[QUOTE="americahellyeah"]i think its a culmination of things, both M$ paying and the reason that developing next gen games is hella expensive.jlabadie88But also, the less copies you have to make, the less money you need to get back. There is nothing to make back except the development costs, which are fixed. It has nothing to do with the number of copies. It is so cheap to put a game onto a disc and ship it to stores that it isn't even funny. The profit margin on a game is in the triple digits.
ghaleon0721's forum posts
I am sorry but the poster of this topic is a complete idiot. The PS, and PS2 had the most exclusives, it practically made it what the PlayStation brand is and is known for. Unfortunately it's being tarnished.mjf249It only APPEARS that way. Those exclusives only appeared on the PS and the PS2 because Sony brought the better console to the market. The PS had lower development costs than the N64 and the PS2 sold like crazy largely in part to its built in DVD player. Developers wouldn't make those exclusive games unless 1) the hardware was already out and created a large enough market or 2) They believed that the technology in the hardware would sell enough to MAKE a large enough market for their game. If exclusives are what sold a system, then why doesn't Kojima just make his own system and sell MGS on it until the end of time? He should have no problem getting Acclaim, Capcom, and the other 3rd party whores to port their games over. While we're at it, why doesn't Square just start building the FFBOX and sell that. Sony's PS2 was a system with innovations like backward compatiblity, built-in DVD, and pressure sensitive controls that gave it AWESOME gaming potential. The HARDWARE made people notice the system and created the market. Sony's market was largest, therefore they got the exclusives. Sony didn't get exclusive PS2 games because they asked developers nicely to make games for just one system. They gave developers the greatest profit potential by selling a system that people wanted. Now it's different. There are two systems that people want and the developers can't afford to ignore one or the other. End of story. It's going to come down to whoever gives the consumer the most value for their buck and right now that is Sony. The xbox for $400 is nothing but an offline, stand-alone, single-purpose gaming console.
[QUOTE="ghaleon0721"][QUOTE="jlabadie88"]But you have to look at it like this for Sony fans. A person can buy a 360 for $399 (screw the Core version). They can buy a PS3 for $599. So they say, "Well I liked the PS2 and I'll probably use the Blu-ray player, plus I like the exclusives on Sony's system. What? No exclusives? Well I may as well buy a 360 for cheaper." That may be sort of extreme, but that's the general jist of it. Exlusives define a system, and really are the main reason to choose a system. People don't go the Nintendo route for the third-party games. They wanna play Mario, Zelda, and Metroid.bballboy986You're logic is flawed. Nintendo seems very content to sell its system to a younger core of gamers and focus on its core of 1st party titles. Also, you're saying that once all the exclusives are gone the only thing that will matter is price. And once again, that logic is flawed for two reasons. 1. In order for that to be true, you're saying that no one will care about the blu-ray player, web browsing, and media aspects of the PS3 because it doesn't justify the extra $200. 2. Price is a moot point because in order to match the systems feature for feature, the price is nearly the same. Sure an xbox is $200 cheaper but you need to spend $50 to go online (and only for 1 year) and then another $100 to do it wirelessly. So two years into your Xbox you've spent exactly the same as you would on a similarly equipped PS3 and you still have NO BLU RAY, and no motion sensitive controller. Then in the third year, you have to spend ANOTHER $50. And 3. If it REALLY did come down to price. Sony would just cut the price and eat the difference. 1. Yes, very few people today could justify purchasing those things for $200. 2. At least you have the option to play online, to think that the ps3 has games that should be very multiplayer centric with absolutely no online connectivity is mind boggling to me. SIXAXIS is a joke, there has yet to be a decent implimentation of it, cite that as a plus when there is. Blu Ray may be worth it in a few years, but DVDs are not dead today. I'm not going to buy a media player that I won't need for another 2 years if DVDs are still getting published/sold at record rates. 3. That makes no sense... you say "eat the difference" like these companies could just release hardware for free and bank on software selling. With all the talk about how the price is to high... if they could afford a price cut, they would. If you're willing to spend $400 and not $600, then that means that you are not in the PS3's target market. The PS3 is targeted at older, more-hardcore gamers with disposable income. That is who is buying it. Let's assume that the Xbox 360 is cheaper, which it isn't since it costs the same to match them feature for feature, but lets say it is $200 cheaper. If you're in the demographic where $200 is an unfathomable amount of money for you, then Sony doesn't want you right now. I understand that $200 means a lot of shoveled driveways for you little kids, and it means sacrificing that new glass bong for you college burnouts. It's alot to ask, I understand. Just be patient, someday you'll join the rest of us grown-ups with steady jobs and paychecks
[QUOTE="ghaleon0721"][QUOTE="ilikemilk007"][QUOTE="ghaleon0721"][QUOTE="jlabadie88"] ghaleon I love you.Alyxm1I love you too bud
[QUOTE="kingsfan_0333"]How come last generation the ps2 won because of it's library of games that you couldn't get anywhere else, and now exclusives don't matter? Much like rumble doesn't matter until Sony strikes a deal with immersion.
