I told you! $400!

Nicholai · Post by **Nicholai** » Wed May 03, 2006 10:39 pm

Skyone wrote:Ahem;

I will be happy if the PS3 is $400, but it will be bad for game developers because each console statistically takes $1,000 to make. So, I think the PS3 will stay 'round $600.

If you think Sony doesn't have the resources to back up their price tag, rethink.

joevennix · Post by **joevennix** » Wed May 03, 2006 10:39 pm

OK, whatever, no sense in yelling at a brick wall.
I'm out before the cops bust us

Post by **Skyone** » Wed May 03, 2006 10:48 pm

http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/06/28 ... 28295.html

I really don't understand why PSM is making a big deal about it NOW.

Post by **CronoTriggerfan** » Wed May 03, 2006 10:50 pm

Okay, I'll settle this right now. The only thing keeping Sony ahead of the game is one thing: Fanboyism. You get people who call themselves "gamers", but the only game they've ever played is the new Madden or the occasional Halo. These video game "fads" have come and gone before, and as soon as this one leaves, the hardcore gamers (like myself) will take control of the market once again, as we did in the SNES "golden ages". Companies like Nintendo and Square-Enix will profit big time, whereas EA will crumble. So it really distills down to what games are better: Square or Nintendo?

Nicholai · Post by **Nicholai** » Wed May 03, 2006 10:53 pm

CronoTriggerfan wrote:Okay, I'll settle this right now. The only thing keeping Sony ahead of the game is one thing: Fanboyism. You get people who call themselves "gamers", but the only game they've ever played is the new Madden or the occasional Halo. These video game "fads" have come and gone before, and as soon as this one leaves, the hardcore gamers (like myself) will take control of the market once again, as we did in the SNES "golden ages". Companies like Nintendo and Square-Enix will profit big time, whereas EA will crumble. So it really distills down to what games are better: Square or Nintendo?

So if I buy a PS3 and Madden, I'm a fanboy, but if I buy the Wii and emulate older games, I'm hardcore?

Logic is a bit flawed, bud.

dankicksass · Post by **dankicksass** » Wed May 03, 2006 10:54 pm

There's plenty of time for Sony to delay the PS3. Again.

The Jaguar launched at around the $400 mark. It failed.

The Panasonic/GoldStar/Sanyo 3DO launched at the $800 mark, where Sony origianally was rumored to launch the PS3. 3DO failed.

Somehow, I don't think Sony will completely fail, but I also can't see them launching any smoother than Microsoft did with the 360.

The next new system I'll buy will be the Wii, but not at launch. Its been a week since they announced the name change, and I'm finally getting comfortable with it. Bring on the Wii Revolution!

Nicholai · Post by **Nicholai** » Wed May 03, 2006 10:56 pm

dankicksass wrote:There's plenty of time for Sony to delay the PS3. Again.

The Jaguar launched at around the $400 mark. It failed.

The Panasonic/GoldStar/Sanyo 3DO launched at the $800 mark, where Sony origianally was rumored to launch the PS3. 3DO failed.

Somehow, I don't think Sony will completely fail, but I also can't see them launching any smoother than Microsoft did with the 360.

The next new system I'll buy will be the Wii, but not at launch. Its been a week since they announced the name change, and I'm finally getting comfortable with it. Bring on the Wii Revolution!

PS3 won't be unavailable for 5 months after its release.

PancakeGoblin · Post by **PancakeGoblin** » Thu May 04, 2006 5:34 am

Nicholai wrote:
Skyone wrote:Ahem;

I will be happy if the PS3 is $400, but it will be bad for game developers because each console statistically takes $1,000 to make. So, I think the PS3 will stay 'round $600.
If you think Sony doesn't have the resources to back up their price tag, rethink.

Mmhmm, same company that said they go backrupt if this copulate up has the resources?

(I'm not kidding, they say the company is in dire trouble as SCEA is the only division making any kind of profit)

Lucretius · Post by **Lucretius** » Thu May 04, 2006 6:43 am

I'm still one of the people who think $400 dolars is ridiculous. Gaming is for the rich and whatnot, and Nintendo would be wise to pull the money crad again and make damn sure their's is bellow $300.

NES_fanatic · Post by **NES_fanatic** » Thu May 04, 2006 7:41 am

Rising from bed, taking a shower and enjoying some eggo waffles, I head upstairs to see the latest pulse on Benheck.com... what a surprise, Nicholi's throwing rocks at a tank again.

