You can't look at the cost of software at a production level, because the cost is in the development. Games cost millions to develop, so it's not really a matter of the disc costing next-to-nothing to make copies. Brain Age cost less to develop, and those savings were in part passed onto the consumer with a budget price relative to other games that cost more to make. Similarly, the DS in general costs less to develop for, and the games cost less because of it. Naturally, the price isn't a direct correlation between development and retail, but that wouldn't be a practical business model. There will typically be a price that the market settles into (last generation we had $50US games and that worked, and people bought $60 games just as well, so that seems to be sticking this generation). This increase could partially be justified by increased development time and therefor costs. No one's going to say, "Yes yes, I want to pay more!" but it's down to whether it's more profitable for the publisher. If a game is released at $30 instead of $60, you'd have to sell at least twice as many copies to make up for it, which is tough to buy, especially considering games eventually just drop to those prices anyway.yodariquo

It's not a valid comparison because the costs don't take into account that some games cost less to produce than others. Every 360 game did not cost as much as Halo 3 to make but the majority of them cost the same. So if a game cost less to produce but still retails for the same, the reduced cost that it took to produce the game is not passed on to the consumer. Not very capitalistic but then again the entertainment industry never has been.

The flat pricing scheme is a rip off in my opinion but then again I'm a PC gamer, so what do I know?

[QUOTE="Cali3350"]

COD4 is prettier, has a significantly better Single Player, and so far is keeping me happy with MP.

Halo is uglier, has a significantly worse Single Player, and kept me entertained online for about a month.

Synthetic_NinJI

Considering how large in scale Halo 3 is, it is impossible for COD4 (or just about any console game for that matter) to achieve just th at at this point.

Where as COD4, the game puts you in extremely tight quarters, Halo3 puts you in maps where you cross miles upon miles of actual land.

And that is just it, COD4 in most levels is just buildings upon buildings, where Halo 3 the average map is probably 12-15 miles long.

Cmon people, common sense has to hit somewhere around here.

Wooo! I love it when people use arbitrary untested numbers to reinforce their arguments. It's actually pretty funny too because even if 12-15 miles was a reaslistic number, which chances are, it is not, those twelve to fifteen miles are pretty significantly stale and follow the same pattern.

COD4 has better gunplay, an actual story that isn't boring rehashed sci-fi, and sweet effing Jesus, the master chief is a rehash of the freaking Doom marine (no offense to the Doom marines out there) with less personality. Halo is fine, it's a pretty good game but people put it up on a pedestal that is a little too lofty.

I ran the demo on a 3.6 ghz P4 and a 9800 pro at 1280x1024 everything set to medium except textures and water which were set to high, no AA and I was able to play with no stutters at all, completely smooth.

That's pretty freaking optomized considering I made this system around when HL2 came out.