Dualshockin
The Ps2 didnt mainly win because of the games,it won because it had about 3-5 system seller games,and at the same time was the cheapest Dvd player around.....
 GTA was also on Xbox,MGS was on Xbox,etc.But Ps2 still outsold Xbox,Dreamcast,and Gamecube by 10's of millions of units.
I still say that the PS2 did not win because of its "3-5 system sellers". Those games only propelled them to an even larger margin of victory. The PS2 GOT those games by having the better hardware. At the time, pressure-sensitive controls, a built-in DVD player, and backward compatibility were completely new concepts and gave Sony the edge. Also at that time there wasn't a format war going on like the HDDVD vs BluRay thing we have now. DVD's were it and $300 for a DVD player was a steal. It sold ALOT of systems. Once the hardware created the market, the games followed. By the time FFX and MGS2 came out, the PS2 was over a year old and was ALREADY crushing the Xbox.[QUOTE="ghaleon0721"][QUOTE="SmoothBrother1"]and another things, with all these games being availble on both systems, it's makes the comsumer think, which system I should get to play there games, and $400 dollar system or $600 system, which one will you buy to play the same games?SmoothBrother1Sorry but it's more complicated than that. The extra $200 gets you FREE online, motion sensitive controls, and a blu-ray player. So if I have to spend $400 no matter what, then I get all that other stuff for another $200. It's a good value for me So you are willing to pay $200 more for a online services that not on the level of xboxlive, and motion sensitive controller thats not even used in all of there games, and not even used on the level as the wii-mote for the Wii, and a blu-ray player? I don't want to watch movies on my game system so thats a mute point for me. You really think all thats worth paying an extra $200 for? Yes it's worth another $200. But that isn't really the case. Let's say I bought an Xbox for $400. Then I have to ask myself, is it worth $50 to play online? Yes it is. Then I ask myself is it worth $100 for a wireless adapter so I don't have to run a cable from my cable router to my living room? Yes it is. But wait, the PS3 has all of that, and for an extra $50 bucks I get a blu-ray player and motion sensitive controller (sure it isn't being used all that well now, but wait for lair and warhawk). And wait Xbox charges me another $50 next year?? so after two years, the two systems cost the same but one has a blue ray player. And what else, ANOTHER $50 in year 3???? So over a 5 year life cycle the xbox is going to cost me $750?? Ohhh... what's that you say, systems will now have lifecycles closer to 7-10 years?? So that's $850 to $1000 for an Xbox 360....to play all the same games as PS3??? The PS3 is worth the price
But you have to look at it like this for Sony fans. A person can buy a 360 for $399 (screw the Core version). They can buy a PS3 for $599. So they say, "Well I liked the PS2 and I'll probably use the Blu-ray player, plus I like the exclusives on Sony's system. What? No exclusives? Well I may as well buy a 360 for cheaper." That may be sort of extreme, but that's the general jist of it. Exlusives define a system, and really are the main reason to choose a system. People don't go the Nintendo route for the third-party games. They wanna play Mario, Zelda, and Metroid.jlabadie88You're logic is flawed. Nintendo seems very content to sell its system to a younger core of gamers and focus on its core of 1st party titles. Also, you're saying that once all the exclusives are gone the only thing that will matter is price. And once again, that logic is flawed for two reasons. 1. In order for that to be true, you're saying that no one will care about the blu-ray player, web browsing, and media aspects of the PS3 because it doesn't justify the extra $200. 2. Price is a moot point because in order to match the systems feature for feature, the price is nearly the same. Sure an xbox is $200 cheaper but you need to spend $50 to go online (and only for 1 year) and then another $100 to do it wirelessly. So two years into your Xbox you've spent exactly the same as you would on a similarly equipped PS3 and you still have NO BLU RAY, and no motion sensitive controller. Then in the third year, you have to spend ANOTHER $50. And 3. If it REALLY did come down to price. Sony would just cut the price and eat the difference.
Log in to comment