Gameplay > graphics, but when you release a system that's weaker than...

#51EnVy_CaLiBeRPosted 11/21/2012 8:42:48 AM
Lol wut? You're saying this as if the Wii U isn't capable of doing everything that you just named and that's without being the powerhouse consoles that you believe the next gen Xbox and Playstation will be. I don't own a PC. What I'm saying is that once you get into that price range, you might as well put up the extra funds to build a PC.

And I own an iPad and a 2012 Macbook Pro. I'm fully aware of the benefits of Apple products which is why I purchase them. And don't give me that well you're buying Apple products and you don't want to purchase a $500 dollar console. That's correct because both of those Apple products can do much more than what a gaming console can do and do it on the go (except play games with the best functionality but that's hardly as important as the tasks that one can do on an tablet or on a laptop). However, I purchase gaming consoles because of their great affordability and their ability to play great games. If you don't accept that, then so be it.
---
Nintendo Network ID (Wii U): EnVy_CaLiBeR (PSN): EnVy_CaLIBeR
(360 GT): EnVyXCaLIBeR
#52EnVy_CaLiBeRPosted 11/21/2012 8:46:17 AM
Solis posted...
EnVy_CaLiBeR posted...
And I'm sorry but I find $400-$500 dollars to be worth paying for a game console. Just my opinion. As a person who didn't even purchase the PS3 or 360 until they hit their $300 dollar price point, I feel $400- $500 dollars is entirely too much for a game console. At that point, you're getting into the range where you can build your own PC by just adding a couple hundred dollars more. Consoles should be based as they have been. Off of great games at affordable prices.

But that's the real difference: if a console starts out expensive, it can eventually become cheap enough that almost anyone can afford it. If a console starts out with very weak capabilities however, then it will have that burden for the entire rest of its existence and games will be negatively affected from launch onwards.

Sure, they could've made the PS3 only marginally more powerful than the PS2 and launched it for $300, but then what would even be the point of getting a new console when it's practically just as capable as one you already have that cost less?


It still doesn't change the fact that console developers are looking to make MONEY off of their system. If they release a console with the thought, "well hey, let's put out a powerful console that people WON'T buy because it's too expensive but we can always do a price drop". What's the point? Sony made that mistake by releasing powerful hardware that failed miserably until they reduced the price. So you're saying they should make that mistake again?
---
Nintendo Network ID (Wii U): EnVy_CaLiBeR (PSN): EnVy_CaLIBeR
(360 GT): EnVyXCaLIBeR
#53kissdadookiePosted 11/21/2012 8:47:18 AM
EnVy_CaLiBeR posted...
Lol wut? You're saying this as if the Wii U isn't capable of doing everything that you just named and that's without being the powerhouse consoles that you believe the next gen Xbox and Playstation will be. I don't own a PC. What I'm saying is that once you get into that price range, you might as well put up the extra funds to build a PC.

And I own an iPad and a 2012 Macbook Pro. I'm fully aware of the benefits of Apple products which is why I purchase them. And don't give me that well you're buying Apple products and you don't want to purchase a $500 dollar console. That's correct because both of those Apple products can do much more than what a gaming console can do and do it on the go (except play games with the best functionality but that's hardly as important as the tasks that one can do on an tablet or on a laptop). However, I purchase gaming consoles because of their great affordability and their ability to play great games. If you don't accept that, then so be it.


The console will STILL be cheaper than the PC. Again, what costs us $500-$600 TO BUILD ends up being a roughly $400 system PREBUILT for us by Sony or MS. What is so hard to understand? Not only is it ultimately cheaper if you just want a machine to play games and act as a TV set top box, you also end up saving time. Do you have ANY CLUE how valuable time is to people? I get paid close to a $100 an hour JUST TO PLUG IN A/V CABLES FOR PEOPLE IN THEIR HOMES (just my side gig, not my main occupation, which it was my main occupation). I was shocked at first but people actually value their time.

