PS3 - X-Box 360 - Nintendo Revolution

[Edpon]

Oh boy, here we go. . .

PS3 -
Yes it's backwards compatible, the single best reason alone to get a new system, in my eyes. Yes it's very powerful, and they'll have loads of RPG's, the second best reason to own a new system.

X-Box 360 -
It might be Microsloth, but, their system will do well simply because of all the modding communities out there. I have my current system modded and use it more like a computer for my living room, as well as an emulator for all the games I have. Competition is good for the community, and only Microsoft can really go head-to-head with Sony.

Nintendo Revolution -
More like Nintendo Mod-o-lution. Yes we all know Nintendo is legendary for it's Mario, Zelda and Metroid, but they are still basically a KIDS system. Their idea of being backwards compatible with all it's software ever made, is simply a way of cashing in on their old titles, and to put a stop to the illegal ROMS swapping going on with websites; which is ok, but is not really revolutionary. I will give them credit on their controller though, pretty interesting, we'll see how it goes.

Ok, now the real question -
Which will Ed be buying? The answer -
ALL of them. Why? 3 reasons.
1 - Because I'm a true gamer, and true gamers have the widest variety of games to keep themselves happy.
2 - Because My son wants one of the above mentioned.
3 - Because I like variety, I'll have access to all of the systems "exclusives" and get to experience it for myself.

Ed
 :-D  :-o  :-D

[Louis Dias]

Well, since Microsoft is bringing XBOX Live to the PC, I still don't see a reason to get a Sony or Microsoft 'console'.

As far as exclusives go...what few games are worth a $400 console?  The Final Fantasy series no longer seems to be a Sony exclusive.  GTA3 - never exclusive.  Just a few Sony titles really and Gods of War is the only memorable one.  Maybe Metal Gear Solid series from Konami.  In the future...and present actually, you see alot of concurrent releases of PS2 and PC even if they won't release an XBOX version.

Same can be said of XBOX except worse, the PC versions of the FPS games are just better.  None of the RPGs on the XBOX have lived up to expectations.  All it has is more power than the other consoles to throw at a car simulators like Forza....and games like that are still better on the PC.

I already have a 3200 AMD with 1GB of 400MHz DDR RAM and a 250GB HD with a RADEON 8500 w/128MB AGP card.

I'll get a Revolution for the real exclusive games and spend less money and have a new and unique way to play new games that won't be possible on the other consoles...and when the next Grand Theft Auto (or whatever is hot) game comes out, I can always get the superior PC version.

...besides, consoles don't have World Of Warcraft...

it's funny, I was poking around my PC this weekend and found that I still had Unreal Gold installed...so I played it.  Haven't done so in over 3 years.  Wow.  On this newer more powerful PC that what I had 3-4 years ago (900MHz AMD) the textures just blow you away at 1280x1024 with a ridiculouly high framerate and 32bit color.  That's the other PC 'side-effect'.  You upgrade your PC, you've upgraded your games at the same time.

[harima_kun]

I am not a fan of ms i actually just use macs for all my work but i do like the xbox and the ps 2 and the gc, i will buy the xbox 360 because even though it is made my ms there are some very good games coming out for it, as for the ps 3 well i will just have to wait for that to come out too and buy it, in the end it is the games which make the system worthwhile buying and if people would actually take the time to play on an xbox console they will realise that is damn fun and the games are in fact bloody marvellous!! so i think the time for bickering over which system is better is foolish, i mean come on that is for the 12 year old kids who cannot afford all systems, most the people here are old enough to own each of the systems and should enjoy that fact

[Psy]

stefcep wrote:
Console games are overpriced ( some say they are overpriced because of piracy, and others will say pircay exists because they are overpriced) and so people will always want to mod the machines to play "back ups".  The easier it is to do this the more popular the system.

You have to take into account the systems are sold at a loss and Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft makes up for this by taxing games for their systems.  This tax not only pays for selling the hardware at a loss but advertising their hardware.

