BattleCookiee

The common theorie about that was that that scene implied the trigger Go-To build in for the scene on Malachor V. But ofcourse it doesn't makes any sense at all just from the current sight of it!

Thanks <_<

There is always the beauty of "pruning" too...

Look, a PS3 production cost of $900,-

There is always PM INDEED....but PM to who? Who I ask you, who? Certainly NOT me "

:'( NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Ah man... am I really THAT bad in explaining what I mean with the dead of "PC as GAMING PLATFORM" :'( And now we start PC Vs. Console wars I really should leave this topic

3/4 pages of argument and people STILL do not get it... *Sigh* It is the Military thread reborn... now just in game form I give up... good night... please come back after you read my posts...

But, if due to that struggle there is no longer a PC to counter the consoles, such a reduce would never come. And that is what I am talking about all along; the doom-scenario when the consoles have no compitition and thus can freely decide their prices to fit maximum profit...

Not that a company like MS would care. For you 100 others!

Sigh... talking about talking past people... <_< At which point I explained why the PC dosnt matter even though you continue to think it's somehow important to how the consoles companies are thinking... LOOK! A plus sign! And I still don't agree the PC does not matter when the console manufactors have their prices low... And you know that exactly because you already saw a PS3? I think it is unfair? . Odd, I was under the impression I stayed objective during this entire discussion. I could throw in Pro-PC stuff but that doesn't change the console manufacturers have done it better on the market!

We ARE really talking past each other... but that doens't stop me from continuing talking $500. Where did you get that from? When did I try to defend a $500,- PC to a console? Agreed. But I never ever said so. PS3 production cost is 800. Then if you (like a PC) sell each part with profit it will be abouy $1000.-+ You can get a decent PC for that of about equal power... with more functions! And that is exactly why the PC IS a factor in keeping the console prices low... Ugh... If you think I compare $500 PC's to consoles I can understand you are laughing. Except I compare consoles with equally priced (in the production!) PC's And why is this console so low in cost? Because this way it can steal these costumers that otherwise go to the PC. Would you actually think they would care for people who cannot pay $500,- for a console when they can try to steal these pesons who spend $2000,- for a PC to buy and use their console?

I have been called a nutjob because I do not trust the guy in the White House So; here is my Anti-US rant *Rant* Thank you for listening... have a nice day!

And because they are different is exactly the reason why I do compare the 2. Are we still talking about the same things here actually? And why can't these 3 just all do +$500 for every of there console, and thus making additional profit? Because "Big Bad PC" is eager to steal away costumers of them then... Yes. Or you wan't to have the same or a slighty smaller with additional pricing. 100x100 is 10.000, but 90x120 is 10.800, and thus better for the producer... But ofcourse the concurence of other console creators and the PC is making it harder for them to do such a thing. And for MS/Sony there is a larger profit that could be gained from the selling of units than from getting cash from games, they just don't because of the competition (of the PC) Indeed. That is what I have been saying all along. It is for getting additional customers that otherwise went PC. And if it had nothing to do with the competition they could all just up the price by a few hundred bucks, as most people who buy a console surely spend many times that money already multiplied on games anyways.. Does MS gets hurt by selling MS for the amount of money where you can buy almost an entire console from? " When Sony get's market domination they just figure out what will be the perfect prices for top profit... and that is surely higher than the current ones... and then also people who would normally spend so many money on Top PC's buy Consoles... and they can probably pay a bunch, giving a huge boost in profit! No. But did I say so? I only said that IF the PC died as gaming-platform it would be very hard for the games to return there if the console market then decides to skyrocket the prices... And it could work VERY well as gaming platform, it is just that the positive price of consoles drove it off (heavily)... And what DID that part has to do with it? Making a game for 1/3 thriving platforms is a very different tasks than trying to make profit from a dead platform! EDIT (It REALLY looks like we are talking past each other here!) Exactly. But that is from a GAMER'S POV. And why would a commercial company care at all if these few people cannot pay it anymore if it gives them additional profits from the other clients?

Or look at Vietnam. The president got full authority to do as he pleases there without needing congress or anybody else's agreement. And look how it went... <_< And then look at how Bush did several spy-ops around the Senate etc. I no longer believe that the powers are still equally shared among the 3, and that is VERY frightening...

LA has the rights for Star Wars stuff. If LA wanted it could even think not to bring out Kotor2 or take the already made stuff and give it to another company, ask all finance back for the project and OE would be broken before project #1 would have been released...

I never talked about the Console VS. Console. I was trying to point WHY consoles are selling so cheap. What does the console war has to do with it, except it made it maybe even a bit cheaper (but not by that much)...? The $500 ofcourse. D

Nope. The competition of the PC is well there. One of the main points why people prefer consoles over PC's is because they cost less and not need expensive extra materials etc. Do you really think if ALL 3 of these consoles would cost their production cost and extra profit (making it about $1000) the PC would not be a fearce enemy. Which is one of the reasons why they are artifically made cheap by all 3... If the wanted to they could just decide to cut the losses they make from selling under-production costs (+$500 to all 3 won't hurt a single one) but guess why they don't do that? Well, it would if these 2 wouldn't save their own succes by keeping an artificial low price and would actually produce their units at production cost... Actually there would be a problem. Who is going to make the games for a starting system (PC) if there is absolutely no proof that it would actually going to make profit games for it, or if people really wan't it again (if there actually IS a market)?

