f13.net

http://www.theage.com.au/news/articles/sony-cuts-ps3-price-by-a-third/2007/10/08/1191695789355.html


Sony cuts PS3 price by a third
Asher Moses
October 8, 2007 - 12:07PM

Sony hopes a new cut-down version of the Playstation 3, set to hit store shelves on Thursday, will make the console more affordable for Christmas shoppers.

The new model is priced at $699.95 but will not be compatible with Playstation 2 games, lacks a memory card reader and reduces the number of USB ports from four to two. But the biggest change sees the hard drive shrunk from 60GB to 40GB.

The existing 60GB model, which sells for $999, will be phased out, said Sony's local managing director Michael Ephraim.

While the announcement brings the PS3's price tag closer to earth, the console still attracts a price premium.

In August, Microsoft trimmed the price of the Xbox 360 Pro from $649 to $579.95, while the cut-down Core version now sells for $399.95, the same price as a Nintendo Wii.

But PS3 buyers enjoy the benefit of additional non-gaming features such as a built-in Blu-ray movie player and integrated support for wireless networks.

The Wii doesn't support movie playback; Xbox 360 owners need to buy a $249.95 external HD DVD player to enable support for next-generation movies, while an adapter for wireless networking costs $169.95.

"The PS3 is by far, when you compare apples and apples, cheaper than Xbox," Mr Ephraim said.

The move by Sony has been interpreted as a response to relatively lacklustre PS3 console sales stemming from the high $999 price tag, which locked out many gamers.

According to third-quarter sales figures from market-watcher GfK, the PS3 was the poorest performer for the period, shifting just 27,533 units in Australia.

The Xbox 360 and Nintendo Wii sold 40,467 and 61,027 units respectively, while the PS2 continues to blitz the market with sales of 66,228 units.

Mr Ephraim acknowledged there would be some controversy over Sony's decision to remove PS2 backwards compatibility, but said Sony research showed most PS3 buyers were not using the console to play the legacy games.

He said any PS3 buyers who still wanted to play PS2 games could do so on their existing PS2 console. Over two million PS2 consoles have been sold in Australia to date.

"This is just us saying that the device is a very advanced device and we need to look at the future of what we can offer on it, and not be tied down by the past," he said.

"There has been extensive research and people that have PS3s are just not playing a lot of PS2 games."

Mr Ephraim said he was pleased with the PS3's sales to date - 82,261 units - but said it was misleading to compare the figures with sales of the cheaper Wii console, which has sold 167,899 units since its launch.

Rather, he said the similarly-priced PS2, with its range of family-friendly titles like Singstar and the quiz game Buzz, was a more accurate benchmark.

He congratulated Microsoft on the "great release" of Halo 3 but said: "My question for Microsoft would be, what's after Halo? We think there's a void in any other kind of offering for the Xbox."

He was adamant the exclusive PS3 title Haze, a first-person shooter game to be released in November, would be solid competition for Halo 3 in the lead-up to Christmas.

This is interesting.

Who is this guy?

I'm not sure. Some fucking idiot who's either in charge of something over here, or in charge of talking to the press over here.

I was under the impression that the new PS3s were going to be using software emulation for PS2 compatability, rather then just fucking it right off as this dickhead indicates. Same deal with the lack of memory card slots in the "new" model, which is WTF territory.

At this rate, I won't ever be getting a PS3, as opposed to simply "later".

Just get a 60 gb. Better deal anyway.

For a thousand bucks, they can suck my cock.

Or to put it another way, a PS3 won't ever me worth that much to me.

Sony's local managing director, who is apparently an idiot or a mouthpiece. Although, to be fair to Mr. Eprhaim, I've seen press releases from other regions that have said almost the exact same thing, which means there's a lot of copy-paste journalism going on with this story.

Oh, and bullshitting.

I have a hard time understanding how a system that has triggered a lot of apathetic responses from people around here can also incite an equal amount of outrage.

Make up your minds! What the hell is it? "Meh, Sony" or "Fuck you, Sony!"

The ps2 emulation seems insane to drop. I've used my ps3 as much for ps2 games and blu-ray movies as I have ps3 games. Dropping the hardware emu I can understand, but the software?

I saw the same thing spewn forth in a EU press release, so I guess it's true. Fuckhead move though.

A lot of people who are apathetic about the PS3 now, still planned on buying one eventually after the price dropped enough and some decent games got released.  As I saw someone state elsewhere, Sony's message with the PS3 seems to be "Buy it now before we remove more shit".

Why can't it be both? I'm Meh on the actual system and games itself, and fuck you on the insane pricing, arrogant attitude and complete hubris of Sony. I'm more upset at 3rd party developers who look down their noses at the Wii because it doesn't have HD than I am upset at Sony for being arrogant dickheads.

It's not just because it has HD Haemish.

It's because they're competing with Nintendo's software.

You don't compete with Nintendo, not since the SNES era.

*blink*  So, 4 changes:

• Removed ability to play hundreds of games
• Removed memory card reader for said games
• Removed half the USB ports
• Reduced HD from 60GB to 40GB

And they claim the biggest change is the hard drive reduction?  The Age appears to be a mainstream press, not a gaming/technology specific one, so they get a bit of a break... but come on.

--
Alkiera

They compete with Nintendo all the time on the DS.  Besides that, it would seem to be fairly easy to compete with Nintendo.  Don't release your FPS game around the same time as Metroid Prime game is releasing, don't release a fighting game around the one time each gen that a Smash Bros. game is released, don't do party games, and try not to release anything around the time a new Mario or Zelda game comes out.  Aside from that, 3rd parties have a hell of a lot less competition on the Wii than they should be used to after putting out games on the PS2 (where a number of good games have gotten completely overlooked due to the sheer amount of competition).

