP said) you can buy a Wii and an Xbox-360.
$600 is a lot of money, think about that. Rent, Mortgage, Food, all those things you have to think about when you don't live with mom and dad, or with your dad & dad, or your mom &... I digress.
Cause they know they have thier fans by thier balls.
They have games that we wants to much $600 is nothing. Thats almost what PS2 cost when it was new and PS2 owned and still owns the market.
Why in the world would i or any other Sony fan buy Xbox 360?? Halo 3? Wow..... Wii crappy Mario games every month wow......
People that are saying why pay this much for PS3 are just jelous cause they know thier fav console xbox or wii will be owned by Sony.
Gasieric:
Who cares about first party when they have many companies that does great games for them.
As femto and halfnhalf say above me PS2 had the most great games and PS3 will have that thanks to sequals or great new games like Heavnely sword.
Im the kind of gamer that wants a new great game every month which means i cant go buy Halo 3 and wait years for another good game while the only other games are PC converted like Call of Duty and Oblivion...
Yes, most of us consider the PS to be the ultimate gaming machine, and Sony knows that they do have us by the balls at a certain degree, but 600 bucks US is a bit pushing it and would hurt the consumer's wallet. As psi mentioned, the 600 bucks could be spend on better things in your life, rather than a gaming console. PS3 shouldn't be a console which only the rich can buy, it should be at a price that is assessible to everyone, including the average joe. Yes, there will be people working double jobs and all that to pay off the PS3, but they would achieve better sales if the system was cheaper.
Xbox 360 has practically no games for it. I own a Xbox myself, and I find it hard to even obtain a game to play on it, when the games I really want to play are on other systems. GameCube was not as huge as the PS2, mainly due to its mini disc format. They allowed the original PS to climb over the N64 when they used cartridges, which was relatively more expensive to produce than CDs, and there isn't much data it can store, plus the cartridges have a limited lifespan. But Wii will definitely be different, my money's on Nintendo to reclaim their crown. There are tonnes of features and other gimmicks in Wii that makes it interesting compared to conventional gaming. Graphics isn't everything, it's the gameplay that defines a good game. I still play Mario World over all the trashy games that is out on my Xbox.
The problem with the price is, a sony fan boy may think twice before going for such a huge investment. For a person sorely for gaming needs without all the console wars crap, they will go for a cheaper option.
I don't think half the toilet seats in the world are as clean as I should like; and only half of those are half as clean as they deserve. - tsubaimomo, July 26, 2010 3:00 am
Halo3 will be a HUGE let down, it has already been given bad press. Nothing has really changed graphically, and the story moves on so that you(human) fight along side the covenant against the flood. Wow, thats uhh... great.
For an FPS, Halo is showing it's age... which is the mainstay of any FPS. After awhile you realize that it just isn't fun anymore. The exceptions are CounterStrike, ET, BF2, and a few others because the gameplay is amazing.
I would rather play Mario64 because after everything is said and done, good 'ol fashion gameplay is a lot more fun than flashy graphics.
edit: just watched the trailer myself. it looks glitzy, however... I hold out on gameplay more than movies. Never trust a movie trailer.
I can't believe people think that all these developers will stay loyal to Sony. Remember when Final Fantasy was on Nintendo systems only? Nobody ever thought that they would leave Nintendo. Square are market share whores, who ever is doing the best, gets their games. That and nobody stays on top forever.
Libaax wrote:Thats almost what PS2 cost when it was new and PS2 owned and still owns the market.
If by "almost" you mean "twice" then yeah, because the PS2 launched for $300 here in the US.
The PS2 costed 450 dollars when it was new here and that 45000 kronors at the time. $600 is around 4700 kronors that means the PS3 is only 2000 more than PS2 at launch.
To sum it up PS3 $600 is alittle more than PS2 costed when it was new and exactly what i expected.
You lucky peope in US might have gotten PS2 cheaper but for us over here this prize isnt anything new.
Libaax wrote:Thats almost what PS2 cost when it was new and PS2 owned and still owns the market.
If by "almost" you mean "twice" then yeah, because the PS2 launched for $300 here in the US.
The PS2 costed 450 dollars when it was new here and that 45000 kronors at the time. $600 is around 4700 kronors that means the PS3 is only 2000 more than PS2 at launch.
To sum it up PS3 $600 is alittle more than PS2 costed when it was new and exactly what i expected.
You lucky peope in US might have gotten PS2 cheaper but for us over here this prize isnt anything new.
Different markets/countries will have different prices. They won't just set the price to be equivalent to the American price. I bet it will cost more than 600 bucks (or 4700 kronors), where you live. Which suxs for you.
Wii has a great inovative machine and new stlye of play plus 20 years of content with their machine.
Microsoft will have a new cross-platform ability (being able to play Halo 3 on Vista while duking it out with a friend whos using a 360.)
