Maybe I'm getting a little worked up because I'm trying to be as objective as I can be (which I think I've been doing), yet I get responses like these that don't seem to have anything to do with the debate: I may have over-exaggerated our "problem," but it seems like the past few times we had debates, it always involves you calling me a Sony fanboy, and I'm trying to show that I'm not. I had a feeling that if I started debating about the HD, these things might pop up. And they did. When I really was a "Sony fanboy," that was all a little funny...after the first 5 times. But I realized that I couldn't be taken seriously as a fanboy, so I became more objective. I stopped wishing death to Bill Gates and co, and I started appreciating the set up of the Xbox 360. Like I said, I've been praising MS for a number of things. And with that, I started noticing some of the bad things Sony was doing. Maybe I went along with it a long time ago, but for a pretty good while, I think I've been a little bit more objective than a "mostly Sony fan." It just so happens that the company that has dominated the console business the past 2 generations seems to be making better decisions so far, IMO. Sony didn't sell 200+ Playstations by making bad decisions. But the moment they make a bad one that will keep them from doing well for a 3rd time, I think I'll be ragging on them like I am on MS in this thread. And I don't know where you've been, but I'm pretty sure that I'm been pretty objective in a number of threads recently. Like I said, I was confused for a MS fanboy at one point. As mostly a Sony fan, I'm not sure how that could happen. You've yet to show me how I've been a Sony fanboy this whole time. Again, I'd be glad to open my eyes and see the light, but I may need some help. What were those Sony lies? Where are all those purely negative comments that I have for MS and the Xbox 360? Unless you can explain to me how I'm not being objective (in which in case, I can try to change), quit accusing me of being a Sony fanboy. It just gets old after a while, especially since I don't think it has been true for quite a while. As for our debate, I wouldn't mind going back to it, minus these little side comments. It may be boring to others, but I don't care since I've read pages of a debate about Malick Badiane's future in the NBA. Although frankly, I don't know how much left there is to debate, which is partly why I was getting a little tired of debating this all. MS said at E3 that a HD would be in every Xbox 360 system. Now they are saying that only one Xbox 360 system will have a HD. A lot of hardcore games don't like what MS did. I think I've done all I can do to prove all that. Feel free to debate this points besides simply saying they aren't true. As I've said, I've backed up my argument with reliable sources, one of which is directly from MS themselves. I'll basically have to see something of equal reliability to think otherwise. BTW, interesting info about the 80-20 setup. That's something I'll have to keep my eye on. Like you said, it may not quite split the userbase 50-50 like it once seemed. I wonder if developers will still react the same way or not to all this, assuming both versions sell out (which they should, at least initially). And now that I think of it, can't some stores bundle their own stuff with the core system as well, if they wanted? I don't know how likely that is, but something to think about if these stores want more money. If that were to be the case, I wonder how rare a $300 core package will be. Maybe they can do MS a favor and force the HD on everyone.
