Which CONSOLE!?

[sabretooth]

that is hot

but i'm still picking up a nintendo

i've yet to have technical difficulties with a nintendo

ps2 massive trauma in the replacment dept

not so much for xbox but i should not have to worry wether or not my system will crap out in less than a year

hopefully these new systems will actually remedy the horrendous qc issues that has been of late

but that's just me

[Black Valkyrie]

All these reports about Rev. vs PS3 vs Xbox360, starting to get sick from all this hype and in the end opposite will happen from these news reports.

Well its better that I still stick with my GBA-SP unit and may be Indeed I`ll take an N-R cuz of it retro`s .

PS: Just played Zelda DX overall 7 out of 10 cuz of ...

[Wes]

You all have come up with a good point, maybe without noticing it. Price of the system will be important, and they're most often sold at a loss, but how much of a loss can the companies afford?

Now, each company makes their profits from the licensing fees per copy for the games on their systems. Let's just say this is $10 bucks. I'm going to throw in another guess and say that the casual gamer will buy 10 games througout the life of the system. No, that may be too low, because I think they would own the system for about 5 years, they would want more than 2 games per year. Let's say 15 games, 3 per year. I'm also going to assume that there are not enough of the intensive type gamer like mikeszekely described himself eariler to be, who plays videogames during most of their free-time. That seems to be the opinion of everyone here, who say that casual gamers are driving the industry. So under this assumption, the companies would be able to easily price their systems at $100 dollars below cost and still make $50 in profit for each system. Given that the PS2 has sold close to 100 million systems, this could net them nearly a billion a year from the PS2. Assuming that the R&D cost get paid off and the manufacturing cost go down over the life of the system, I think the $50 profit thing could still remain for those who buy the system late into the generation.

This is where Nintendo's setup really helps them out. Let's say that the game developers make twice the game's licensing costs in profits, in my example $20. Well, Nintendo is considered the best game maker out there (except by those loser Square-Enix fanboys... ). Everyone who buys their systems tend therefore buys alot of their games. They don't have to pay licensing fees, so that money can go right into their pockets, hence they make $30 bucks per game. They can therefore sell just 5 of their games to their customers (which I bet they do easily) and take the same systerm-price-hit as the rest of them. Due to this fact, there is no reason to believe they're going anywhere soon. I can't think of who does Sony's 1st-party work, if anyone does. I know Microsoft owns Rare now, do they own Bungie as well, or are they 2nd party? Any others?

I haven't been able to find any specific profit info related to the systems for the companies, much less how much they charge in license costs and how many games they sell per year. If anyone could get this info, it might give a better picture as to good price ranges for the new systems.

Edited July 21, 2005 by Wes

[JB0]

You all have come up with a good point, maybe without noticing it.  Price of the system will be important, and they're most often sold at a loss, but how much of a loss can the companies afford?

Actually, they're usually sold at a slight profit.

PS2 launched at a loss, but started making profit as Sony got the production streamlined and chip yields up.

XBox has sold at a loss its entire life, but MS doesn't care. They can and do subsidize it with their PC OS profits. MS isn't here for profit, they're here to expand market share. Modern business logic says that if a company isn't expanding, it is dying. With the PC boom having died down MS lacks room to expand their primary business. With WebTV and UltimateTV being dismal failures, they HAVE to subsidize the XBox.

Saturn fell INTO selling at a loss while trying to keep up with the PS1 price.

[mikeszekely]

And, not only has the Xbox been consistantly sold at a loss, the entire Xbox division has been operating at a loss... whatever they're taking in on licensing isn't offsetting their operating costs. (Frankly, I suspect that Microsoft probably has the lowest licensing fees of the three, to attract more companies into developing for the Xbox).

Don't get me wrong, Wes, I think there's something to what you're saying, and I think that's a big reason why Sony's in the game. Sony is definately making money playing this game. Likewise, even with Nintendo's tiny share of the console market, Nintendo is definately bringing in the dollars, yen, and euros. And, although it certainly hasn't paid off for Microsoft yet, nor will that likely be the case with the 360, they've done a better job establishing themselves than anyone would have dreamed of five years ago. If Microsoft continues to play their cards right, there's a good chance the Xbox division will run in the black eventually.