They don't have less competition on the Wii. The attach rate sucks balls. As Marc Rein said, you're fighting over scraps. Websites are claiming he was talking about engines - I call bullshit on that assumption.

I was never ever referring to portables. Though, PSP games have better margin for companies than DS games. I was, in fact, discussing this exact point with a DS and PSP publisher the other day.

Because nobody is releasing good games.  It's a chicken and the egg argument, unless you're going to argue that there are great games on the Wii right now that people just aren't buying.

No, Nintendo is releasing the games everyone wants. Everyone else is still trying to figure out what the fuck to do with 2 Gamecubes stuck together with waggle now that they've made the decision to deal with such a thing.

We've seen the third party future for the system. It's the Gamecube part 2. That's just the reality of it.

I'm just happy with a few good shmups and killer 7-2 No More Heroes by the end of it's lifecycle.

The reality of it is that good games, with good marketing would sell on the Wii, regardless of competition from Nintendo.  It happened all the time back in the days of the NES and the SNES.  3rd parties only jumped ship after Nintendo pissed away all of its market share with the N64 and GC, and they got caught with their pants down this time around with everyone expecting the Wii to come in dead last again, and for the PS3 to have a much stronger release.

The Wii's biggest drawback to attracting 3rd party developers now, is that most companies are going multi-platform (even Square Enix, who have typically only supported one console per gen, are saying multi-platform is the way of the future), the Wii obviously can't handle the stuff that's being made for the 360 and PS3, and customers aren't going to accept inferior ports (like Madden).

Oh, and Ousama Monogatari (King Story, Project O, or whatever you want to call it) looks better than No More Heroes.

If the Wii had a regular controller and did this well, we'd be looking at the new SNES. No question and I'd be a supporter.

It doesn't.

It has the Cthulhu of controllers. Some multi-tentacled device that just unleashes horror on the world. Ironically, THIS is why it's popular. Fucking Tennis, Baseball and Minigames.

Yea, Project O and No More Heroes. I was making a Killer 7 Joke though. Sure, there'll be 10-15 quality games on the Wii that are third party. JUST LIKE THE GAMECUBE.

Maybe my point wasn't clear enough last time.

It's somewhat clear.  I just disagree with the notion that 3rd parties can't compete with Nintendo.  They can, but it just wasn't worth it on the N64 and GC and everyone seems clueless as to what to make of the current gen, so it's become multi-platform games for 360 and PS3 (aside from the few key exclusives Sony and MS bought), and throw some side games on to the Wii and handhelds.

Wait, someone is gouging us on a gaming device? I am shocked. I am also looking forward to paying twice as much as amaericans on gaming devices and software once our dollars are the same. Did you know that the Aussie dollar is worth ~.9 US dollars but we still pay twice as much anyway? Yeah it's a funny world.

As I understand it the australian PS3's have always had software based PS2 emulation which had fairly poor success. I guess they've just given up on actually making it work. It seems too stupid on their part to intentionally remove even partial support for such a huge back catalog of games on a console that's starved for games.

I'm waiting for the day when the $AUS is equal to the $US and we are still paying $90 for games and $700 for an Xbox 360 pack. Someone will be making out like a bandit that day.

I went into EB Games the other day to get Bioshock for the PC - $90.  So I walked home, hopped onto Steam, and picked it up for $50US (bout $55Aussie).  Thanks plummeting US dollar!

With PS2 compatability, it's "Meh, Sony". (aka, I'll get it later)

Without it, it's "Fuck you, Sony!" (aka, Fuck you, Sony!)

clearer?


edit after reading full thread - yes. I'm loving the new exchange rate. Most of my disposable income is going directly overseas to various vendors. Support local businesses middlemen? Fuck that.

Not really clearer, no. Sorry! :) I could understand expressing a little disappointment, especially if you planned on getting one soon, but that doesn't seem to be the case. You were going to wait awhile for a better PS3 game catalog, a cheaper pricetag, and when HDTV's became a little more ubiquitous -- and I say to that: If you were going to hold out that long, then PS2 compability isn't going to mean much by then anyways. Just like PS1 compatibility on PS2's hasn't meant much for years now. Don't sweat it.

It's like what I told Jain Zar in that other thread.. That dude said he didn't plan on getting a PS3 until it hit 200 bucks -- yet he wanted to express outrage at the lack of PS2 compatibility now. And that's just ridiculous to me. By the time it hits $200, it'll be 2012 at best -- And by that time, even PS3 games will seem dated by then, let alone PS2 games. Not having the ability to play them will certainly not be something to get all fussy about at the very least. Besides that, PS2's will probably cost 10 dollars by then anyways, if it's that important to have one.

This isn't to say that I'm playing down PS2 compatibility now. I'm not. That's a big reason why I bought one *already*.

I still play PS1 games on my PS2.

Everything I've read says the attach rate is higher than the PS3. The only difference is that the PS3 devs can all focus on a smaller segment of interests, while the Wii has gathered a larger set of people who aren't necessarily all interested in the same old genres. It takes more thought to make something for the Wii, and most devs are too fucking lazy to even bother. EA Sports is a perfect example of this. Both the Madden and the FIFA games for this year are crippled in comparison to other versions. Madden has no roster downloads and no support whatsoever and FIFA has removed the Manager Mode apparently. That's half-assing it. A good bit of the games that some of the developers have released have been lazy-ass shovelware like Far Cry, or Spider-Man 3 or Marvel Ultimate Alliance. Mark Rein can say that he'd be fighting over scraps because his genre targets people who WOULD buy a PS3. He just forgets that people who buy the Wii might also be interested.