If this has been posted, then ignore it. I'm freaked about games getting priced higher than they already are. PC games, those I buy... unless I get something for my kids, have traditionally been cheaper that top flight, first-run platform games. From a purely selfish point of view, I don't like the idea of pressure on those game makers to up their prices. Here's the article: Price of next-gen gaming? $1,710 Sharper graphics, dazzling effects may come at a steep price. May 19, 2005: 1:09 PM EDT By Chris Morris, CNN/Money LOS ANGELES (CNN/Money) - Want to enjoy the full experience of a next generation console game? It could cost you somewhere in the neighborhood of $1,710. Gaming has never been an inexpensive hobby. But as the industry moves into its next generation, the emphasis on cutting edge graphics and sound, mixed with increased development costs might have gamers double checking the balances on their savings accounts. The first test comes this fall, when Microsoft debuts the Xbox 360. The company hasn't announced a price for the machine, but several industry observers believe it could cost $399 -- $100 more than new consoles have traditionally cost. "I think [higher hardware prices are] a distinct possibility," said P.J. McNealy of American Technology Research. "There's more technology in the box and it's not getting any cheaper -- especially if you look at the added multimedia functionality." Game prices, too, could be on the rise. Several CEOs, including those from Take Two Interactive Software and Activision, have acknowledged next generation games will carry "premium" pricing -- likely a $5 to $10 increase at retail. "I think we ought to assume that $59.99 is going to be the place we start for game prices," said John Taylor of Arcadia Research. Now, granted, the calculations for that $1,710 quote we gave are unscientific. Your final price might be lower. But it could also be significantly higher. Let's break it down. Figuring it's better to budget too much instead of too little, we went with the $399 price for the Xbox 360. And following Taylor's guidance, we'll assume nearly $60 per title. To see your new game in all its glory, you're going to need a high definition television. Microsoft, after all, has insisted all Xbox 360 titles be high-def compatible -- and it's a safe bet many, if not all, PlayStation 3 games will follow that lead. If you've already got a HDTV, you're all set. If not, the average price these days is around $1,000, according to the Consumer Electronics Association. You'll also need a surround sound system to make the most of the audio effects that are increasingly important in games. You wouldn't want enemies to sneak up from behind, would you? We'll go easy there and assign $250, the typical price of a low-end home theater in a box, to the budget. Total price: $1,709. Obviously, the HDTV and home theater system are luxuries, but the fact remains that the price of gaming is at a crossroads. Development costs, which have been escalating dramatically through the course of this generation of game machines, are expected to spike as new machines come on the market -- and the teams required to develop games will grow exponentially. Covering the cost of those expenses could conceivably come from in-game advertising or charging for online play. But both of those are unproven revenue generators. Retail price increases would quickly cover additional expenses. It's not just gaming at home that's costing more these days, either. Even portable gaming is seeing increases. The bundle pack for Sony's PSP costs $250, as opposed to the $99 initial price for a standalone Game Boy Advance. PSP games? Those run $40 to $50, versus the $20-$30 range that has been the norm for other systems for years. While the rising costs might seem sudden, publishers have actually been testing consumer reactions to higher prices for over a year now. Many highly-anticipated games have launched with $55 or $60 price tags, with no negative effects on sales. "I think in 2004, quite a few people were surprised about how successful the (more expensive) collectors editions were," said Taylor. "'Madden' was a good example of that. Most recently 'Doom 3' came out on Xbox and the premium version outsold the standard edition." Here's the good news: Analysts say there are downsides to higher pricing that could still change the minds of the industry. Today's premium priced titles carry extras, like older versions of the game or DVD-style features. Releasing a new game without any extras at a higher price might not fly with the buying public. "It's going to be a learning process," said McNealy. "The reason you have to spend more will have to be explained to the consumer." And higher console prices could scare people away -- even after they've come down. "In the past, the perception that something has a premium price point has led to the demise of the platform," noted Taylor. "You can look at Sega as an example of that. You can look at 3DO as an example. Microsoft is going to be incredibly sensitive to that." If prices do go up, there's still a way to enjoy the next generation without digging deeper into your wallet. It will require patience, though. While games and systems may launch with steeper pricetags, they'll ultimately follow the same pattern of current generation titles. With some exceptions, the longer a game stays on store shelves, the cheaper it will get. http://money.cnn.com/2005/05/19/technology/personaltech/e3_expensive_gaming/index.htm
It has been touched on here and there, but not too much. A good topic to bring up, IMO. While I don't like the rise in game prices (don't think I'll be buying too many of them), I understand where they are coming from. IIRC, John Carmack said something about gaming budgets reaching close to $100 million during next-gen. BTW, for those that don't know, Carmack is probably the best game programmer out there, mostly known for his engines for iD (Quake, Doom, RTCW, etc.). Usually, when he wants something from a graphics card, ATI and Nvidia include it. Granted, he's more of a PC guy, but I saw some other developers that agreed with those comments. With budget's reaching these levels, they practically have to charge more for their games or else they'll go bankrupt. Either that, or you'll just see a lot of sequels and rehashes. I will say that I read something from Mark Rein of Epic (Unreal Engine 3.0), and I think he said something about these prices being ridiculous. He couldn't understand why they would charge more basically, especially with engines like theirs (hehe...maybe he had to take that approach). I guess I wouldn't mind if only a few games were $60. As long as I don't start seeing THUG, PC ports, and some EA games being the same price as games like Resident Evil 5, Halo 3, GTA Whatever, MGS4, etc., I won't have too much of a problem. But if these publishers think they can squeeze out an extra $10 from a crappy game, they're badly mistaken, IMO.