[Black Valkyrie]

Download :

PS3: Mobile Suit Gundam :

http://www.jeux-france.com/downloads4127.html

PS3 : Resident Evil 5 :

http://www.jeux-france.com/downloads4121.html

[Gaijin]

Wow. This should mean all the 3rd party developers will have access to all that right off the bat.

http://www.tomshardware.com/hardnews/20050721_140938.html

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/635/635492p1.html

And this doesn't hurt either:

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/635/635494p1.html

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/635/635488p1.html

Makes for a tasty SDK that will help the smaller companies make better games and survive, and less money spent on licensing engines and what not.

And...check out Factor 5's footage of Lair which they have labeled as "entirely in game footage":

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/635/635510p1.html

The next gen of consoles is gonna be good!!!

Edited July 22, 2005 by Gaijin

[Gunbuster]

i don't understand, why did sony get two physics engines? one is Ageia's physics engine and the other Havok. I know Ageia is a chip while Havok is software, but wouldn't those two engine conflict with each other?

[Gaijin]

i don't understand, why did sony get two physics engines? one is Ageia's physics engine and the other Havok. I know Ageia is a chip while Havok is software, but wouldn't those two engine conflict with each other? 

313103[/snapback]

All of it is included in the developers kit...this means small companies won't have to pay extra to use these engines, and the support that comes with it.

Aegia has a chip but it's the software that was licensed (that basically make up the Unreal 3 engine) and will be in the SDK...along with Havok's and SN systems software makes a nice suite of stuff available to developers right as soon as they get an SDK.

There are 360 games that use Aegia's software but each developer pays out of their pocket to Aegia for it. Sony is including this in the SDK so they have it to use without paying extra for it (and for all the PS3 games sold, Aegia is going to get a royalty...if someone doesn't buy them now, they'll be worth a LOT more in a year or so).

Bottom line means even the smaller, poorer, or ahem (crap) developers have a shot at making a better game than before using the "good stuff".

This is very promising news...better than any specs battle.

Edited July 22, 2005 by Gaijin

[Druna Skass]

So essentialy Sony has just reduced the cost to develope games for it's console?

What does this mean for the consumer, we're not going to have to pay more than $50 for a game would we?

[JB0]

So essentialy Sony has just reduced the cost to develope games for it's console?

What does this mean for the consumer, we're not going to have to pay more than $50 for a game would we?

313280[/snapback]

Hypothetically, it means more diversity on the shelves, as more companies can afford to make games.

As we learned with the move to disks, any promise that game costs will be reduced is, ultimately, bullshit.

Edited July 22, 2005 by JB0

[Druna Skass]

As we learned with the move to disks, any promise that game costs will be reduced is, ultimately, bullshit.

313281[/snapback]

Yeah but are we going to be paying more than $50 per game?

[JB0]

As we learned with the move to disks, any promise that game costs will be reduced is, ultimately, bullshit.

313281[/snapback]

Yeah but are we going to be paying more than $50 per game?

313283[/snapback]

Quite likely not. I'm sure Sony heard everyone's hissy fit when they started talking abotu bumping prices.

If we are, it'll only be on the guaranteed sale stuff. You know, sports titles, FF, and GTA.

[mikeszekely]

So essentialy Sony has just reduced the cost to develope games for it's console?

What does this mean for the consumer, we're not going to have to pay more than $50 for a game would we?

I'm sure any reduction in the cost of development will be offset by the fact that Blu-Ray discs are supposed to cost up to $10 more per disc than standard DVD-9s.

Seriously, you had to figure there's a reason why Blu-Ray hasn't won out over HD-DVD.

Quite likely not. I'm sure Sony heard everyone's hissy fit when they started talking abotu bumping prices.

If we are, it'll only be on the guaranteed sale stuff. You know, sports titles, FF, and GTA.

Don't forget that initial, "It's a new system and you just gotta get the GAMES!" rush that had $40 DS games and still has $50 PSP games.

[Zentrandude]

guess you can say as disk has more space and is getting cheaper, game devlopers need to hire more programmers to fill that space up and keep the cost of making a game high enough to keep the price per disk at a premium.

[JB0]

guess you can say as disk has more space and is getting cheaper, game devlopers need to hire more programmers to fill that space up and keep the cost of making a game high  enough to keep the price per disk at a premium.