As for competing with Nintendo, they don't have to. That's another lazy excuse. Devs just don't want to program for a game that doesn't have the latest shiny. I've seen it in PC game development for years, and it's the same assholes making the same excuses. It's somehow beneath them.

The bolded part is retarded for at least two reasons.

Wait, aren't they just going to phase out the 60, upgrade that with an 80 --- and now that they've phased out the 20, there will be this 40 gig version in place of that?

Basically, there will now be 80 and 40 versions, right? Why is that bad?

I don't really think it's bad, having a Good and Bargain PS3 on the shelves.  There are a lot of people who want to continue playing their PS2 games, and you might expect these people are a bit more serious about games just based on having that concern so they will probably want the Fancy PS3.  Then there are people that don't give a shit about BC or don't have a significant PS2 library, and they are not as likely to want to pay a lot of cash for a console in the first place.  The only way this would suck is if they stopped selling the Fancy PS3.

I don't get why they didn't drop wireless LAN.

I don't see why it would be a suprise that it gets half baked crap. The demographic Nintendo is aiming for isn't really the sophisticated gamer.

I'm one of them. I didn't mean to make it sound like I was downplaying PS2 BC. That was a factor in why I bought one already. I'm just questioning the outrage here. Very few ever expressed an opinion about it before, and just went on and on about how they were gonna hold out for a better PS3 catalog and whatnot years down the road. Now all of the sudden they're super pissed about it.


It's the way of the future!

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v231/lonestar627/Misc/aviator.jpg)

That doesn't mean they don't like sophisticated games. 3rd party Wii devs are for the most part being insulting shitbags right now. They either want to make licensed kids crap, or shovel titles over on the system from other systems with waggle added as an afterthought, or they think the only thing people want is mini-games. People who should know better are throwing good money away developing shit.

Me too, the removal of it makes me less inclined to get a PS3, but isn't this Europe only? are am i reading this wrong?

That's because Wii owners will buy licensed kid crap and shoveled titles because they don't know anything about games and went for the cheapest option. If I were a developer, I'd be shoveling shitty mini-games to it also.

It's easy when the bulk of your fanbase is gibbering retards.

Gibbering retards like games too. They may even like more sophisticated games if the developers give them half a chance instead of shoveling turds down their throat while masturbating to pixel shader specs.

Maybe you missed my point.

There's no reason to spend money on making sophisticated games for gibbering retards. They'll make maybe 20% more with 100-400% more investment just on the development end. It's not business savvy. Throw some shitty minigames on a disc, put a fucking cartoon character on the cover. Spend all your money on publishing it at a clever time avoiding Nintendo shit. Wear money hat.

The Wii did just lock down Monster Hunter 3 as an exclusive though.

NOW STRIKE ME DOWN AND YOUR CONVERSION WILL BE COMPLETE!

Don't fuck with my Wiightsaber.

Where do you feel WoW falls in the midst of "PC game development for years"?

Not to have the ultra-mega-derail or anything.

I know if a game came out that featured Anakin Skywalker killing the fuck out of some sand people with a WiiMoteSaber, I'd have to buy it for my girlfriend. It would for sure be business time that night.


Is anyone else not more surprised that the 360 isn't pulling away from the pack more at this stage of the game? Medium price point, decent game selection? Apart from the one in three 360s is unusable argument, which I think MS handled pretty damn well letting anyone send it back who wanted, I don't know why 360 sales aren't doing better than they are. I keep telling myself that I want a PS3 because the PS2 was so great, but I've always been a bang-for-the-buck shopper. I just don't want a 360 that will fry itself in a week and a half of me torturing it.

Of course programmers wants to work on the latest shiny, it's the cutting edge problem solving and tech which makes the profession intresting for a lot of people.

Same goes for artists, more hardware sauce = more polys/higher res textures = more artistic possiblities.

The 360 is doing pretty well in the U.S. and the U.K., it mostly sales in the rest of Europe and in Japan that are slowing it down a bit (and pretty much everyone knew it was never gonna fly in Japan).  You also have to remember that they went well over a year without droping the price, and even this recent price drop wasn't a huge one.

Proof that I'm right.

WoW was low-system specs, low-poly and sold like a goddamn mint. EQ2 came out the same time, was technologically superior and had the higher-res graphics. It also happened to be a better game, which people who played both saw immediately. EQ2 didn't get any real good boosts in numbers until the mainstream MMOG PC users' machines could keep up with it and they improved the gameplay.

Running on more machines means a bigger potential audience, something the EQ2 assholes (and McQuaid and his Vanguard assholes) never understood. Hell, look at Shadowrun on the PC. By all accounts a decent game, but it's DX10 only, Vista-only arrogance killed its sales on the platform. Whereas, if you make that game DX9 compatible on XP as well, it's sales probably would have been enough to keep the studio going.

WoW and the Wii both prove that mainstream gamers don't care about high-poly, high-def game graphics as much as good gameplay.

360 hardware problems are a major sticking point. Nobody wants to deal with having to return a system 5 times.

That's garbage as an overall statement. Plenty of hi-end graphics games with mediocre game experiences sell really well, while games with good gameplay and less then optimal graphics die on the shelf.

Shadowbanerun was a reportedly average game that was released too early into a very small market.

Besides, it's not like WoW and the Wii didn't have millions of dollars in advertising / marketing poured into them to let the world at large know about them. That they were easily accessible after that point just helped some the conversion from awareness to sales. Also, both had huge brands driving them - EQ is nowhere near as well recognised as Warcraft as a gamer brand. Especially outside of the US.