Sony has... Blu-ray discs?...
Anyone else think that Super Smash Brothers : Brawl will have a good franchise fight with Halo 3? (which btw, in the trailer was all CG, not in-game)
They have 20-30 slots available for 3RD Party developers to insert their characters in.
They are also currently accepting suggestions for new characters.
Libaax wrote:Im just saying we always get things like this more expensive so 600 is nothing to cry over.
I mean xbox 360 almost cost that much here,so saying you can buy Wii and xbox 360 is dream if you live over here aka europe.
Actually, 50-100 dollar increase is quite significant to me, even if some consider it a small sum. I'm a student, has a shit job, and my income isn't really that high. There are other concerns to worry about as well, like saving up for a car, trip, and etc. People like me will worry about a couple hundred bucks. I imagine that a majority of people are in my predicament, and only a few are golden rich that could afford it. The point is, I would go for the cheaper alternative, and I imagine because of the Wii's features and innovations (and it's predicted sales), there will be plenty of games that are going to be released on the Wii.
I think Wii has won by innovation, rather than muscle, as many websites suggested. I could only say, 'don't knock it until you tried it'.
I don't think half the toilet seats in the world are as clean as I should like; and only half of those are half as clean as they deserve. - tsubaimomo, July 26, 2010 3:00 am
Libaax wrote:Im just saying we always get things like this more expensive so 600 is nothing to cry over.
I mean xbox 360 almost cost that much here,so saying you can buy Wii and xbox 360 is dream if you live over here aka europe.
Actually, 50-100 dollar increase is quite significant to me, even if some consider it a small sum. I'm a student, has a shit job, and my income isn't really that high. There are other concerns to worry about as well, like saving up for a car, trip, and etc. People like me will worry about a couple hundred bucks. I imagine that a majority of people are in my predicament, and only a few are golden rich that could afford it. The point is, I would go for the cheaper alternative, and I imagine because of the Wii's features and innovations (and it's predicted sales), there will be plenty of games that are going to be released on the Wii.
I think Wii has won by innovation, rather than muscle, as many websites suggested. I could only say, 'don't knock it until you tried it'.
Im a student too and dont really have the money but i can save money since its months left.
If i choose a console only cause its cheap then i would stop playing games cause i play for the games not for which console is the cheapest to get.
I think also most people get the console they want not the one that is cheapest.
Im the kind of gamer that coulndt careless about inovation,graphics,control etc. Its only about which console have the games i want. The only time control and graphics etc will come to my mind is when they annoy me and are in my way of enjoying games.
If Wii have a new game that is so good that i must have it, i will get it but i havent seen ony that insterest me so far. PS3 is a given cause there are 10+ games i wish came out as soon as possible.
Im not a fan of Nintendo cause thier style just isnt for me. I go to store and watch DS and Gamecube titles and most are remakes or games about being a doctor in anime style rpg.
The only Nintendo games im crazy over are Goldeneye,Mario Kart 64 and Mario Kart to NES. I play those now and then on the comp.
Libaax wrote:Thats almost what PS2 cost when it was new and PS2 owned and still owns the market.
If by "almost" you mean "twice" then yeah, because the PS2 launched for $300 here in the US.
The PS2 costed 450 dollars when it was new here and that 45000 kronors at the time. $600 is around 4700 kronors that means the PS3 is only 2000 more than PS2 at launch.
To sum it up PS3 $600 is alittle more than PS2 costed when it was new and exactly what i expected.
When the PS2 was launched in my country, it costed (if I'm not mistaken)
>20000 francs (>= 500$). But then again, my country is the most expensive one in the world. A year later (perhaps two, not sure) the price dropped to 300 $. But yea, waiting a year or two sucks. Still, I have faith PS3 will have the best games/or the games I like best.
Devil_Dante wrote:When the PS2 was launched in my country, it costed (if I'm not mistaken)
>20000 francs (>= 500$). But then again, my country is the most expensive one in the world. A year later (perhaps two, not sure) the price dropped to 300 $. But yea, waiting a year or two sucks. Still, I have faith PS3 will have the best games/or the games I like best.
It doesnt matter how much the PS2 was and where, the PS3 is/will be about twice the price. Here the PS2 was $299 and the PS3 is $599. If PS2 was 20,000 francs, the PS3 will likely be 40,000. I dont know about you, but thats one hell of a jump.
I dont think anyone here is a MS or Nintendo fanboy and just refuses to get PS3. But it seems like half or more of the forum members are not planning on getting a PS3 either because of the price or they are going to wait to see how the Blu-ray/HD-dvd war goes. So, if the the forum is any indicator of the rest of the videogame players around the world, then Sony may have a problem. Will Capcom and Konami continue making great games for a system no one owns? Does Sony have enough first-party games to keep their system afloat like Nintendo if the third party comapnies do jump ship? Then again, Sony just might have enough fans to keep them going and there is nothing to worry about. Either way, this generation of systems should be very interesting.