Next like the movie industry the thinking is bigger is better thus larger devlopment costs leading to more loss when a game doesn't do well in the market.  On a sidenote this also means there is a risk of of devlopment costs spiraling out of control causing another crash in the video game industry.

[Louis Dias]

Psy wrote:

stefcep wrote:
Console games are overpriced ( some say they are overpriced because of piracy, and others will say pircay exists because they are overpriced) and so people will always want to mod the machines to play "back ups".  The easier it is to do this the more popular the system.

You have to take into account the systems are sold at a loss and Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft makes up for this by taxing games for their systems.  This tax not only pays for selling the hardware at a loss but advertising their hardware.

Next like the movie industry the thinking is bigger is better thus larger devlopment costs leading to more loss when a game doesn't do well in the market.  On a sidenote this also means there is a risk of of devlopment costs spiraling out of control causing another crash in the video game industry.

That was true except for the Gamecube.  It was always a profitable machine as will Revolution be.

[adolescent]

lou_dias wrote:

That was true except for the Gamecube.  It was always a profitable machine as will Revolution be.

Not true.  Due to poor sales, production cost went up early on in the GCNs lifecycle.  Couple that with price cuts to stay competitive and it's been losing Nintendo a ton of money.   At ~$150 they were breaking even, at $100 they are losing money.  Now at $100 with a pack-in and (new release) first party title they are losing even more.

[SamuraiCrow]

@thread

It's pricing games like this that make me wonder why Sony didn't make their hard drive and Linux expanders more capable earlier on so they could compete with Windows and knock the legs out from under Microsoft.

[Daedalus]

Edpon wrote:
PS3 -
Yes it's backwards compatible, the single best reason alone to get a new system, in my eyes. Yes it's very powerful, and they'll have loads of RPG's, the second best reason to own a new system.

I don't go for the backwards compatibility thing. I've no problem running my N64 whenever I want a game of Perfect Dark or Conker's Bad Fur Day. RPGs o nthe PS2 never really appealed to me

Nintendo Revolution -
Their idea of being backwards compatible with all it's software ever made, is simply a way of cashing in on their old titles, and to put a stop to the illegal ROMS swapping going on with websites;

Oh? Is that all that different from the reasons other manufacturers (such as Sony) are doing it? You're being a bit hypocritical there, check what you said back up the top there about the PS3 backwards compatibility, then make up your mind.

1 - Because I'm a true gamer, and true gamers have the widest variety of games to keep themselves happy.

Hmmm... We can all call ourselves true gamers. I'd like to think I'm a true gamer, but I'd go for quality over quantity. Volume of games doesn't matter to me, but if there are 5 good games on a console, that's good enough for me. The Gamecube was in there right away, Zelda, F-Zero, Mario Kart, Pikmin, Metroid Prime for starters (and all Nintendo games too...), and the PS2 just about made it in my opinion with GT3&4, Forza, Final Fantasy, but once you've played a lesser-known game on the PS2, you've played them all in that genre. The X-Box wasn't even a consideration. Played Halo for a while, nothing too special, and went back to my PC for that type of game... Also, playing DVDs is no biggie. I've a DVD player here that has an output far superior to anything you can get out of any DVD-playing console. I liked Nintendo's attitude. The Gamecube is a games machine, nothing more, nothing less, and so it really excelled at that. Picture, sound, games and controllers all surpass the PS2 IMO.

I'll be buying the next Nintendo as soon as they release some of their signature titles for it. Hell, I'll even be buying the new Zelda game when it's released in February over here for the Gamecube. I'll borrow a PS3 and play it for a while, but I'd imagine that'd be the end of it. Xbox 360? Hmmm... If Rare release a couple of gems for it I might consider it, but apart from that I wouldn't even bother looking.

[Louis Dias]

adolescent wrote:

lou_dias wrote:

That was true except for the Gamecube.  It was always a profitable machine as will Revolution be.

Not true.  Due to poor sales, production cost went up early on in the GCNs lifecycle.  Couple that with price cuts to stay competitive and it's been losing Nintendo a ton of money.   At ~$150 they were breaking even, at $100 they are losing money.  Now at $100 with a pack-in and (new release) first party title they are losing even more.