I don't know why I have to keep reiterating this, Nintendo has the fattest profits of all as of now, with the GCN, the DS, and the Game Boy Micro (yes, that thing sells).

Nobody knows what will happen in the next round of console wars, and it seems highly stupid to just catigorize the systems with unspecified positions no more accurate then "* will win, *will lose". The game industry has swerved so many times in the past years that predicting just about anything is like predicting what direction a grape vine will grow next. Who saw Sony pop out of nowhere and dominate in the 90's? Who saw the Dreamcast sell nil despite superior hardware, excellent features, and even the first online play?

And now we have the fanboys looking for another excuse to say Nintendo sucks and their system won't win this time. Nintendo gives their system an odd name, and all the anti-nintendists go nuts, giving illogical aruuments that in short imply, "The name makes the system magically suck. It won't be fun to play because of the name." Words cannot describe the stupidity behind such claims, so I'll use this:

kidw/32+systems · Post by **kidw/32+systems** » Thu May 04, 2006 9:21 am

Of course it isn't more than $800 b/c they hopefully learned something from the $1,000 PSX (I mean the real PSX not the Playstation)

As for the next gen: Names are crap now
PS3- didn't see that comming
Xbox 360- were's Xbox 2-359
Wii- original but to many wierd things at once

Extreme_Jesus · Post by **Extreme_Jesus** » Thu May 04, 2006 9:29 am

$400 eh?....

lets see at the current exchange rate thats.....Â£216.34

not bad, not bad at all

considering the PS2 was arounf Â£180 (i think) when it was first released...

In fact thats brilliant! whern you consider that the Xbox 360 (premium) is retailing at Â£279.99

so its not "mega expensive" after all

Post by **CronoTriggerfan** » Thu May 04, 2006 12:20 pm

Nicholai wrote:
CronoTriggerfan wrote:Okay, I'll settle this right now. The only thing keeping Sony ahead of the game is one thing: Fanboyism. You get people who call themselves "gamers", but the only game they've ever played is the new Madden or the occasional Halo. These video game "fads" have come and gone before, and as soon as this one leaves, the hardcore gamers (like myself) will take control of the market once again, as we did in the SNES "golden ages". Companies like Nintendo and Square-Enix will profit big time, whereas EA will crumble. So it really distills down to what games are better: Square or Nintendo?
So if I buy a PS3 and Madden, I'm a fanboy, but if I buy the Wii and emulate older games, I'm hardcore?

Logic is a bit flawed, bud.

Too bad you're not competent to understand my logic without twisting it. Oh, I forgot; you're too impulsive to think things through before you start typing! This is NOT what I implied, and you know it. I referred to the SNES as the "golden age" because it is defined as this; it wasn't plagued with fanboyism like today. You can certainly play Madden and not be a fanboy; but if all you play is Madden (or Halo, God of War, you know; the games EVERYONE plays because they are just "following the crowd") then yes, you are a fanboy. Not twisted logic, just saying one must be devoted. You'd understand if you've ever beaten some good, story-driven RPGs and come away with a deeper understanding of something.

CTFan

Post by **SpongeBuell** » Thu May 04, 2006 1:09 pm

Nicholai wrote:
Skyone wrote:Ahem;

I will be happy if the PS3 is $400, but it will be bad for game developers because each console statistically takes $1,000 to make. So, I think the PS3 will stay 'round $600.
If you think Sony doesn't have the resources to back up their price tag, rethink.

Sony is a corporation. The aim of a corporation is to make money. Don't get me wrong, I'm perfectly familiar with the "lose on one, profit on the other" theory (fast food companies making money off of fries and drink, printer companies making money on cartriges) but let's try doing the math...

Let's say that $25 goes to Sony for every game made. This is probably a huge overestimate, so the situation is probably even worse than I'm making it to be. Now, if it costs $1,000 to make a PS3, and it's sold for $400, that's a $600 loss. To make up that money, that means there would have to be 24 games sold for each system (or controllers, I suppose) Sorry, but I don't think that's going to happen. Those with more than 24 games generally have a lot of those discount games, where the game itself is probably $20 or less. Plus, like I said, $25 to Sony per game is probably too much, so it will probably need an even higher game:system ratio. Even if it has the resources, it sure isn't the smart thing to do.

Edit: oh yeah, 24 games at $50 each to the consumer = $1200 in games, probably not likely

NES_fanatic · Post by **NES_fanatic** » Thu May 04, 2006 1:11 pm

This is getting inflammitory. Let's not get this thread locked or I'll have nowhere to take on the next stupid thing someone says.