It's a win win situation. $400 next MS or Sony box gets your a $500-$600 budget gaming PC equivalent with the benefit of minimum set up time and minimum hassle. I don't understand how you are not comprehending how this is actually of excellent value AND gets you incredibly great hardware for the purpose of video games.
#54gumbyxcore99Posted 11/21/2012 8:47:34 AM
they made the same mistake with the vita
#55kissdadookiePosted 11/21/2012 8:49:36 AM
gumbyxcore99 posted...
they made the same mistake with the vita


Didn't say if it will have good games or not, just pointing out that a $400-$500 Sony and MS box is going to be of excellent value for the hardware you get in a machine at that price.
#56EnVy_CaLiBeRPosted 11/21/2012 8:56:43 AM
kissdadookie posted...
EnVy_CaLiBeR posted...
Lol wut? You're saying this as if the Wii U isn't capable of doing everything that you just named and that's without being the powerhouse consoles that you believe the next gen Xbox and Playstation will be. I don't own a PC. What I'm saying is that once you get into that price range, you might as well put up the extra funds to build a PC.

And I own an iPad and a 2012 Macbook Pro. I'm fully aware of the benefits of Apple products which is why I purchase them. And don't give me that well you're buying Apple products and you don't want to purchase a $500 dollar console. That's correct because both of those Apple products can do much more than what a gaming console can do and do it on the go (except play games with the best functionality but that's hardly as important as the tasks that one can do on an tablet or on a laptop). However, I purchase gaming consoles because of their great affordability and their ability to play great games. If you don't accept that, then so be it.


The console will STILL be cheaper than the PC. Again, what costs us $500-$600 TO BUILD ends up being a roughly $400 system PREBUILT for us by Sony or MS. What is so hard to understand? Not only is it ultimately cheaper if you just want a machine to play games and act as a TV set top box, you also end up saving time. Do you have ANY CLUE how valuable time is to people? I get paid close to a $100 an hour JUST TO PLUG IN A/V CABLES FOR PEOPLE IN THEIR HOMES (just my side gig, not my main occupation, which it was my main occupation). I was shocked at first but people actually value their time.

It's a win win situation. $400 next MS or Sony box gets your a $500-$600 budget gaming PC equivalent with the benefit of minimum set up time and minimum hassle. I don't understand how you are not comprehending how this is actually of excellent value AND gets you incredibly great hardware for the purpose of video games.


Lol and I'm fully aware of exactly of what you just said. My point is that just as much as it's important it is to have console easily built for the consumer, it's important to have it be price accessible for the consumer which is the point I'm trying to make. Like I said, most likely I'll end up getting both at some date but not at the $400-500 dollar console point for a a gaming console. Why do you think that people didn't purchase a PS3 around that price point? It wasn't priced effectively.
---
Nintendo Network ID (Wii U): EnVy_CaLiBeR (PSN): EnVy_CaLIBeR
(360 GT): EnVyXCaLIBeR
#57PigfartsPosted 11/21/2012 9:05:51 AM
gumbyxcore99 posted...
i don't understand all these people attacking the ram. like did ram ever matter to anybody before they found out the wii u had some slow ram?


It didn't matter b/c all other concole had the standard amount of ram in the systems at the time of release. Sony though hard to develope for at least packed their machine full of above standard chips, xbox was only slightly weaker, but easier to develoe for, so they were pretty much on par.

after 7 year nintendo made a system at is one par with 7 year old consoles.
---
If you don't like the smell of pigfarts, stay out of the pigpen.
#58TMW001Posted 11/21/2012 9:06:42 AM
KrisIsLyra posted...
...last gen's competition, that's going to cause serious problems. Why oh why did Nintendo get the cheapest and crappiest RAM they could find? At this rate, the only multiplats that the Wii U will get will be with the Vita.


Worked for the Wii.
#59kissdadookiePosted 11/21/2012 9:11:47 AM(edited)
EnVy_CaLiBeR posted...
kissdadookie posted...
EnVy_CaLiBeR posted...
Lol wut? You're saying this as if the Wii U isn't capable of doing everything that you just named and that's without being the powerhouse consoles that you believe the next gen Xbox and Playstation will be. I don't own a PC. What I'm saying is that once you get into that price range, you might as well put up the extra funds to build a PC.