You have no idea what you are talking about.
Once they removed the DV out (after already removing Serial Port 1) the console was right around the $100 mark.  And that was 2 years ago.  It's a well known fact that the GC has been profitable for Nintendo.  Otherwise why would they blame lower profits directly on lower Gamecube CONSOLE sales?

Oh and the key word there is PROFITS.

http://cube.ign.com/articles/656/656903p1.html
http://www.gamesarefun.com/news.php?newsid=5653

[adolescent]

lou_dias wrote:

You have no idea what you are talking about.
Once they removed the DV out (after already removing Serial Port 1) the console was right around the $100 mark.  And that was 2 years ago.  It's a well known fact that the GC has been profitable for Nintendo.  Otherwise why would they blame lower profits directly on lower Gamecube CONSOLE sales?

Oh and the key word there is PROFITS.

http://cube.ign.com/articles/656/656903p1.html
http://www.gamesarefun.com/news.php?newsid=5653

Please provide links to these "well known facts".  The links you posted in no way show the Gamecube is profitable at any price point.  

Nintendo has cut its first-half operating profit forecast by one third due primarily to slow sales of GameCube hardware and software in North America.

They don't blame the latest on just console sales, but hardware and software combined.

[koaftder]

Please provide links to these "well known facts". The links you posted in no way show the Gamecube is profitable at any price point.

Whats the point? At least half of what this guy says is blatently wrong anyway.

[Edpon]

Daedalus wrote:

Edpon wrote:
PS3 -
Yes it's backwards compatible, the single best reason alone to get a new system, in my eyes. Yes it's very powerful, and they'll have loads of RPG's, the second best reason to own a new system.

I don't go for the backwards compatibility thing. I've no problem running my N64 whenever I want a game of Perfect Dark or Conker's Bad Fur Day. RPGs o nthe PS2 never really appealed to me

Nintendo Revolution -
Their idea of being backwards compatible with all it's software ever made, is simply a way of cashing in on their old titles, and to put a stop to the illegal ROMS swapping going on with websites;

Oh? Is that all that different from the reasons other manufacturers (such as Sony) are doing it? You're being a bit hypocritical there, check what you said back up the top there about the PS3 backwards compatibility, then make up your mind.

 No, the difference here is Nintendo is not really giving you a way to be backwards compatible with what you currently own. They want you to re-pay for your existing software to run on their new machine, which will most likely be stored on a flash device of some sort.

1 - Because I'm a true gamer, and true gamers have the widest variety of games to keep themselves happy.

Hmmm... We can all call ourselves true gamers. I'd like to think I'm a true gamer, but I'd go for quality over quantity. Volume of games doesn't matter to me, but if there are 5 good games on a console, that's good enough for me. The Gamecube was in there right away, Zelda, F-Zero, Mario Kart, Pikmin, Metroid Prime for starters (and all Nintendo games too...), and the PS2 just about made it in my opinion with GT3&4, Forza, Final Fantasy, but once you've played a lesser-known game on the PS2, you've played them all in that genre. The X-Box wasn't even a consideration. Played Halo for a while, nothing too special, and went back to my PC for that type of game... Also, playing DVDs is no biggie. I've a DVD player here that has an output far superior to anything you can get out of any DVD-playing console. I liked Nintendo's attitude. The Gamecube is a games machine, nothing more, nothing less, and so it really excelled at that. Picture, sound, games and controllers all surpass the PS2 IMO.

I'll be buying the next Nintendo as soon as they release some of their signature titles for it. Hell, I'll even be buying the new Zelda game when it's released in February over here for the Gamecube. I'll borrow a PS3 and play it for a while, but I'd imagine that'd be the end of it. Xbox 360? Hmmm... If Rare release a couple of gems for it I might consider it, but apart from that I wouldn't even bother looking.