I r retarded - I really should buy an Xbox 360 and have it shipped rather than buy it locally.

Could someone who has followed this better than I have tell me if I import an Xbox 360 am I going to have regionalisation issues with games or with having to return it after it dies?

I can see a few issues to importing a 360 (or any console for that matter).

* PAL/NTSC - I'm guessing this is an issue (tho not certain).
* Power supply - 110v vs 240v
* RROD - Microsoft Australia would surely tell you to GFY if you try to get them to warranty fix a non-Aus release xbox - you'd have to ship to back to USA.
* And finally I'm guessing shipping from US to Aus would eat up a lot of the savings.

I haven't crunched the numbers - but I'm not too confident it would be worth the hassle.

I sure as hell wouldn't ship an xbox360 considering how many people end up with faults. Could you imagine having to send that shit back to the states to get it fixed/replaced?

It's only been officially launched in Europe & Convict-land, but it's already showing up in the stock-control & order systems for most US retailers iirc.

You make a point, but I'll explain why it doesn't work, for me anyway.

The PS2 is the modern SNES. It's the console that has the mostest of the bestest, and quite a lot of other stuff that's still pretty bloody playable.

The main issue for me with PS3 to date is the pricetag. A more robust gaming experience is obviously a bloody important factor as well, but that's more of an issue in tandem with high price (to me) than a major issue of it's own. Back to the PS2 thing, I own more PS2 games than for any other console I have ever owned. Being able to use my PS2 games (and ideally, a few of the PS1 survivors like the Raiden games and some of the Arcade Classics would have been the plan. Not to mention GH1/2/80s. Fucking all of that massive back catalogue off is a pretty dumb move, especially as I get more pressed for space and power points..

The thing about HDTVs for me is that I'm not too worried about them, I'll get one whenever. As I said a few times, my projected time for ownership for a PS3 was going to be this coming Christmas at the earliest, and more then likely by Christmas 2008. I'd likely already own a 360 if I felt I could trust them not to red-ring-brick. More than once I've had the money in my pocket but decided against it. By the same means, if the PS3 wasn't as expensive as it is, I'd own one already. It's just not worth that much to me. I'd pay AU$500 (US$550)for one, probably. AU$1000 (US$1100) is just too fucking much though.

Gutting it and then selling it for AU$700 (US$770) though, they can go fuck themselves.


clearer? ;)

You just described all of the consoles. Ever.

Plus most of the general public.

Oh, I don't disagree. But Wii owners, particularly for people who have never owned a console before, far outpace the retardedness of other fans. At least - at the very least - Xbox and PS3 owners are more informed in general. That might be because it's mostly hardcore gamers. In fact, I'm sure it is. But it's easier to market to hardcore gamers also. So, uhm, yea.

Also,


Developers thinking the same thing as me? Unpossible.

I'll toss out a couple of tidbits for consideration when looking at the PS3.

Firstly, it's region-free; I don't know how this affects the PAL/NTSC thing, honestly, due to not importing one.

Secondly, it does not supprt DualShock 1/2 controllers, nor by extension any other PS2 peripheral due to lack of compatible ports, so unless someone has manufactured a PS3-compatible (or USB perhaps) guitar then I don't see how it would work on a PS3.  For anything else, though, the BC is unmatched... mostly because the old games look better than they did on their primary systems.  The virtual memory cards are something you get used to very quickly, as well.

Gee, developers, who are mostly hardcore gamers, thinking just like one of the most vocal hardcore gamers on the planet.

UNPOSSIBLE!!!!!!

Of course they think like you, that's the problem. They all WANT the Wii bubble to burst because they don't want to program for it. They think it, the system and the people who bought the system ARE BENEATH THEM. That arrogance has already bit them in the ass, when they realized that "Oh shit, this waggle thing is catching on and the $600 Blu-Ray player I want to make games for hasn't sold for shit." Then they made a second arrogant mistake, thinking they could half-ass waggle onto shovelware ports and make money. And then they get pissy and give up on the system AGAIN when those shitty, shovelware ports don't sell because... they are shitty, shovelware ports.

It's a self-fulfilling prophecy of arrogant donkery. Games that are shitty shovelware just thrown out to catch a quick buck don't sell because even casual gamers, even fucking grandmothers who like Wii Tennis, they can spot shitty games. "This isn't as fun as Wii Tennis" isn't an indictment of the hardware, it's an indictment of shitty, lazy-ass, money-grabbing developers.

If the 3rd party devs who are bitching so much about the Wii having shitty games would actually, I don't know, focus on making a GOOD game for whatever audience they want to target, the games would sell. I'm looking at you Activision, UbiSoft and ESPECIALLY EA Sports. You are cockgobblers all. It is you who are the balllickers.

Haemish, poor people, kids and casual gamers DON'T BUY LOTS OF GAMES. And they buy even less once you take Nintendo games out of the equation. Call it arrogance, I call it dodging a motherfucking bullet.

Man, third party games on Nintendo home systems haven't sold well for 2 generations now - and we're already seeing it with this generation - on the Wii.

Everything we're seeing is the natural order of things.

I also think it's a bubble since the Wii is the new Pong.  Some poor kid with only a Wii asks his dad for New Game and dad will probably say "You already got you some games, go play that.  Hell, go outside if yer bored.  Watch Spongebill or something.  I ain't gonna be buyin' you a new game every few months, boy, you got it good...."

Or you have casual people who saw the TV ads and get the Nintendo marketing emails (maybe).  They aren't going to be buying lots of games because it's still easier to get everyone to play Scrabble.  They would have to play the holy shit out of their existing library before buying something new because they are not gamers.  These are also the people that talk about MySims and don't mention the stuttering during the loading screens.  It's because they don't have the proper background to understand that such things are very bad.