What Carmack said is mindblowing. I wouldn't mind seeing DaDakota's take on that subject. I agree with Rein. I think game makers should look to keeping prices low, and depending on volume for profits. Of course, it's a total crapshoot, unless you've come out with an awesome sequel to a great game.
I didn't quite believe Carmack at first either, but when you consider some of the known budgets in today's games (I think HL2 is like ~$40 million), and then you look at games with unknown budget (Gran Turismo series, Final Fantasy games, etc), you may start to see how it could cost so much money to develop a game. I agree that it would be interesting to see what DaDakota thinks. And as for making game prices low, try to tell that to developers/publishers. They'll be working on a game for 3-4 years and have no idea how good it might be. In fact, David Jaffe (designer of God of War) commented on some of the worries in his blog recently: http://davidjaffe.modblog.com/ It seems like they have no idea whether or not their game will sell 3 million copies or 3 thousand. The only way to make things less risky is to charge a little more for the game in the case that the game doesn't sell as well as hoped. If they don't do that, these companies could go bankrupt. On the other hand, who knows how games would sell if they all cost $20-$30 each. I could tell you right now that I'd have a much larger game collection right now if that were the case. Who knows, maybe Mark Rein and other middleware developers will help keep the budget costs of next-gen games where they're at. Plus, even in the case of a $60 game, there will probably be sooner price cuts and more of them at that price, especially if the game tanks at that price. It will take patience though.
RC...you said it yourself and that's why I've made that reference. It was plainly obvious since you'd been posting video game stuff, and it had been discussed in threads. I'm sorry if I missed where such a thing bothered you - simply because it was more a 'common knowledge' thing before, I didn't know it was a big issue for you. I didn't know you were making an effort to change your stance. I missed the memo. But to be perfectly blunt, I don't think you can really say you've made such a change until you own and regularly play a non-Sony system. Reading articles and learning more about the other systems through spec sheets and messageboards - particularly for a gamer - just isn't the same thing. But that's just my view on it. In any case, I had no idea you didn't want to be a Sony man only anymore, and as such never looked at those comments as an 'attack'. Wasn't my intention. I won't list things Sony has done/said/promised or just screwed us with before, because honestly it's happened in previous threads and they really didn't have much effect. The hardware issue, for example. That's just something that is common knowledge to a lot of folks - something that's plain as day in particular to folks who have worked game retail - but you won't accept it. Which is fine. This isn't a thread on such a thing anyway, and we've probably crossed that line enough as it is. Getting back to it (I can hear the groan from the crowd)... But see, here's the problem...this is a matter of objectivity and perception. How can that be 'sourced'? I see it as the XBOX 360 was going to be 400 bucks, and would have all the extra features/accessories included. Then they decided it would be a little steep and went ahead and put the cheaper alternative out there. The other view is that MS never planned to include a HDD with every 360, knew this way ahead of time, and have been lying to everyone all along. I don't think this is logical. I think that's further illustrated, now, by the ratio of full/core systems that's being pushed out. There's no way in the world to provide 'proof' to this. I just feel that a more objective opinion would accept the less damning option. On the subject of game prices... I know that back in the PS1, N64 days, games were actually reaching that 60 mark and higher. But it still sucks to see them move past $50 now. It'd be great if everyone would charge 20-30 bucks, but I can understand the reluctance. The cost of creating a good game is so high now, it's too big a risk. I think there are only a few games every year that sell the amount of copies that become real profitable projects. (Madden, for example) Could it work at 20-30 bucks, with the low price moving a big enough difference in units? Maybe, but I doubt you're going to find many willing to take that chance.
