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

#61EnVy_CaLiBeRPosted 11/21/2012 10:16:51 AM
Solis posted...
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.

There was no console jump like the one last generation. This is why I say in order for it to get significantly better, the price will be higher. That's the point I'm trying to make. And wasn't the 360 sold at a loss?
---
Nintendo Network ID (Wii U): EnVy_CaLiBeR (PSN): EnVy_CaLIBeR
(360 GT): EnVyXCaLIBeR
#62EnVy_CaLiBeRPosted 11/21/2012 10:23:16 AM(edited)
Whether it's priced fair is entirely up for debate because some may value the consoles more than others. My point is in an economy that's worse than it was 2006 when people flat out refused to pay $500 to $600 for the PS3 console, what makes you think that people will be sold on purchasing a game console again around that same price? The PS3 didn't start selling like hot cakes until it was $300 in 2009.

The Wii U was priced at a starting point of $300 dollars which is the sweet spot in my opinion. Anything above that and you're getting into dangerous territory in my opinion. That's entirely up for debate, though.
---
Nintendo Network ID (Wii U): EnVy_CaLiBeR (PSN): EnVy_CaLIBeR
(360 GT): EnVyXCaLIBeR
#63kissdadookiePosted 11/21/2012 10:23:48 AM
EnVy_CaLiBeR posted...
Solis posted...
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.

There was no console jump like the one last generation. This is why I say in order for it to get significantly better, the price will be higher. That's the point I'm trying to make. And wasn't the 360 sold at a loss?


There's ALREADY a huge jump in tech. All you have to do is look at what you can build with $500-$600 for a budget gaming PC (that's what you would pay RETAIL for, Sony and MS gets those components for significantly less money). How do you feel that there wouldn't be a huge jump if the huge jump is already HERE?!? Can consoles run Witcher 2, BF3, Crysis 2 at 50-60 fps with no screen tearing, hardware AA, and PP effects turned up relatively high? No, they can barely run those games at 30 fps on the low quality setting. So please explain how there is no huge jump in power and graphics? It's already EVIDENT that there's a huge differential between a budget gaming PC and the PS360/Wii U.
#64kissdadookiePosted 11/21/2012 10:30:37 AM(edited)
EnVy_CaLiBeR posted...
Whether it's priced fair is entirely up for debate because some may value the consoles more than others. My point is in an economy that's worse than it was 2006 when people flat out refused to pay $500 to $600 for the PS3 console, what makes you think that people will be sold on purchasing a game console again around that same price? The PS3 didn't start selling like hot cakes until it was $300 in 2009.

The Wii U was priced at a starting point of $300 dollars which is the sweet spot in my opinion. Anything above that and you're getting into dangerous territory in my opinion. That's entirely up for debate, though.


You just keep telling yourself that. Just ignore how the 360 is such a big money maker. Just ignore how the western gaming market with all it's expensive hardware and "generic" games takes up the majority of revenue generation in the worldwide video game market pie. Yup, the 360 being a $400 system sure as heck never caught on. That must be the case according to your logic. Don't even try to mention the Wii and how it dominated, that meant nothing. 90+ million systems sold yet only 10% of the users bought the core games like the Marios and Zeldas. So, magically a Wii Fit/Wii Sports/Just Dance machine becomes a true video game platform? Man, those developers making money hand over fist on CoD must be kicking themselves in the butt for not making those games on the Wii (those poor excuses of a port meant nothing, look at how pi$$ poor those sold) and pushing them for the Wii. They sure lost out on revenue for not supporting the Wii better.

$300 is the sweet spot for you because you're defending Nintendo and Nintendo can do no wrong. If the thing was $350 for basic and $400 for deluxe, you would probably still be here defending them.
#65EnVy_CaLiBeRPosted 11/21/2012 10:34:51 AM
kissdadookie posted...
EnVy_CaLiBeR posted...
Whether it's priced fair is entirely up for debate because some may value the consoles more than others. My point is in an economy that's worse than it was 2006 when people flat out refused to pay $500 to $600 for the PS3 console, what makes you think that people will be sold on purchasing a game console again around that same price? The PS3 didn't start selling like hot cakes until it was $300 in 2009.

The Wii U was priced at a starting point of $300 dollars which is the sweet spot in my opinion. Anything above that and you're getting into dangerous territory in my opinion. That's entirely up for debate, though.


You just keep telling yourself that. Just ignore how the 360 is such a big money maker. Just ignore how the western gaming market with all it's expensive and "generic" games takes up the majority of revenue generation in the worldwide video game market pie.

$300 is the sweet spot for you because you're defending Nintendo and Nintendo can do no wrong. If the thing was $350 for basic and $400 for deluxe, you would probably still be here defending them.