And I own an iPad and a 2012 Macbook Pro. I'm fully aware of the benefits of Apple products which is why I purchase them. And don't give me that well you're buying Apple products and you don't want to purchase a $500 dollar console. That's correct because both of those Apple products can do much more than what a gaming console can do and do it on the go (except play games with the best functionality but that's hardly as important as the tasks that one can do on an tablet or on a laptop). However, I purchase gaming consoles because of their great affordability and their ability to play great games. If you don't accept that, then so be it.


The console will STILL be cheaper than the PC. Again, what costs us $500-$600 TO BUILD ends up being a roughly $400 system PREBUILT for us by Sony or MS. What is so hard to understand? Not only is it ultimately cheaper if you just want a machine to play games and act as a TV set top box, you also end up saving time. Do you have ANY CLUE how valuable time is to people? I get paid close to a $100 an hour JUST TO PLUG IN A/V CABLES FOR PEOPLE IN THEIR HOMES (just my side gig, not my main occupation, which it was my main occupation). I was shocked at first but people actually value their time.

It's a win win situation. $400 next MS or Sony box gets your a $500-$600 budget gaming PC equivalent with the benefit of minimum set up time and minimum hassle. I don't understand how you are not comprehending how this is actually of excellent value AND gets you incredibly great hardware for the purpose of video games.


Lol and I'm fully aware of exactly of what you just said. My point is that just as much as it's important it is to have console easily built for the consumer, it's important to have it be price accessible for the consumer which is the point I'm trying to make. Like I said, most likely I'll end up getting both at some date but not at the $400-500 dollar console point for a a gaming console. Why do you think that people didn't purchase a PS3 around that price point? It wasn't priced effectively.


$350 for the Wii U and $400 for the next MS or Sony boxes, even at $500, it's not priced terribly for the average video gamer. So the whole price to value equation is a moot point because for all intent and purposes, it's priced well. I mean, the iPad for goodness sakes is $500 to begin with. It's not like another PS3 fiasco where we have a system that is $600 with a bunch of things people don't know what to do with and a Blu Ray player for a disc format that is untested.

Seriously, if you think about it, until the day comes where we all have true high speed internet as the norm so that these consoles can just be cloud based devices, we will not have super inexpensive gaming consoles. Well, maybe we would if it's true that MS strikes a deal with cable providers to subsidize the system with a cable subscription or if MS tries to lock you into 2 years of XBL and use that to subsidize the system.

The whole pricing question, $400-$500 I feel is reasonable and the market will accept that at this point in time. Even if it's a slow uptake at first, MS and SOny will not be losing much money on the hardware at that price so they can gain momentum after a year or two and reduce manufacturing costs to introduce lower price points.
#60SolisPosted 11/21/2012 9:13:32 AM(edited)
EnVy_CaLiBeR posted...
It still doesn't change the fact that console developers are looking to make MONEY off of their system. If they release a console with the thought, "well hey, let's put out a powerful console that people WON'T buy because it's too expensive but we can always do a price drop". What's the point? Sony made that mistake by releasing powerful hardware that failed miserably until they reduced the price. So you're saying they should make that mistake again?

Sony failed to make a console that had efficient manufacturing costs. That doesn't mean a powerful console has to be expensive: the Xbox 360 cost LESS to manufacture than its $300/$400 retail price by the time the PS3 was released. Where do people get the absurd idea that making a console notably more powerful than one released half a decade earlier has to result in excessive costs? EVERY other generation of consoles managed a massive increase in capabilities without being terribly more expensive.

Even for as big of a blunder as the PS3 was in terms of manufacturing, it's sold over 70 million units so far. The more important question is how it would have sold if if it only looked marginally better than the PS2.
---
"Walking tanks must exist somewhere for there to be such attention to detail like this in mech sim." - IGN Steel Battalion review