The funny thing is that I'm pretty sure that the last big debate we had (around E3 I think?), part of the discussion involved me saying the same thing I just said. IIRC, you and a few others kept piling the whole Sony fanboy thing on me, and I asked you guys to quit saying it unless you guys had reasons to really believe that. And IIRC, not everyone thought I sounded like a fanboy then, so it was far from "common knowledge." And since then, I'd like to think I've become even more objective. And I guess you did miss the memo. I've only posted primarily about the Xbox 360 this whole summer pretty much, praising footage of Gears of War and the stuff MS did at the Xbox Summit in Japan. Fair enough though. Not every one of those threads got tons of views. Well, I'd say I've become pretty objective, but I guess I won't become 100% objective, by your definition, until I can afford to play all the games I want on my PC, my PS2, and "non-Sony console." As it is, I can't even keep up with PC and PS2 games. I'm usually late to the party on several great games, such as God of War, MGS 3, and Shadow Hearts 2 (each game I either rented, or got for like >$10). And if it means anything, while I didn't play them on the Xbox, I played a few Xbox games a lot on my PC. Finally, (I've said this like every time you put up your definition of an "objective" gamer), I know people that are fortunate enough to have pretty much every system out there and have played like 10 times as many games as I have. And guess what...they pretty much share the same opinions that I do. I'm not going to go out of my way to play "significantly" on a another console just to end up with the same feelings and thoughts that I had earlier, but only with $5 in my bank account. If I was magically given $150 (or the ~$75 or whatever that a GC costs now) to spend on something gaming related, I can tell you right now that I'd rather buy a bunch of gems for the PS2 (Ico, ZOE1+2, Katamari Damacy, Shin Megami Tensei/Digital Devil Saga, etc.) than spend that money on a new system. IMO, a real gamer would rather go the first route than the second. So frankly, I think your definition of an "objective" gamer is wrong, or at least has some flaws. I don't think I have to play RE4 to know it is an awesome game (although I want to eventually). So I don't think I necessarily have to play every non-Sony console to form objective opinions on those consoles. Also, don't go throwing in the stupid "But you paid $250+ for the PSP" argument. Again, that decision was partly non-gaming related as much as it was gaming-related. I wanted a MP3/media player for college, and the PSP offered me that and more. Had it not been around, I probably would have spent that money on an iPod or something like that, not another game console or even games. Ok, that's nice to hear (seriously). I really appreciate it. Like I said, I can't feel like I'm taken seriously if everyone thinks that of me. I didn't want to say something like, "If the Xbox 360 costs $5000, then I think the PS3 will dominate again next-gen," and then get responses like, "Wow...what a Sony fanboy." It just got old and annoying. If nothing else, can you at least link to the threads? Off the top of my head, I don't really remember anything clear cut that proves Sony mislead us somehow, but being the objective person that I am (), I'd like to take a look at it. Remember, I'm trying to change. If you are talking about the hardware reliability issue (if you're not, then ignore the next paragraph or two), then I think that is a tough thing to use against Sony. I've always heard it was "common knowledge," but I never really experienced it first hand. As I've said before, some of my friends and I still have our launch or near-launch PS2's that work perfectly fine. And I always thought it was stupid anyways since you'll always get TONS more reports of messed up PS2's considering PS2's pretty much outnumber both the Xbox and Gamecube combined about 2:1 (about ~90:~40). So you are obviously going to get more reports of broken PS2's, especially since they are the oldest of the three. FWIW, I'm starting to see some "My Xbox finally died" threads in a few forums, and at least nothing on the PS2 had to be recalled, IIRC. But hey, if you makes you feel better, the PS2 is the least reliable console out of the 3 (post-Thompson drive). Again, not sure how this means Sony lied or broke a promise, especially since I think they normally offer decent support for some of the most common problems (DRE's), but whatever you say. Guess I'm not following your train of thought because there's no way the thing I'm arguing about can be perceived in different ways. MS either said that a HD would be in EVERY XBOX 360 SYSTEM, or they didn't. I'm not talking about what MS has been planning