In my opinion, Nintendo needs to cut loose completely from the gamer demographic.  The developers don't want to put AAA titles on the Wii and Nintendo doesn't give a shit, obviously.  The publishers, they are the ones that love the Wii because they are businessmen, not gamers.  Nothing wrong with capitalism, though, and whenever I see a studio skip the Wii I get the feeling that they wanted to make a quality game (successful or not) rather than just sell lots of discs.  Nothing wrong with either one, for different reasons, but I'm not expecting the Wii to eventually be flooded with games that I want to play.

But there are a metric fucking shitton of them.

Wrong.  Developer shops are driven by business just as much as publishers are.  Anyone that forgets that winds up being out of business.  No amount of gaming idealism is going to save you from the cold reality that if you don't move disks, you don't get paid.  Paychecks trump idealism.  

OK, let's assume you are right.  How do you explain developers making games for the PSP or PS3?  Or, hell, the 360?

...to make money.

They would make more if they developed for the Wii.

But then, there's also margins. For example, the PSP. The return per disc is simply better. There's a lot of smaller companies making PSP instead of DS games - even in Japan - because of this. Smaller houses have the ability to charge $60 per game now on home consoles. And even Sony is lightening up on restrictions for America. I'm not expecting a 2D revival, but restrictions are much lighter (see: SNK). Anyway, Disgaea 3 will bring in bucketloads for them no matter how you slice it.

Also, lol@yegolev.

For the previous 2 generations, Nintendo treated 3rd party developers as lepers. You know this. Most of those developers said "Fuck the Big N" and left the building, and those developers adopted an attitude of tossing shovelware onto the GameCube. They figured that the Wii was more of the same and refused to believe it could succeed. Now that the system has some success, they still have that same arrogance, and many of the games have been shovelware SHIT. Shit doesn't sell even to gibbering retards.

As for the "casual Wii buyers don't buy games" anyone who buys a game console knows the score. You buy more than 1 game, eventually. And since there are about 4 times more Wii owners than PS3 owners, it takes a whole lot smaller percentage of Wii owners to make a game that will sell comparably to a PS3 game.

Depends on the game. Would a shooter like Resistance or Halo make more money on the Wii? Probably not. It's return on investment would probably be better per unit, because they wouldn't be spending so much on art assets. But I don't expect grandmothers to turn into Halo bitches just because they have a Wii.

I can't think of a single third party short of MEGAHITS that would've pushed units for the fucking Phillips CDI that will make more money on the Wii.

Oh, except for non-games and minigame collections.

Lol, system has been turned into the State Fair of gaming systems. I suppose that's fitting.

Maybe, maybe not.  It depends on the game; a game spec that calls for top end graphics as a selling point isn't going to go on the Wii anymore than a game spec that calls for interactive controlls is going on the 360.  The console tools and demographics are other considerations.  Development costs are considerations.  Future market predictions are considerations.  Over all of this though, is that there is advantage in spreading your risk.  Any of the larger development shops are going to build for multiple platforms, because it bodes well to not put all your eggs in one basket.  If you invest heavily in any one console, there is a risk that the console will slump or the market for that console get flooded with competition, either of which could kill your company.  Lower profits on another console to offset risk can be a good thing.  The same basic logic also applies to game genre; it's often better to spread your risk around.  Beyond that, you're also looking at profit margins, not raw profit, so that even lower units sold may turn out for the best if you can sustain either a higher per unit cost, and/or lower development costs.  Likewise, it's no good making $10m on a game if you spent nearly as much in production and marketing.  Seeing a $5m return on a $3m investment is by far the winner.

Considering the third-party Nintendo games I have played, I think N was right in considering them lepers.

Seriously, though, I don't know how much "working with Nintendo" offsets "cheaper to develop" and "larger install base" but we all know there are barriers.  I can't predict the moneys from putting Halo on Wii, but maybe we can estimate Resistance.  How much money did Medal of Honor: Vanguard rake in?  If you can't sell MoH to morons, you need to stick to WiiFit.

I see where you are going Roac and I agree in general, but I don't see people doing crossplatform between Wii and other consoles.  As far as I can tell, Wii games are Wii games due to the hardware differences.  I certainly can't think of an example of a crossplatform title on, say, Wii and 360.

Rayman Raving Rabbids.

Granted. Minigame collection.

I can think of games released for Wii that would have sold well on 360, but not ones that were released for both.

Interesting card you played there.  I haven't tried this one, but I have to assume there's not much waggling that isn't "waggle up-down = A button, waggle left-right = B button"?  HELLO TWILIGHT PRINCESS.

You know what's funny, no one rags on the Wii for not giving REGULAR controls as an option. (INSERT ZELDA HERE)

Yet Lair got face raped.

Just pointing that out.

Yeah, that is simple though. Lair sucks all together, it is hard to play, the control is poorly implemented.  While Zelda's is only questionable problem is preference on control input. It plays just fine, you just don't like it. 

annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd

There's no alternative.

It's Lair. The exact same fucking sticking point everyone had with Lair. Quality of game was not something I mentioned at ALL.

Now, the Gamecube version release was a judgement error. Reversing the world made the world not make sense. I fear that only works with 2D titles.

I played both and the GC one plays just fine with a reversed world. Anyway, people did have a problem with lair's control. It was forced AND it sucked. I am pointing out that Zelda's control was forced, which is sucky, but the controls did not suck, they were implemented correctly for what they are. You just don't like them. Not liking something and something actually being poorly made are 2 different things. Lair contols = poorly implemented | Zelda controls = Schild no likey

They mirrored the Wii version?  The entire game?  That's... weird.