Okay, you can't wait for the budget PCs in console form so you can play games with some real power. Like I said, I don't care because I'll most likely own the systems anyway but I'm not expecting the leap that you and others just KNOW is going to happen.

And as far as Nintendo, I am in no way defending them. Hell, I haven't owned a Nintendo system since the SNES when I was a kid (been a Playstation guy my whole life). However, I'm well comfortable with my preferences as far as price and what I consider to be of value especially as far as gaming consoles. I respect your opinion, though.
---
Nintendo Network ID (Wii U): EnVy_CaLiBeR (PSN): EnVy_CaLIBeR
(360 GT): EnVyXCaLIBeR
#66kissdadookiePosted 11/21/2012 10:41:10 AM
EnVy_CaLiBeR posted...
kissdadookie posted...
EnVy_CaLiBeR posted...
Whether it's priced fair is entirely up for debate because some may value the consoles more than others. My point is in an economy that's worse than it was 2006 when people flat out refused to pay $500 to $600 for the PS3 console, what makes you think that people will be sold on purchasing a game console again around that same price? The PS3 didn't start selling like hot cakes until it was $300 in 2009.

The Wii U was priced at a starting point of $300 dollars which is the sweet spot in my opinion. Anything above that and you're getting into dangerous territory in my opinion. That's entirely up for debate, though.


You just keep telling yourself that. Just ignore how the 360 is such a big money maker. Just ignore how the western gaming market with all it's expensive and "generic" games takes up the majority of revenue generation in the worldwide video game market pie.

$300 is the sweet spot for you because you're defending Nintendo and Nintendo can do no wrong. If the thing was $350 for basic and $400 for deluxe, you would probably still be here defending them.

Okay, you can't wait for the budget PCs in console form so you can play games with some real power. Like I said, I don't care because I'll most likely own the systems anyway but I'm not expecting the leap that you and others just KNOW is going to happen.

And as far as Nintendo, I am in no way defending them. Hell, I haven't owned a Nintendo system since the SNES when I was a kid (been a Playstation guy my whole life). However, I'm well comfortable with my preferences as far as price and what I consider to be of value especially as far as gaming consoles. I respect your opinion, though.


Haven't owned a Nintendo system since the SNES eh? So, that Wii U ID you have in your sig is just a figment of my imagination? ;)

Look, I'm not arguing that games will look better, I'm just pointing out that the HARDWARE will be capable of huge leaps. There's a HUGE difference between devs using what's available and the hardware that is available. If you think that the HARDWARE is not going to be huge leap over current gen, then you are basically lying to yourself or you truly don't understand the tech that is currently available and their price points.
#67SolisPosted 11/21/2012 10:46:34 AM
EnVy_CaLiBeR posted...
There was no console jump like the one last generation. This is why I say in order for it to get significantly better, the price will be higher. That's the point I'm trying to make. And wasn't the 360 sold at a loss?

Based on what? The Xbox 360 is SEVEN YEARS OLD. Technology has advanced hugely in that amount of time, and it will only get cheaper in the year or so before the next system is released. That's TWICE as long as it took to go from Xbox to Xbox 360. Even if technology has "slowed down", you're still looking at a monumental increase in capabilities for a similar cost to what the Xbox 360 was.

And the 360 was sold at a loss at launch, but that's because they released the console a year ahead of the competition. By the time the PS3 launched, the $400 retail Xbox 360 Pro only cost just over $320 to manufacture:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/multimedia/display/20061120132150.html


EnVy_CaLiBeR posted...
Whether it's priced fair is entirely up for debate because some may value the consoles more than others. My point is in an economy that's worse than it was 2006 when people flat out refused to pay $500 to $600 for the PS3 console, what makes you think that people will be sold on purchasing a game console again around that same price? The PS3 didn't start selling like hot cakes until it was $300 in 2009.

The Wii U was priced at a starting point of $300 dollars which is the sweet spot in my opinion. Anything above that and you're getting into dangerous territory in my opinion. That's entirely up for debate, though.

The PS3 sold similar to the Xbox 360 throughout its lifecycle, even when it was still $400 or more:

http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/927749-/61832232

And the problem with the Wii U isn't it's price. Even $350 would be more than reasonable for a console that offers a notable improvement over previous generation systems. It's that last part is the real issue for the Wii U.