313324[/snapback]

It's got nothing to do with space.

Star Ocean 3 isn't running any more than FF10, even though one's got twice as much space(and twice as much media costs, for that matter).

Disk games are almost pure profit.

The cheap games we were promised with the SegaCD, PlayStation, and Saturn never materialized. The companies rapidly realized that they could charge the same as for a ROM cartridge, and pocket massively more profit than they could by reducing prices and selling more units.

...

Well, this isn't totally true. They DO reduce the price once sales start dropping off.

But we were always lead to believe that games would be 20-30$ BEFORE they were dropped to the bargin bin, not that they'd be re-released after their first run had been finished.

[mikeszekely]

guess you can say as disk has more space and is getting cheaper, game devlopers need to hire more programmers to fill that space up and keep the cost of making a game high enough to keep the price per disk at a premium.

Except that most discs aren't full. 95% of the PS2 games out there are on DVD-5s. And then there's games like Lego Star Wars, at around 650mb, which was released on CD-ROM for the PS2, but naturally on DVD for Xbox.

Disk games are almost pure profit.

The cheap games we were promised with the SegaCD, PlayStation, and Saturn never materialized. The companies rapidly realized that they could charge the same as for a ROM cartridge, and pocket massively more profit than they could by reducing prices and selling more units.

True... and false. While it is true that optical discs cost nearly nothing it the way of materials, development costs are on the rise. The more advanced the hardware, the more staff is needed to crank out your average game for said hardware to release the game in a timely fashion.

Likewise, while I didn't own a Sega CD or a Saturn and can't really comment much on the prices of those games, PlayStation games WERE cheaper. $50 for a PlayStation CD-ROM was less than the $60 SNES and $75 N64 cartridges that were competing for shelf space.

[yellowlightman]

Likewise, while I didn't own a Sega CD or a Saturn and can't really comment much on the prices of those games, PlayStation games WERE cheaper.  $50 for a PlayStation CD-ROM was less than the $60 SNES and $75 N64 cartridges that were competing for shelf space.

313346[/snapback]

Waaah!? N64 games were $75?

[mikeszekely]

Likewise, while I didn't own a Sega CD or a Saturn and can't really comment much on the prices of those games, PlayStation games WERE cheaper.  $50 for a PlayStation CD-ROM was less than the $60 SNES and $75 N64 cartridges that were competing for shelf space.

313346[/snapback]

Waaah!? N64 games were $75?

313354[/snapback]

For a time, yeah. I remember paying that much for Perfect Dark and WWF No Mercy.

[Gaijin]

So essentialy Sony has just reduced the cost to develope games for it's console?

What does this mean for the consumer, we're not going to have to pay more than $50 for a game would we?

313280[/snapback]

In a sense yes, but that doesn't mean that we see the savings....it means that smaller developers can use a better engine than some cracker ass one they made themselves and that means theoretically a chance at a better game.

I think we'll see $60 360 and PS3 games though...if people buy 360 games at $60 this year, then people will pay $60 PS3 games next year.

**I recall $100 + Super Famicom games as well as $99 Virtua Racing and Phantasy Star IV in the US. It sucked but, I also used to drop $250 for Neo Geo Carts (and even though it's crazy...that Neo was one of the most fun systems I had...everyone loved it).

Edited July 23, 2005 by Gaijin

[JB0]

Disk games are almost pure profit.

The cheap games we were promised with the SegaCD, PlayStation, and Saturn never materialized. The companies rapidly realized that they could charge the same as for a ROM cartridge, and pocket massively more profit than they could by reducing prices and selling more units.

True... and false. While it is true that optical discs cost nearly nothing it the way of materials, development costs are on the rise. The more advanced the hardware, the more staff is needed to crank out your average game for said hardware to release the game in a timely fashion.

Likewise, while I didn't own a Sega CD or a Saturn and can't really comment much on the prices of those games, PlayStation games WERE cheaper. $50 for a PlayStation CD-ROM was less than the $60 SNES and $75 N64 cartridges that were competing for shelf space.

313346[/snapback]

If I recall, the usual SNES game was 50, though.

Saturn prices were about even with PS prices on the software side, as I recall.