They did that cause int he Wii version Link was right handed, but he is left handed in every other game, so they just flipped the whole thing.

Dude, it doesn't matter if schild likeyed or not.

THE OPTION WASN'T THERE.

Fuck. You are not retarded. Don't be retarded.

There was an option.  It was buying the GC version.  As I recall, you managed to find reasons for hating that one too.

Reversing the world wasn't exactly the most elegant of solutions. Let's just say - Upside Down castles work better. Adding controls for the classic controller would have taken, what, 1 day of dev time?

Ha, man Schild, the second some one doesn't share your views on a game you tell them they are retarded. What a douche.

I'm not saying Zelda was bad. Christ. How many times do I have to say it:

The option wasn't there. I did not enjoy the waggle. Reversing the world was a weak and completely unsuccessful way to do things. Also, the lack of widescreen/480p on the Gamecube version was just inexcusable.

I called you retarded because your ability to read seems to have died. Not because you liked the game.

Oh, I know why they did it (not at all in the same vein as an upside-down castle), but it's still weird.  Smells very "last minute".  Right-handed Link can bite my ass.

I don't think you said Zelda was bad, although you have said Zelda was bad on more than one occasion so quit being "retarded." You said Zelda didn't get crap for its controls and Lair did, and I said, with good cause. Lairs controls are bad, as in they suck. They are poorly implemented AND you don't have an option to use alternate controls. Zelda's controls are good. They work. but you don't have an alternate option. That is why Lair gets shit and Zelda does not.

This isn't about Zelda being bad though. You know that. This is about the controls. And you're telling me their good. While I'm telling you flat out that they're not. Your tolerance of shoehorned controls aside and Lair's quality AS A GAME aside, since it's irrelevant - every single title should offer to turn off motion. It's that simple. It's simply not something that would ruin a break a game. It would however make lots of games about 50x better. Basically, I'm a fan of equal opportunity shitting. The best part of it is that a lot of my hatred for Nintendo comes from not giving me the option. And the majority of beef with Lair was Not giving people the option. Durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. Simple solutions for simple problems.

Every single non-Wii game sucks ass because they lack the option to include motion control.

???

You don't like waggle - at all.  You've said that on numerous occations.  Your oppinion on Zelda's controls are worthless.  It's like asking Coulter to comment on Dems.  Everyone knows what your take is, and it doesn't matter one bit what's actually being discussed because you can't see past the red rage you throw into every Wii post.

Anyway, the world-flipping was brilliant.  It's EXTREMELY cost-effective, and the devs knew that people buying Zelda would only have just gotten their Wii, and would want waggle just to try it out.  Tacked-on or not, it was going to be novel at the time and that would make up for anything but gross incompetance (like, say, Silver Surfer is).  Problem with waggle is that your right-handed players are going to have issues with a left-handed swordsman.  Yes, it probably would have been better if they had redesigned the whole damn thing.  It also would've been a disaster decision.

So i had better get one with BC soon is what you are telling me.

I will agree with schild on one thing. Some (not all) titles should have the option to not use motion control. I say that as a huge proponent of motion controls. Some already do, such as the Dragonball Z game (let you use a classic or GC controller) and the upcoming Fire Emblem game. But some kinds, especially the ones that just tacked motion controls onto the game (Marvel Ultimate Alliance, Spider-Man 3) should give you the option to not use it. Hell, even though it was a damn good game, the Prince of Persia game shouldn't have used motion controls because all the waggle was could have been easily mapped to buttons.

I'm all for games giving players options on how to play them. I'd love to see the Wii games that use motion like Prince of Persia did (map button presses to waggles) give players the option to map their own motion controls for actions. In short, don't waste the waggle if it's not needed.

Waggle wasn't bad for Trauma Center. Worked better with a stylus though. Mouse would be ideal for any trauma center though probably.


Eh? I buy hundreds of games. I influence the purchases of other people. There's an entire section of the industry exactly like me. Adding the option for regular controls solves a whole slew of issues I have.

Waggle is just another form of interface, good or bad based on how effectively it works for what you're trying to do.  Obstensibly, it can add a small measure of realism.  Overused it'll tear your joints to pieces.  But hey, we've had that same problem with extreme button mashing in some controller games.  Bad controls are bad controls, whether the device used is a Wiimote, Dualshock, or keyboard+mouse.  They can all be fucked up, and they can all be used well.  

No, that's what Sony is telling you.  Just like how they were telling us in the U.S. when they dropped the price of the 60GB to hurry up and buy one while supplies last, lest we be stuck with the more expensive 80GB model with software-based BC.

I agree, don't agree, and agree.  I think the mirroring was a great idea as far as solving the problem the programmers were presented.  I think lots of people would have likely had trouble with the idea of using a sword in their left hand  but in practice you have to waggle both hands so I think it would not have mattered a great deal when the rubber met the road.  The decision, I think, was made to appeal to the lowest common denominator (right-handers).  You can probably guess what I think about that.

My problems with Twilight Princess don't have much to do with the controls, since I knew it was a GC port and didn't really think it would mimic my movements during swordplay... although I know a couple of people who thought it would.  There's a line between using waggle because it's there (when button-presses would be more efficient) and using it because it makes sense.  Please see my numerous, complaint-filled posts about DS games.

Bad controls are bad controls, this much we can all agree on.  I've endured some asstastic button mappings, and don't get me started on analog-stick-Y-axis-inversion.