The main reason I say I'm a TRUE gamer, is not because of all the games I have. It's mainly because of all the games, systems, and types of games I have.  A true gamer, likes all games, all systems and plays them with showing any special interest towards a particular system, like you are doing, and very obviously too. It's clear you took offense to me doing a little picking on Nintendo, so clearly your a Nintendo fanboy. I on the other hand, like all systems and types of games; but prefer RPG's and the PS and X-Box. Nintendo is fine too, but they disappoint me because they're too kiddy like. Just my opinion though.

Ed
 :-D  :-o  :lol:  :-D

[Louis Dias]

koaftder wrote:

Please provide links to these "well known facts". The links you posted in no way show the Gamecube is profitable at any price point.

Whats the point? At least half of what this guy says is blatently wrong anyway.

2 arses.

I'll have you know I co-admin a not so popular DS gaming site and have access to newswires that general shmoes like you 2 don't.  Most of what you see on websites actually comes from only a few major newswires.  GamesPress being one of them.

I've been keeping up with the gaming industry on a daily basis since December in an attempt to draw hits to my website.  I did post some links about the DS here back in December.  But stopped 'advertising' right after that.

So it's been my job through about April or May when the lack of users no longer justified the effort.  However, I still keep up with everything - DAILY - as a personal hobby of mine.

Any monkey knows that the GC has always been sold for profit.  Even the slimline PS2 is profitable at $150US.  It's only MS that made a rookie mistake and didn't own their own designs in order to find low cost manufacturers.  A problem they fixed with the 360.

Instead why don't one of you 2 ass-clowns quote me some websites where it says Nintendo takes a loss on every GC sold.  I'll see you in Timbuck 2 when you find one.

Oh and here's an article, just like the one from this quarter, once again stating that Nintendo PROFITS were hurt by poor Gamecube HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE sales from March of 2003.  http://www.gamesindustry.biz/news.php?aid=1689

These quarterly earnings company statement are a matter of public record and break down where a company's profits and losses come from.  They are available on Nintendo's corporate (vs. consumer) website.  It is what investors look at to determine whether or not to invest in a company.  Now you are going to tell me they could be lying to their shareholders and potential investors...and when MS posts a 171 million dollar loss in a quarter in the gaming sector due to losses it takes selling XBOX's that they could be lying too, right?

Ignorance is bliss.  As is trolldum.

[Daedalus]

Edpon wrote:
The main reason I say I'm a TRUE gamer, is not because of all the games I have. It's mainly because of all the games, systems, and types of games I have.  A true gamer, likes all games, all systems and plays them with showing any special interest towards a particular system, like you are doing, and very obviously too. It's clear you took offense to me doing a little picking on Nintendo, so clearly your a Nintendo fanboy. I on the other hand, like all systems and types of games; but prefer RPG's and the PS and X-Box. Nintendo is fine too, but they disappoint me because they're too kiddy like. Just my opinion though.

No, I didn't take offence, and will try them all (like I said I did) but with being so disappointed with the current XBox and PS2 that I would have to be seriously persuaded to go out and buy updated versions of either. Maybe I am a little biased towards Nintendo, but the current generation of consoles I went into with a very open mind (I am still using Amigas after all!). I was just generally disappointed when I got a PS2 with most of the games, and horrified that they kept the PS1 controller design. At the time my N64 saw just as much use as my PS2. Then the GC and XBox came out. Bought the GC, tried out the XBox, gave the XBox back and never once felt like I'd like to play anything on it again.

I'll give you the kiddy thing, but I don't let that bother me, especially when you can get a lot of the "standard" titles on all the main machines. I think kiddy image games like the Zelda and Mario series can hold just as much grown-up attention provided they're well-written games, and they are.

[Louis Dias]

Oh and Nintendo learns it's lessons well:

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=12324

free access to online play for the DS and Revolution.  Have fun paying for XBOX Live.

[adolescent]

@lou_dias

Typical.  Instead of providing any real facts or evidence to support your claim, you resort to name calling.

But, here you go anyway...  welcome to Timbuktu.

http://www.gaming-age.com/news/2002/1/30-127

The unit cost of producing and distributing the GameCube has actually become higher than its retail price, since launch.