But noone is suggesting that next gen consoles will sell for $500-$600 (at least noone reasonable would). The point is that even for $300-$400, they can offer an absolutely INCREDIBLE leap technologically compared to the previous systems.
---
"Walking tanks must exist somewhere for there to be such attention to detail like this in mech sim." - IGN Steel Battalion review
#68EnVy_CaLiBeRPosted 11/21/2012 10:48:54 AM
kissdadookie posted...
EnVy_CaLiBeR posted...
kissdadookie posted...
EnVy_CaLiBeR posted...
Whether it's priced fair is entirely up for debate because some may value the consoles more than others. My point is in an economy that's worse than it was 2006 when people flat out refused to pay $500 to $600 for the PS3 console, what makes you think that people will be sold on purchasing a game console again around that same price? The PS3 didn't start selling like hot cakes until it was $300 in 2009.

The Wii U was priced at a starting point of $300 dollars which is the sweet spot in my opinion. Anything above that and you're getting into dangerous territory in my opinion. That's entirely up for debate, though.


You just keep telling yourself that. Just ignore how the 360 is such a big money maker. Just ignore how the western gaming market with all it's expensive and "generic" games takes up the majority of revenue generation in the worldwide video game market pie.

$300 is the sweet spot for you because you're defending Nintendo and Nintendo can do no wrong. If the thing was $350 for basic and $400 for deluxe, you would probably still be here defending them.

Okay, you can't wait for the budget PCs in console form so you can play games with some real power. Like I said, I don't care because I'll most likely own the systems anyway but I'm not expecting the leap that you and others just KNOW is going to happen.

And as far as Nintendo, I am in no way defending them. Hell, I haven't owned a Nintendo system since the SNES when I was a kid (been a Playstation guy my whole life). However, I'm well comfortable with my preferences as far as price and what I consider to be of value especially as far as gaming consoles. I respect your opinion, though.


Haven't owned a Nintendo system since the SNES eh? So, that Wii U ID you have in your sig is just a figment of my imagination? ;)

Look, I'm not arguing that games will look better, I'm just pointing out that the HARDWARE will be capable of huge leaps. There's a HUGE difference between devs using what's available and the hardware that is available. If you think that the HARDWARE is not going to be huge leap over current gen, then you are basically lying to yourself or you truly don't understand the tech that is currently available and their price points.


Well of course I meant besides the Wii U. Sorry I didn't clarify that but it goes to show that I'm in no way shape or form a Nintendo loyalist. I care about games at the end of the day. Not hardware. =)

And that's fine. Only time will tell just exactly what Microsoft and Sony will put into their systems. Until then, we're debating purely off speculation.
---
Nintendo Network ID (Wii U): EnVy_CaLiBeR (PSN): EnVy_CaLIBeR
(360 GT): EnVyXCaLIBeR
#69kissdadookiePosted 11/21/2012 10:50:04 AM
Solis posted...
EnVy_CaLiBeR posted...
There was no console jump like the one last generation. This is why I say in order for it to get significantly better, the price will be higher. That's the point I'm trying to make. And wasn't the 360 sold at a loss?

Based on what? The Xbox 360 is SEVEN YEARS OLD. Technology has advanced hugely in that amount of time, and it will only get cheaper in the year or so before the next system is released. That's TWICE as long as it took to go from Xbox to Xbox 360. Even if technology has "slowed down", you're still looking at a monumental increase in capabilities for a similar cost to what the Xbox 360 was.

And the 360 was sold at a loss at launch, but that's because they released the console a year ahead of the competition. By the time the PS3 launched, the $400 retail Xbox 360 Pro only cost just over $320 to manufacture:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/multimedia/display/20061120132150.html


EnVy_CaLiBeR posted...
Whether it's priced fair is entirely up for debate because some may value the consoles more than others. My point is in an economy that's worse than it was 2006 when people flat out refused to pay $500 to $600 for the PS3 console, what makes you think that people will be sold on purchasing a game console again around that same price? The PS3 didn't start selling like hot cakes until it was $300 in 2009.

The Wii U was priced at a starting point of $300 dollars which is the sweet spot in my opinion. Anything above that and you're getting into dangerous territory in my opinion. That's entirely up for debate, though.

The PS3 sold similar to the Xbox 360 throughout its lifecycle, even when it was still $400 or more:

http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/927749-/61832232

And the problem with the Wii U isn't it's price. Even $350 would be more than reasonable for a console that offers a notable improvement over previous generation systems. It's that last part is the real issue for the Wii U.

But noone is suggesting that next gen consoles will sell for $500-$600 (at least noone reasonable would). The point is that even for $300-$400, they can offer an absolutely INCREDIBLE leap technologically compared to the previous systems.


Not to mention that in 2006, people refused to spend $600 on a PS3 because that thing made no sense as a purchase. Like, seriously, what the heck were half of those features and why would people need them? That's why they didn't want to pay the money. Look at the iPad, $500? No problem! Sells like hot cakes! It's basically just a giant iPod touch!