Region-free is fine for games. The PS3 (and PS2, for that matter) is quite capable of outputting PAL, PAL60, NTSC and so forth. The real issue becomes the Blu-Ray movies, since those are region-locked like DVDs before them. Ergo, if I buy a PS3 from the US, or HK, it'll be locked to a different region for movies. Since I'd be paying a premium for the Blu-Ray component of the machine, the idea of nerfing myself from the beginning on the format isn't an ideal situation. This is true, even allowing for the fact that I don't care about Blu-Ray movies as a format. Let's face it, if you get a PS3, you'll try out one or two Blu-Ray films if only to see what all the big fuss is about.

Guitar-wise, I was under the impression that someone had already released a PS2>PS3 adaptor for the peripherals, the guitars in particular?

You sure do.  I can almost always bank on the fact that if you like something I will not like it (and vice versa), as we have the EXACT opposite taste in just about everything.  It saves me a considerable amount of money, thanks.

On the subject of third party Nintendo games, quite frankly the Wii doesn't need them.  The console will stand perfectly fine on it's on first party line-up. There are enough "casual" gamers out there with plenty of disposable income to spend on any game with Mario, Zelda, or Metroid in the title and they will be perfectly happy.  The price certainly could be a factor with some demographics, but I think much of the Wii's success has to do with people just having fun with it in a way that you "hardcore" types don't.  Call them slobbering retards if you like though.

I was strolling through my local EBStop today while my girlfriend was out shopping for linens for the bedroom and I overheard a guy working the register stating that EBStop would be carrying 40GB PS3s later in the year with the same features minus the HD space.


I wanted to be an ass and tell him he was wrong, but I refrained. I suppose there will just be quite a few angry customers when they can't pop in GHII or (insert still-popular PS2 title here) and play it.

I'd just like to say that the business plan of "Buy our product NOW, because later versions will be worse and you don't want to get stuck with that POS" is a watershed moment in the history of economics, right up there with Cartman's amusement park that he didn't allow people into.

I would argue that any of those "tier one" games could possibly sell better on another system. Say... the 360 for example? Waggle was fun for five minutes.

OcellotJenkins: Man I agree with you here in some areas. (Although I do share the same love for some games as Schild, A majority of our opinions on games may differ) I think Nintendo will do okay with the Wii simply because of the casual crowd. What really gets me, and I am way guilty of this, is the whole "casual crowd is retarded" bullshit. I see that go around more and more often and as uninformed and silly as the casual crowd is, there is almost nothing as annoying and lame as a "hardcore gamer". Unfortunately, it seems like what is considered a hardcore gamer is fucking changing radically and I don't consider myself hardcore at all anymore. To be honest a majority of the behavior shown by the gaming crowd is kinda off putting and I am kinda sick of it. I want to enjoy games again and not care about silly shit like whether or not a game is in true Hd blah blah... Is the game fun, does it take some sort of skill? Are other people playing it? That is all I care about. The whole "casual gamers are going to the Wii makes me laugh cause I see the scrubbiest, lamest, retarded "hardcore gamers" with almost no knowledge about games, playing games or the game industry kinda all playing the 360 and ps3 right now. Nothing says casual like the common xbl/psn scrub in my opinion.

I think you should've referenced Katamari in your post someplace, but I definitely agree.

You want a fun game? Original Ice Hockey on NES. Go play some of that against a friend and tell me which is more fun -- that, or NHL '07.

erm. I've been doing that all along. I've even said that's why I won't give 90% of the software available on it a first look, let alone a second...

Yeah, that'd be the fear of it.

PAL / NTSC isn't a problem - most TVs sold in Austrlaia can cope with either mode. Don't know if I'd have issues with the games... I haven't looked into it. I'd be playing on a HD TV, so that probably (???) wouldn't be an issue.

Regardless - looks like I'm stuck hoping for an Xmas price drop if I want an Xbox 360 this year.

My concern is RROD. When they get that shit sorted out, we'll talk.

As much as I hate to end up on Schild's side of the fence on this one, the above is a great summary of why their aren't third party developers racing for the Wii.

Nintendo has always treated them like crap. I'm sure a lot of developers are waiting to see if Nintendo's new "We won't beat you any more - we've changed and been to therapy and everything, just come on back darling" is really sincere or if they are going to end up crying alone in the pantry again.

Next up, the shovelware hasn't been that successful. A lot of companies used this shovelware to test the market, to see what sticks. It didn't. Now, you can pretend that if the games had been good, they would have sold, but only Nintendo properties have been that successful to this point. Now, if there are that many people out there with Wiis, it should have been easier to move that shovelware, right? Especially among people who don't know games, who buy based on the pretty pictures, based on the IP on the cover of the box, right? But this didn't happen, or happen in large enough quantities to get more games greenlit that were Wii exclusive anyway.

Finally, as publically as some devs lauded the Wiimote, I'm sure a lot looked at it and privately went "WTF? How do I design for that?". I've heard stories of devs finding the Wiimote too sensitive to develop for and releasing near-enough-is-good-enough control schemes for games that then don't sell. Given that you could design the same game for the Xbox 360 on a control scheme you understand on a system with more overall power, I can understand why third party devs keep holding off on this system.

At the end of the day, I think that the ultra-casual Wii owner isn't going to go out and buy a stack of full-priced games over the course of the year. Instead, they are more likely to pick up one big property (read: Nintendo first party game) and maybe some budget / second hand games because they are cheap and it doesn't matter if they don't get played more than 1 hour a week. That's not a very attractive market for a developer.

