If you think the PS2 was using existing PC technology, then I'd like to see that explained. AFAIK, the EE and GS were pretty much the best CPU and GPU at the time the PS2 came out, and especially when they were locked down. I think only the Xbox seemed to be the only system that really, really used PC tech and that was why it was hardly better than and PC hardware available at that time. This year, I'd expect something a little different from Microsoft. The CPU setup is pretty advanced compared to PC's today, not to mention that fact that they can still go with 3 processors. We may or may not have that in the PC realm at that time (not too familar with that timeline, but it seems like dual core chips are barely starting to come out as it is). The GPU, on the other hand, should be unique and better than anything available. IIRC, it should be using unified shaders. While I don't necessarily like that idea, it should still provide advantageous, and I believe ATI said they wouldn't make a PC counterpart to that until around the time Longhorn come out. Additionally, the CPU and GPU in Xbox2 seem to work quite well with each other from what I've read. The PS3 should be even further ahead, depending on how they go. Starting with the CPU, Cell should be better than anything a PC can offer, and probably several times better at that. The Nvidia part will be based off Nvidia's top-of-the line part with some modifications. Worst case scenario is that the part is just as good as the PC counterpart. Fortunately, Cell could lend some of its processing power to the GPU and help with vertex processing, possibly leaving the GPU to just pixel shading, something I doubt we'll see in the Nvidia PC card. The PS3 will also have XDR ram, which will probably be so many times faster than anything available in the PC world, and will supply crazy bandwidth speeds. And last, but not least, PS3 games will be able to use Blu-ray discs. Perhaps the PC gaming world can quickly move to this as a format for games, but I doubt it considering their transition to DVD. So shorter load times and bigger/longer games in HD for the PS3. As Of course, this was just a hardware approach. There are also other things to consider with PC graphics and console graphics, such as closed vs open hardware. With console games, developers can use the hardware to its fullest, while in PC games, they have to support older hardware and newer hardware at the same time. IIRC, it seems like most of the new games are still using shader model 1.1, despite the fact that 3.0 is and has been out for a while. Another way to look at it is through PC emulation of consoles. While this tells more of the difference between architectures instead of an actual indicator of a difference in power, it is telling of how powerful a PC has to be to even attempt to emulate what a PS2 can do, and only for a few FPS. I've read that some wouldn't expect an acceptable emulator to come out for 10 years or so. All that said, it should be a little quick for PC's to overtake consoles. Possibly 6-12 months may be enough time, depending on how crazy Sony gets.
They control the market with the players name rights now they can do whatever they want. Thats pretty low though i remember for the earlier maddens barley getting to that 50 or 40 or whatever it was.
I'm willing to pay if the games make improvements. But if you give me the same thing and charge me more, you can forget it.
i remember paying 10 bucks for the intellivision games cause that's all i had at the time...they even had games for 19.99 which were there new games lol....
Usually the only thing they upgrade is adding three or four new tackle animations, a few new commentary splices, and they update the rosters. It's a total joke. You can get updated rosters from the internet now, so theoretically you should never have to buy another game again. Every 5-6 years they do major changes to a game, that is abou the only time worth buying.. like the difference from madden 2003 to madden 2004 was worth the money, but it's not going to be for a long time.
Well as someone who feels you are directly STEALING from my family....I CARE A GREAT FRICKEN DEAL !! DD
I don't know if you could call this "worth the money", but I thought the improvements on the defensive side of the ball from '04 to '05 were a pretty big improvement. Being able to audible single defensive players is nice...add that to the fact that it was Xbox live enabled, it was definitely worth the $50 for me. I would say the major changes come every 3 years or so. The new systems come out every 5 years or so, so obviously that is a major change too. I've bought Madden every year since the first one on Nintendo 64, and I can't say I've ever been truly disappointed.
I'd have to agree. I don't get the 'all they do is update the rosters' crap. Now, they need to work on changing the presentation, because Madden himself is getting worn - but to say that they don't make any other changes is just false. The defensive additions do a lot to change the makeup of the game, as anyone who plays on a regular basis will tell you. And yes, the Live factor was prettty big as well. Still don't know if I'd buy any game for 60-70 dollars, though, regardless of what it is.
i'm pretty sure i saw the same gripe when games went from 30 to 40 and then 40 to 50 dollars. sure $70 is pretty steep considering it's a game with an expiration sticker on it (the game's value really goes down after midseason and totally goes down after the season is over) but who's to say that people won't buy it, ESPECIALLY if they are already shelling out money for the next-gen console? 1. Madden went down to ~$20 this past year is because SEGA surprisingly only sold for that low amount from the get go. I think that EA actually knew of this and waited to see if they were going to get stiff competition with that price point...and they did. So they did the two next best things: 1. drop their price to compete with SEGA and 2. sign an exclusive deal with the NFL. Take out the competition and you dont' have anyone in your rearview mirror. 2. PC gaming vs. console. I think it's a moot point. Why? Everyone always brings up graphics as the first point. Well no **** PC will blow away consoles in this category. Last I checked, I can upgrade the video card in my computer any time I want while that type of option is nonexistent in my PS2. It's like apples and oranges. Some people prefer the rich graphics and the LAN play of a PC while other just prefer to sit in front of the TV without the troubles of booting up a computer, installing a game, etc. People that say "I will just stick to my PC then, etc etc' are the same people that probably never gave console gaming a chance or just steered away from it over the years. "But games like Halo make me play console games" well ain't Halo essentially a watered down PC FPS? How would it compete with the likes of Unreal Tournament? 3. If you want it badly enough, you'll pay for it. Now with the NFL market all to themselves, EA can charge anything they want--to an extent. You don't be in business for decades without knowing that no matter what price you set your product at, you have to have buyers. If $70 is a price they think people won't buy it at, they'll drop the price. And who says you have to buy it on release date. GT4 was 50 when it came out and just recently WalMart had it marked down to 36 bucks.
Here is an article that gives a little info about what some companies are doing in preparing for next-gen (mostly about Microsoft wanting to expand Bungie's team). As for the whether or not Madden makes enough improvements to warrant a $50 or more price tag, I personally don't think it is, although I don't think the majority of sports games are worth it. I very rarely, if ever, buy a sports game for more than $20. I guess this is because I don't see the improvements from succeeding versions that I do from other games, such as RE4, MGS3, GTA:SA, etc. Those games just seem to have more value to me than Madden 2006, or whatever other sports game. Of course, if all you play is sports games, then maybe this is good enough for you to warrant a $50+ price tag.