I'm PRETTY sure SegaCD games were similar, though I was a Nintendo fanboy at the time.

And the N64 prices I've always chalked up to Nintendo trying to get something approaching the profit margins their CD-based competitors were getting. As I recall they gave it up and went back to 50$ games fairly fast.

[Skull Leader]

And the N64 prices I've always chalked up to Nintendo trying to get something approaching the profit margins their CD-based competitors were getting. As I recall they gave it up and went back to 50$ games fairly fast.

313385[/snapback]

That's probably the case, because except for a few select games, the N64 drowned pretty quickly in the sea made by it's competitors (the Saturn and the Playstation). The system certainly held on (how I don't know), but I think they lost some of their spark somewhere in there. Wasn't Nintendo sorta going through an identity crisis at that point anyway? I really don't recall (Nintendo lost me after the SNES), but I seem to remember that they pretty much decided their target audience was the younger kids and released games accordingly (I know games for older crowds were released, but not to the frequency the other systems were). Anyone recall this better?

Edited July 23, 2005 by Skull Leader

[JB0]

And the N64 prices I've always chalked up to Nintendo trying to get something approaching the profit margins their CD-based competitors were getting. As I recall they gave it up and went back to 50$ games fairly fast.

313385[/snapback]

That's probably the case, because except for a few select games, the N64 drowned pretty quickly in the sea made by it's competitors (the Saturn and the Playstation). The system certainly held on (how I don't know), but I think they lost some of their spark somewhere in there. Wasn't Nintendo sorta going through an identity crisis at that point anyway? I really don't recall (Nintendo lost me after the SNES), but I seem to remember that they pretty much decided their target audience was the younger kids and released games accordingly (I know games for older crowds were released, but not to the frequency the other systems were). Anyone recall this better?

313400[/snapback]

It wasn't that they actively targetted younger children as much as the people that owned N64s tended to be younger children. Mom and dad remembered Nintendo as being kid-friendly, so they got N64s. Older kids specifically asked for PlayStations or Saturns, because they remembered Nintendo as the thing they played when they were younger kids.

[Gaijin]

Disk games are almost pure profit.

The cheap games we were promised with the SegaCD, PlayStation, and Saturn never materialized. The companies rapidly realized that they could charge the same as for a ROM cartridge, and pocket massively more profit than they could by reducing prices and selling more units.

True... and false. While it is true that optical discs cost nearly nothing it the way of materials, development costs are on the rise. The more advanced the hardware, the more staff is needed to crank out your average game for said hardware to release the game in a timely fashion.

Likewise, while I didn't own a Sega CD or a Saturn and can't really comment much on the prices of those games, PlayStation games WERE cheaper. $50 for a PlayStation CD-ROM was less than the $60 SNES and $75 N64 cartridges that were competing for shelf space.

313346[/snapback]

If I recall, the usual SNES game was 50, though.

Saturn prices were about even with PS prices on the software side, as I recall.

I'm PRETTY sure SegaCD games were similar, though I was a Nintendo fanboy at the time.

And the N64 prices I've always chalked up to Nintendo trying to get something approaching the profit margins their CD-based competitors were getting. As I recall they gave it up and went back to 50$ games fairly fast.

313385[/snapback]

Sega CD Games were in the $50 range. Ah, Sega CD...mine still works and it had some of the coolest games surrounded by some of the crappiest fmv titles around. Final Fight CD is a gem...though the upcoming capcom collection will have it so maybe I can finally get rid of it.

[JB0]

Disk games are almost pure profit.

The cheap games we were promised with the SegaCD, PlayStation, and Saturn never materialized. The companies rapidly realized that they could charge the same as for a ROM cartridge, and pocket massively more profit than they could by reducing prices and selling more units.

True... and false. While it is true that optical discs cost nearly nothing it the way of materials, development costs are on the rise. The more advanced the hardware, the more staff is needed to crank out your average game for said hardware to release the game in a timely fashion.

Likewise, while I didn't own a Sega CD or a Saturn and can't really comment much on the prices of those games, PlayStation games WERE cheaper. $50 for a PlayStation CD-ROM was less than the $60 SNES and $75 N64 cartridges that were competing for shelf space.

313346[/snapback]

If I recall, the usual SNES game was 50, though.