Now, if Nintendo really wanted to see third party game studios running into its arms, it has to move a whole stack of its extremely-casual Wii owners to buy more games off the shelves of EB - in short, to move them up from extremely-casual and a step or two towards hardcore. But Nintendo doesn't care so much to do that given that their first party games are selling really well and they make money on every Wii sold. They don't need to do value add services to make themselves more money, while the Xbox 360 has those extra services (Xbox Live) as a key part of its strategy. And if Nintendo isn't going to help drive Wii owners towards buying more third party games, then no-one is.

Okay, maybe Nintendo will value add and I was wrong. (http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7469&Itemid=2) I need to see more detail about this strategy though.

*As a side note, I had a lot of fun playing Red Steel on a friend's Wii. Felt like I was drunk, but it was fun none-the-less.

I think many people underestimate how big a turn-off RROD is.

I hate returning shit. Part of the reasons people buy consoles is to avoid hassles, not to encourage them. The RROD issue blew up in MS' face right as they were poised to destroy Sony.

Edit: PS3 owners should decide what they are bitching about. Is the problem that the Wii doesn't have any games and publishers, or is the problem that PS3 games are moving to the Wii instead? Complaining about both seems silly.

I don't see any evidence that 3rd party devs are holding out on the Wii. What I see is that many publishers expected Sony or MS to win out and had projects lined up, then saw that the Wii was popular and are now changing their tune. Of course the first games to come out were shit puzzle games because those take 6 months to make.

Everything I've read is that publishers are moving more resources to Wii development. Monster Hunter 3 and Fatal Frame seem to anecdotally confirm that.

The thing that surprised me in this thread was learning that there is still a currency in the English speaking world that is valued below the US Dollar.

I think you're right about RROD. You don't know how many times I've heard teenagers at work talk about how the 360 is shit because they break down all the time. I've even been at EB and seen people returning them a few times, and I only get into EBs about 3 times a month.

Most of them are, Righ. But there's also the whole standard of living/relative currency thing. Like with pounds compared to Hong Kong dollars. How many officialy-English-speaking countries are there, anyway? Like six? I'd guess that all but the UK have weaker currencies on a per-unit basis, and you can't directly compare pounds to US dollars as you'd well know. Canada's the only one that's effectively just hit parity

You are correct, sir.
http://www.gamestop.com/product.asp?cookie%5Ftest=1&product_id=802566

As usual, Nintendo did this first by removing progressive scan from the Cube.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=8270405#post8270405

And there you go.

The fact that the 40g is white means I'll be getting the 80g.

I don't need a smoke stained PS3.


Bastard.

I can not find information on what the 60GB is dropping to.

Sad panda.

Dropping to nonexistance, right?

Pretty much.  It's discontinued once the supplies are gone.  The 80GB is replacing it.

Gamestop should drop it to clear out stock. Or some companies should.

Maybe they just figure that since it's the only PS3 still available with full hardware BC, that it will clear out anyway.

80GB has full hardware BC (in america, hur hur hur)

Actually it has a mix of hardware and software based BC in the U.S.

Edit:  There's a reason why Sony's site that allows you to check what games are BC has one list for the 60GB and one for the 80GB). (http://www.us.playstation.com/Support/CompatibleStatus)

They won't drop any prices, people that walk into GS looking for a PS3 are going to walk out with one, so why let some of them pay less?

Gamestop emailed all of their stores saying that information about the 60GB dropping will be coming soon.

Almost time for last month's NPD numbers to show up on GAF.  Will be interesting to see how much Halo 3 boosted the 360's numbers.


And here they are (http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=200486):

I give up.

Also, we have better taste under a democratic president: http://games.toptenreviews.com/list_ranking_ps_1997.htm

I concede defeat.

The mouthbreathing motherfuckers of America win gaming. I hope you like Bush Jr. Jr.

I loled.

Those are some serious numbers.  Halo is invading my motherfucking.

I'm curious as to what you're so surprised by.  You knew pretty well in advance that H3 was going to 'win Christmas'.

PS3 is a great box that even the owners aren't turning on except to watch 'Planet Earth' in HD or (maybe) play their Heavenly Sword rental.  Stop judging it as a gaming console and start looking at the BD player numbers instead, since that's what Sony is more interested in anyway.

Of course they win. There are more of them than there will ever be of you, and they have less disposable income. And now they want to play games. You should be happy as hell that Bioshock made it in the top 10 during both Halo fever week and leftover Madden fever week. That's an intelligent, non-mainstream game that's had well-deserved success in what is now a mainstream, mouthbreathers' market.

Jack Tretton is saying in interviews now that BC wasn't dropped from the 40GB model to cut costs, it was dropped to encourage buyers to buy more PS3 games.  It's something many suspected I suppose, but it's another example of Sony's bad PR for them to come out and say they dropped an important feature on the PS3 because they want to force people into buying the shitty PS3 games being released.

It works for the Wii, I guess. Shitty games, I mean.

Turns out, it was only the PS2 BC that was dropped.

All of the BC stuff for PS1 games still works.

So you can still play uhhhh, FFT?

No BC issues for GC games, though.  :-P

And Bushido Blade.  And the kid's educational games that didn't make it to PS2.  Son loves Bob the Builder.

You know why that is, right?

NO!


(http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:kgDH1Qz4PxJlPM:http://www.rpconline.com/)

Silent Hill
Vagrant Story
Symphony of the Night

Eh, I think Symphony of the Night you can just download on PSN anyway.

You could play Colony Wars though.

Edit:  Related more to the topic at hand, Gamestop apparently must have had some small stockpile of 20GB PS3's (http://www.gamestop.com/product.asp?product%5Fid=020071) which they are now selling for the tempting price of $380.

Interestingly, you can get Symphony of the Night from XBLA.