and the other 2% thinks they are on the BioWare Forums (Seen here)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

ahahahahahahahaha

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Lol I actually bothered reading that hole thing.

and the other 2% thinks they are on the BioWare Forums (Seen here)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

ahahahahahahahaha

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Lol I actually bothered reading that hole thing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Eeek Did it make your eyes bleed?

It almost made me blind.

I felt like I was reading some old manuscript Lovecraft wrote about

 

You know, the kind that makes you go insane

Are we still arguing over this nonsense? BattleWookie (you need to change it back, btw) and Alan like PC games, me and Shadow do not. Who cares. Discussion done. There.

Edited February 24, 200619 yr by SSgtSniper

For the record SgtSniper, I have no beef with you. You see it as a cost issue and enjoy the types of games consoles provide.

 

 

Though if I come along and start questioning you based on your purchasing decisions, and make suppositions based on that, I'd be surprised if you didn't get defensive too.

 

But I'd also be surprised if, when patches and content upgrades start coming to consoles (which they already started doing BTW), you ignored them.

Edited February 24, 200619 yr by alanschu

CoD2 info:

 

"On the Xbox 360 side, we're also happy to tell you that we're very close to releasing our second Title Update, improving the Xbox Live multiplayer functionality. Here's what's coming in that update:

 

1. Player Lag has been addressed

2. Private Game Lobbies / Reserved Slots

3. Enable Live Host to set custom game options

4. Map Preferences setting

5. Post Game Lobbies (players at end of match will return to lobby)

6. Enemy Player Name Notification

7. Kick Player (host ability)

8. Lobby Game Type, Map and Host Notification"

 

lol patch

 

Player lag isn't a bug or anything that needs to be fixed, it's a feature.

For the record SgtSniper, I have no beef with you.  You see it as a cost issue and enjoy the types of games consoles provide.

 

 

Though if I come along and start questioning you based on your purchasing decisions, and make suppositions based on that, I'd be surprised if you didn't get defensive too.

 

But I'd also be surprised if, when patches and content upgrades start coming to consoles (which they already started doing BTW), you ignored them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Well, I'd have ignored the infamous 1.1 patch for Halo 2 if Matchmaking didn't MAKE me use it. I hate the modified balance, less balance, more the whole world blows up from all the grenades..... but that's another disscusion entirely. Heh.

I felt like I was reading some old manuscript Lovecraft wrote about

 

You know, the kind that makes you go insane

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Coolness.

$800 for a Playstation?

Someone is taking game consoles a little too serious.

Who was smoking that bong?

Edited February 25, 200619 yr by DarthMethos

No, the retail isn't $800, that's the unit cost to produce. Retail is predicted to be similar to PS2 entry price point / market positioning.

No, the retail isn't $800, that's the unit cost to produce. Retail is predicted to be similar to PS2 entry price point / market positioning.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are you talking around $250?

Wow. XBox 360 is $399 for the minimum.

I would buy a PS3 over XBox 360 if the price is right.

No idea what the price will be, guess about US$400 (i.e. match the Xbox 360).

I'm guessing $400~500.

 

Sony would be foolish to sell for anything even remotely close to the actual production cost.

Sony knows it has the lead currently, I doubt they'd do something stupid to screw it up

lol atari

I'm guessing $400~500.

 

Sony would be foolish to sell for anything even remotely close to the actual production cost.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Assuming the PS3 costs Sony $800 to produce, I doubt that they would be willing to take a $400 loss on each PS3 they sell. To break even, Sony would have to sell lots of games per unit to make up that $400.

 

Sony has to either sell the PS3 at a higher price than the 360 (which would turn off consumers) or else they have to completely redesign the system to bring down the cost.

 

Microsoft, on the other hand, takes only a small loss on each 360. They only need to sell a few games to break even.

Assuming the PS3 costs Sony $800 to produce, I doubt that they would be willing to take a $400 loss on each PS3 they sell. To break even, Sony would have to sell lots of games per unit to make up that $400.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I agree, that would be an awful lot to swallow as a loss leader.

The loss leader will need to incorporate buying market share (primary motivator) so that the audience buy Sony games over the life of the platform (especially if there are cross-platform games).

 

If Sony makes $40 on a game, then it isn't unreasonable to take a hit like $200 (five game), AS LONG AS the projected sales figures indicate overall revenue to compensate over the life of the platfrom (what is that? 5 years).

 

I'm sure it certainly isn't their first choice, but if M$ wasn't a big, scary competitor in their rearview, then we surely wouldn't be seeing such a great deal from a company so large and able to do it in the first place.

Sony might expect the PS3 to push more games since they have the advantage of the Japanese market. I'm have no idea what the numbers are for Japanese companies producing Japanese games for the local market, which could be a reason XBox is lagging there.