or thinking (god, I'd have such a big headache trying to figure that out). I don't care if they planned on making it so 99.9% of sales of the Xbox 360 would include a HD. Don't ask me why MS "...never planned to include a HDD with every 360, knew this way ahead of time, and have been lying to everyone all along." Like I said, it would have been more logical to avoid that this issue entirely at E3 and wait to complete their launch plans. But apparently, MS isn't very logical. They promised a HD (and much more) in EVERY XBOX 360 system. There's no gray area there. They either did or they didn't. And according to various new articles and the MS site itself, they DID. We can argue all we want about whether or not that made sense, or what MS actually had planned, but that has nothing to do with this. IMO, if MS had any doubts about any Xbox 360 system not having these things standard, they should have never said these things at E3. If "this" Xbox 360 was planned to be $400, but MS wanted to make a cheaper version of it w/o the HD, wireless controller, headset and ethernet cable, then they shouldn't have made the claims they made. They could have experimented with the thought the whole time (IE: "Including the possibility of a HD" or something like that) in order to judge the responses, but again, they didn't. As for as you always expecting the Xbox 360 to be $400 with these accessories, I have to ask you something. This actually isn't originally my idea (got it at GAF), but what exactly does the Xbox 360 have to make it worth $400 compared to the Xbox, which cost $300? I think it is an interesting point. Here's a little breakdown, semi-copied from GAF: Xbox Pretty much the best hardware available HD ethernet port (I think) Wired Controller DVD Drive $299 Xbox 360 (core version) Pretty much the best hardware available Ethernet port Wired Controller DVD Drive Um...I guess those nifty USB connectivity which I'm sure really costs MS a lot. Support for stuff you'll have to pay extra for (wireless controls, wireless network, BC, HD, etc) $299 I'm not 100% if that is all accurate, but I think I got the key parts down right. In terms of value, it seems like the Xbox 360 is less of a value than the Xbox. Both systems were powerful for the time (might even say it is more affordable for MS now, due to their wise decisions this time around). Both had a wired controller, built-in ethernet, and a DVD drive, although I would think that this would be costing MS a little bit less now than it did then. The Xbox then had a HD. The only things the Xbox 360 has over the Xbox is the USB stuff and support for things that you'll have to pay absurd prices for, both of which I'm sure MS had to spend months of R&D on in order to perfect the manufacturing process. So, why couldn't the Xbox 360 offer pretty much the same thing as the Xbox and at a $299 price tag? Even if some things turned out to be more expensive (not sure why), couldn't MS do something like $325, $350, or my personal favorite, $360? That should have been more than enough to cover anything that might have cost slightly more to manufacture than the Xbox (again, not sure what), and it really wouldn't be too much out of the range of what normal consoles cost. MS wouldn't have to bother with releasing a "cheap" version of their console in order to appeal to those who didn't want to pay too much. Why is it that MS had to stick with $400? Relatively speaking (IE: No bringing in PC graphics), what does the Xbox 360 offer that makes it worthy of the $400 price tag? True about the cost of games in the past. I read something recently about a N64 game (forget which) that cost more than the N64 itself at one time. And I recently watched a special on the Neo Geo. I knew the system itself was damn expensive, but I had no idea that the carts for it cost $250-$300! Granted, the games were exact copies of the arcade versions, but how the hell could gamers afford that? And here we are complaining about $60 price tags. Boy, TMac640 won't like me after this one.
The size of cartridges affected the price of N64 and NeoGeo games. Disc based media is a lot cheaper to manufacture. 60 dollar games are inevitable, but you won't see it for every game. I read in EGM that selling 1.5 million copies isn't as big as it used to be because of rising costs. Like the NBA, there's going to be the superstars and the have nots. Similarly, the superstars get old and wind up in the bargain bin... Because of high production costs in making games, the next 5 years will see a lot of mergers and consolidation with a handful of large media companies remaining. If people have groaned against EA's tactics (diluting their sequels, paying for outrageous licences, strong arming their acquired companies, etc...) it's only a glimpse of what's to come.