Saturn prices were about even with PS prices on the software side, as I recall.

I'm PRETTY sure SegaCD games were similar, though I was a Nintendo fanboy at the time.

And the N64 prices I've always chalked up to Nintendo trying to get something approaching the profit margins their CD-based competitors were getting. As I recall they gave it up and went back to 50$ games fairly fast.

313385[/snapback]

Sega CD Games were in the $50 range. Ah, Sega CD...mine still works and it had some of the coolest games surrounded by some of the crappiest fmv titles around. Final Fight CD is a gem...though the upcoming capcom collection will have it so maybe I can finally get rid of it.

313492[/snapback]

SegaCD was what snuck the Genesis into my house.

Lunar and Lunar 2 were the "ONLY good games" the Genesis had, but even a Nintendo fanboy had to respect them.

LUCIAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!

[mikeszekely]

If I recall, the usual SNES game was 50, though.

Maybe some of them were. I can't recall, because I was in middle school at the time. They could have been $20 and been out of my price range.

I do definitavily remember Final Fantasy III retailing for $60, though.

[JB0]

If I recall, the usual SNES game was 50, though.

Maybe some of them were. I can't recall, because I was in middle school at the time. They could have been $20 and been out of my price range.

I do definitavily remember Final Fantasy III retailing for $60, though.

313499[/snapback]

Thought FF3 was 70$.

Either way, it was exceptional. The RPGs commanded a higher price than the normal games, likely due to the extra ROM needed and smaller market(while not exactly a slacker, FF3 was no Super Metroid, and Nintendo knew it).

Let's see...

A '94 release would've put me... I think I'd just entered Jr. High.

I was young enough that I was still closely tracking things I couldn't afford(ironically, the money I spent on game magazines would have bought me several ACTUAL games...).

[Black Valkyrie]

Remember Street Fighter II I had to pay 100$ for it and I was happy but upset at same time cuz price and it had boarders on screen

As FF3 I wanted to get but I stopped buying high price carts. They only RPG`s I played on my SNES first was Breath of Fire-I, couldn`t complete it cuz it has bugs especially when you buy certain items, when use`em in battles it turns out to be not the items you bought and I`ve repeated the game twice and the same thing. Second was Zelda-III but very late I think it was Fall 98 and that one very simple a master piece

Edited July 23, 2005 by Black Valkyrie

[Black Valkyrie]

Any idea when the Xbox360 show is held in Japan cuz I read there are going to be some surprises from Sega like Afterburner and Panzer Dragoon.

[JB0]

Remember Street Fighter II I had to pay 100$ for it and I was happy but upset at same time cuz price and it had boarders on screen     

As FF3 I wanted to get but I stopped buying high price carts. They only RPG`s I played on my SNES first was Breath of Fire-I, couldn`t complete it cuz it has bugs especially when you buy certain items, when use`em in battles it turns out to be not the items you bought    and I`ve repeated the game twice and the same thing.  Second was Zelda-III but very late I think it was Fall 98 and that one very simple a master piece 

313505[/snapback]

Ah, Breath of Fire. Such a legendary localization effort.

*insert rant about the diffrence between action-adventure and RPG*

[Black Valkyrie]

I know Zelda is an Action/RPG, forgot to type it

[yellowlightman]

For a time, yeah.  I remember paying that much for Perfect Dark and WWF No Mercy.

313357[/snapback]

The MSRP was in the $49.99-$59.99 range, but certainly no more than that unless you're talking about mark-ups.

EDIT: Damn, now I'm not sure. Had another friend tell me it was in the $70 range. Now I'm really curious because I definately don't remember it being that expensive when it was originally released. Hrmm...

Edited July 24, 2005 by yellowlightman

[Radd]

I had an N64 from the get go, and I never paid more than $59.99 for a game.

[JB0]

I know Zelda is an Action/RPG, forgot to type it 

313515[/snapback]

Action-ADVENTURE.

It's got as much RPG in it as Metroid or Megaman X.

Which is to say, not one byte.

[mikeszekely]

I know Zelda is an Action/RPG, forgot to type it 

313515[/snapback]

Action-ADVENTURE.

It's got as much RPG in it as Metroid or Megaman X.

Which is to say, not one byte.

313528[/snapback]

Unless you mean Command Mission.