Yes. Due to the low pricing people surely buy it and if they buy enough games the cost will be made back. You just prove it with this post mentioning you won't buy a console because you only wan't 1 or 2 games (Loss for MS/Sony/Nintendo if you bought their console), and because only people buy consoles who also wish to buy many games it equals out and atlast even starts to make profit! You actually help MS/Sony and Nintendo gain cash by NOT buying a console for these 1 or 2 games... And yes, there is a risk... but when isn't there one? And the success of PS2 and X-Box show well enough that the risk is actually small if you have alot of finance to back it up!

Most of the PS2's sold was still the original "expensive" PS2. Why would they make 100,000,000 units of a console already on the market for 3 years? And indeed, it could reduce production cost... but the PS2 price drop during the Console Wars was too big for even the new units to make any profit at all. And thus, once again, they had to trust on the sales of the games. (PS. the "new PS2" would fix in my "new ways of production" which I already confirmed would be cheaper to produce. But ofcourse by the time this new technique is discovered prices have dropped alot, so the effect (+profit) would be alot smaller than the hefty prices asked when the product is brand new.) Shows to Bunny and such why Sony and MS would go to a strategy of losing money on the production of console units... Wasn't an counter-argument! And if the PC cannot compete it will indeed be very bad; also for you (console fanboys) guys. Would you really expect Sony and MS will still artifically keep low pricings if the reason for it would have been gone. Or keep the games at the current prices? It would be "MS-domination" on the games market... What cell exactly are you talking about? And even if a large part of the PS3 is made intern, also a big part has been made extern and also MS would have had a major intern network for X-Box 360 production (does anybody knows the production cost for the 360?)

Yeah. Noticed I forgot the "fixed" pricing. Has nothing to do with sales though, but still edited my post to reflect it... But they still make loss on it... like they always did Exactly! It just shows how large the loss is Console manufacturers are willing to take to lure people to buy their systems. Manufacturing takes as much as a decent PC, but due to this artificial lowering of the price it will be cheaper for the costumer..., thus keeping a public otherwise to go to the PC due to improved power and functionality for the same price... Unlike IBM or AMD or Nvidia or ATI they can afford to cheaply sell because they have other sources for the lost income which these 4 do not have. Nvidia doesn't get an amount for every sold game... Doesn't really benefit alot actually I would suspect... and not all is made themselves. Chipsets for both X-Box 360 and PS3 have been made by... exactly Nvidia or ATI... (depending on system which one made it) As stated a million times before, because the loss will be made well with income from additional sources. And due to the low pricing more gamers would buy a console instead of a PC, and thus buy console games (+income Sony) instead of a PC game (+income actual creators of the game)

Nope. If you sell more production does not become cheaper. How would that exactly go working. Do (in game-development) developers give back part of their loan if a game sells well? It can become cheaper if other ways of production are found... but that never happens with ALL productions in the world, nor would actually be fast after the first produced unit. EDIT; Ofcourse there is the "fixed" cost in a process. When you make more products these fixed costs gets spread over more items making an item "cheaper" in the process. But it has nothing to do with the sales... more with the amount of items produced. And if there IS a way to produce cheaper wouldn't you think there is a reason why they don't mass-produce right in the start (like; RISK)? Also even if there is mass-production it doesn't make an item so cheaper in production as price reductions makes it cheaper for the consumer... EDIT2; And besides... that is totally irrelivant for the PS3 price discussion here. Sony damn well knows PS3 is popular... so they wouldn't go to produce a low amount of units... and then later make more for... eh... a price battle with X-Box 360/Gamecube making the loss even bigger! Sorry. But you are wrong. X-Box 360 and PS3 will NEVER bring in profit on their own sales. Nor did the X-Box or PS2 did. As said before; the profit comes from the XX% per game sold tax, but never from a sold unit of the console itself... Wrong... again. The "other objects" you call are produced to make profit itself. A console is made to make profit with the extra side-products made for it. Exactly tell me what stuff is made for clothes, or what a construction company sells to add to your house's interior? Actually, almost every company does it this way. WHY do you think Blu Ray is so expensive now? Would it still cost this much next year? Not a chance! Why did DVD-players sold for $500 in the begin, and $50 now? Nope. The reverse. They first make it expensive so people who really wan't it pay alot of cash then lower prices when interest takes off. You see it everywhere... with games, electronics, furniture, cars etc. Don't tell me you can sell a house cheap now because "later you can make them pay more" Wrong... AGAIN . Just compare early PS2/X-box prices to the current ones (sorry I do not have numbers spare...) Yes. Then why do you claim otherwise in the all of your posts?

DGwar rolls if he is going to understand Blank's post ROLL=1 CRITICAL FAILURE "

Consolers are able to do it

Nope. Me buying Product X won't make it cheaper for manufacturer X to make product X. The reduction of prices is because in the begin they sell at

And just to top that of BioWare has alot of power... far more than Obsidian has at the moment... As BioWare is one, if not THE biggest RPG-devs around here LA could demand far less than they could possibly do with OE... and it shows