i am totalls console stupid so bear with me if i get a xbox how [if] possible will it interact with the 360? if i get a 360 . . . does that make the xbox obsolete? [i mean the xbox has a hd but the 360 has it as an option] rocket river
Not sure what you mean exactly by "interact." The PSP can "connect" with the PS3 and I think the PS2, sort of like how the GBA/DS(I think) can "connect" with the GC/Revolution. If that's what you mean by interact, then no, I don't think the Xbox can interact with the 360. While it depends on exactly what you are looking for, the 360 will most likely make the Xbox obsolete. Obviously, if you get a 360 w/o a HD, then the Xbox would let you do some things that the 360 couldn't, such as save to the HD, download some content, custom soundtracks, etc. Some of that could probably be done through a 360 memory card though. So for some reason if you don't care about better graphics, better gameplay, better AI, etc., but you do care about what a HD provides, the Xbox may not be as obsolete to you as it is to others. If you go for the 360 w/HD, then all that stuff goes away, not to mention the 360 does support some features that the Xbox does not (wireless networking, for example). Unless you want to play some Xbox games that aren't supported by the Xbox 360, then the Xbox would be very obsolete in this case. Also, if you are into modding, then the Xbox would probably be better, but I'm assuming you are looking for a gaming console, not some cheap PC/server/whatever else a Xbox can do. If you're not a modder, then it doesn't really matter. If you want to play games, then the 360 will be a much better choice than the Xbox, especially if you go for the HD (price aside). I hope I answered you question.
Ok, now WTH is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hddvd According to the history of that page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HD_DVD&action=history It looks like our friend Gamem8ker is back to his old games. I guess the viral marketing didn't stop with OurColony. Here's some other stuff to look at: http://www.planetxbox360.com/?view=article&article=84 http://www.origenxbox360.com/ I don't even know what to say... edit: Actually, it looks like anyone could edit a page on Wikipedia (didn't know it was THAT easy). So I guess you can take that with a grain of salt for now. I'm a little surprised it is still there if it is just a random edit from some nobody, and the timing is interesting . The non-wiki stuff I linked to should be legit though, AFAIK. edit2: Spoke too soon: Um...yeah, who would believe something like that...
... Not saying a word....*whistles* (About that, anyway. I'll repsond to your last post tomorrow. Visited the GF's family this weekend, and I'm a little beat.)
No problem. This little break has left me some time to catch up on some clips shown at the Games Convention, as well as more impressions on this news and other stuff. BTW, J. Allard joined in on a chat with Major Nelson (guy who works at MS and has a blog) for some Q&A from the "hardcore gamers." It sounds like the chat itself was a joke (some serious technical issues due to the number of people), but there were some good questions (along with some good PR spin ). Here's a transcript of the chat: For those wondering about Allard's injury, he was in a mountain biking accident about a week ago, IIRC. He messed up some ribs and I think he broke his arm as well. But don't worry, the Xbox 360 launch will go on as planned (that last part was actually mentioned in the original report I read about this).
Just a FYI, but Gamestop and EBgames have put up their online bundle preorders for the Xbox 360: http://www.ebgames.com/ebx/categories/systems/xbox360/default.asp http://www.gamestop.com/productmerch.asp?cookie_test=1&groupid=310 Keep in mind that these are just for online preorders, AFAIK. For those that have reserved one already, don't freak out and think you will be forced into a $1200 bundle. Not sure how this works exactly (maybe Rokkit or someone can clarify on this, at least on the EB side of things), but I'm guessing the only advantage to doing this online is in case your local EB/GS retailers (if you have one) can't promise you a Xbox 360 on launch day (or around there), and you don't want to chance it by facing the crowds at Target, Wal-mart, etc. The bundles have their disadvantages (paying a lot of money for stuff you may not want, especially if a launch title gets delayed), but some of them aren't too bad and have stuff you might get anyways. Surprisingly, some of the bundles actually have a nice selection of games. They could have made the cheapest bundle come with games like GUN, TH:AW, or Quake 4 (if you like those games, disregard this sentence ), instead of bundling PGR3, Oblivion, PDZ (hopefully), Kameo, CoD2, etc., which they did. IMO, those are some of the better games, so the bundles may actually contain things that many may get anyways. Plus, for those sly enough, some of you might be able to find a way to switch out one of these games for another one at a EB/GS once you get your bundle. It may take some sweet talking, but I don't think it is too hard, especially if you have some buddies in the business. The prices still make me cringe though....a $1200 bundle.