"We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then
blames them for his own mistakes." - Gene Roddenberry
On just about a nightly basis, Ayanami, Tempest, The Fallen and Ramiel (Ayanami's brother) and others talk about the consoles. Something that has come up time-to-time is the inflation adjusted price of consoles. I had run some numbers here and there to compare Xbox1/360, PS1/2/3, GC/Wii (predicted $250) against the cost of their predecessors in the market. I had some fun numbers to play with.
Curmudgeon Gamer ran the numbers on just about every console. Look at the RELATIVE prices. ABSOLUTE is just the list price at debut. Now, most of us here know this, but the Neo-Geo was the most expensive console evar. You can see that while the PS3 is going to be expensive in absolute terms, we've been here before in history.
The unfortunate reality of Gaiseric's post is that most people think in absolute terms when it comes to money. If I say I have $200 back in 1990 and then had $400 in 2004, it sounds like quite an increase. However, $200 in 1990 is actually about $289 in 2004, and that takes a little hit off the "wow I doubled my money" type of thing.
Devil_Dante wrote:When the PS2 was launched in my country, it costed (if I'm not mistaken)
>20000 francs (>= 500$). But then again, my country is the most expensive one in the world. A year later (perhaps two, not sure) the price dropped to 300 $. But yea, waiting a year or two sucks. Still, I have faith PS3 will have the best games/or the games I like best.
It doesnt matter how much the PS2 was and where, the PS3 is/will be about twice the price. Here the PS2 was $299 and the PS3 is $599. If PS2 was 20,000 francs, the PS3 will likely be 40,000. I dont know about you, but thats one hell of a jump.
I dont think anyone here is a MS or Nintendo fanboy and just refuses to get PS3. But it seems like half or more of the forum members are not planning on getting a PS3 either because of the price or they are going to wait to see how the Blu-ray/HD-dvd war goes. So, if the the forum is any indicator of the rest of the videogame players around the world, then Sony may have a problem. Will Capcom and Konami continue making great games for a system no one owns? Does Sony have enough first-party games to keep their system afloat like Nintendo if the third party comapnies do jump ship? Then again, Sony just might have enough fans to keep them going and there is nothing to worry about. Either way, this generation of systems should be very interesting.
Sony might just have fans to keep them going? Arent there 100 million PS2 owners around....
Also they will get new owners cuase i have seen people who never owned PS2 that are getting interested in PS3.
The real fact is the doller is so weak that PS3 600 is to us as much as PS2 costed almost as i have said earlier in this thread. So for me 600 dollers isnt as much as it was a couple of years ago.
Also the money isnt a problem for many cause most gamers its a hobby they are willing to save money for. I know many that have said
"damn the price is high but i should have that money saved when it comes out"
Libaax wrote:Sony might just have fans to keep them going? Arent there 100 million PS2 owners around....
The real fact is the doller is so weak that PS3 600 is to us as much as PS2 costed almost as i have said earlier in this thread. So for me 600 dollers isnt as much as it was a couple of years ago.
I think Sony put it out as over 100 million sold, so how many of those were the people that had broken Ps2's then went on to buy a flip top?
But true, the dollar is weak right now, i mean now for tv's you have to shell out a couple grand. 600 bucks seems steep, but come christmas time in the US, that thing will sell. The only questionable thing Sony has going for them is the whole blu ray thing. Will it work or not? dont know, but Sony takes gambles, but it wont be the end of sony though. Sony has lost many media wars, but they keep coming back.
Libaax wrote:Im on my second PS2,the first one was so strong that it died just when my two year insurence thingy ran out so i had to buy this one
So strong it died two years later? Anyone think thats ridiculous? My Dreamcast is coming up on seven years old and still runnning strong, my N64 and 2nd gen Genesis still work like new, the original NES is more than 20 years old now and they might have changed color a bit, but they still work. Hell, my Xbox that I got on launch day got accidentally kicked down a flight of stairs and landed on concrete and it may have a couple scrathes on the outside, but it works just fine!
Sony makes inferior hardware and halfandhalf brings up a good point. I know my PS2 broke and I went and bought the slim version. How many of Sony's claimed 100 million consoles sold were replacements for faulty systems? How many of you guys are on your second or even third PS2?
Libaax wrote:Also they will get new owners cuase i have seen people who never owned PS2 that are getting interested in PS3.
Just because I am interested in the Koenigsegg CCX doesnt mean I am going to buy one. And people that are new to videogames are more likely to get one thats is easier to pick up and play and is a little cheaper.
"We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then
blames them for his own mistakes." - Gene Roddenberry
