How Much Do You Care?


C

codeninja

Guest
While Sony announced that PS3 is going to cost your arms and lags and MS sounded like $300 core system price is some sort of achivement, they both emphasize the fact that they're MORE than JUST game machines.

DO you care about that? Does it help you justify the extra cost? Personally, I don't care, and no matter how they paint it, it's a toy to me. How about ya?
 
you know, with all due respect dude, it seems as though when you make new threads, they are usually pointless sony and microsoft bashing. Whats up with that? you almost always bring up the ds compared to the psp, and sony vs. Nintendo.

So honestly now, who cares?
 
if they actually created an IBM compatable 'game box' that replaces my PC, then non-gaming functions are very important--but since I don't see that happening, I can just say "I have a PC for that"

linking to windows media center (xbox) isn't enough.
 
look, they are all shit, the x box, psp, nintendo has always been shit, even since the sega v nintendo days, ps2, ps3 (hell, even ps1 is crap just try playing one for more than half an hour!)
there's about a dozen decent games on each system, and that's if yer lucky.

they've all tried too hard. the only decent games systems were sega systems because all the gameplay was there, and even then we're talking most first party titles.

the only place you can't go wrong is down the arcade, and that's shit now anyway, it's all about realism now, not having a laugh.

that's my first and last rant on this issue.
 
you know, with all due respect dude, it seems as though when you make new threads, they are usually pointless sony and microsoft bashing. Whats up with that? you almost always bring up the ds compared to the psp, and sony vs. Nintendo.

While I totally admit that my opinion is biased, but who isn't and is it a bad thing? Having said that I don't think this thread is about bashing anyone. It's about an observation on the new trend in gaming and wanting to discuss about it with other "biased" minds from all directions I didn't say even which is good or bad. All I said is that I don't care about them, which is my opinion that I am entitled to. Otherwise, I don't make stuffs up, and try my best to stay in facts when I point stuffs out. This time, I didn't even mention about Nintendo for god's sake.

Unless you're a total Sony/MS fanboy with blind eyes, there is nothing to be overly defensive about this topic. Actually, I feel silly even defending/explaining myself with this.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
When I purchase something like a playstation 2, it is for playing games. I would never use (and have never used) such a system for watching movies or playing music. I guess I think of ware and tare on the system, and when it comes to terms of use my main purpose for having such a system is games. Other things and uses that are built into a system is not an important factor to me. I think if a company wants to find out how important it is with a consumer, they should offer a system for gaming and then a second system with all of their bells and trinkets attached. I would run to the "gaming only" system every time. Because that is why I am buying it for in the first place. I understand the reason behind the big everything system, companies want to expand the market and make more money by selling an everything product that is for everybody and anybody. I guess in the not so distant future, you will go out and buy an entertainment system that is a computer, DVD player & recorder, music player, and gaming system rolled into one. It will make for one big purchase for the consumer! <_<
 
you know, with all due respect dude, it seems as though when you make new threads, they are usually pointless sony and microsoft bashing. Whats up with that? you almost always bring up the ds compared to the psp, and sony vs. Nintendo.

While I totally admit that my opinion is biased, but who isn't and is it a bad thing? Having said that I don't think this thread is about bashing anyone. It's about an observation on the new trend in gaming and wanting to discuss about it with other "biased" minds from all directions I didn't say even which is good or bad. All I said is that I don't care about them, which is my opinion that I am entitled to. Otherwise, I don't make stuffs up, and try my best to stay in facts when I point stuffs out. This time, I didn't even mention about Nintendo for god's sake.

Unless you're a total Sony/MS fanboy with blind eyes, there is nothing to be overly defensive about this topic. Actually, I feel silly even defending/explaining myself with this.
you didnt use the words 'nintendo/sony/ms' and compare them per se, it's just the tone of your post. I felt that it was more of an inquizitive "Sony and MS's systems cost a lot and nintendo's pricing is just right". Well, I find it hard to explain in words how I felt, but let's just say the tone of the post was weird. lets drop it now.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
While Sony announced that PS3 is going to cost your arms and lags and MS sounded like $300 core system price is some sort of achivement, they both emphasize the fact that they're MORE than JUST game machines.

DO you care about that? Does it help you justify the extra cost? Personally, I don't care, and no matter how they paint it, it's a toy to me. How about ya?

Added functionality is very nice however as long those machines will be closed systems (without right to execute unsigned software) I will not be interested.

A PC to be PC must be able to be controlled by me and if it's not then it stops being a Personal Computer.

I will doubt Microsoft will open xbox to any higher extent because it's subsidizing hardware and after all it's a software company. I'd expect that Sony might eventually do "a new PC thing" as it doesn't have software/os/office business at risk.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
before you post stupid topics like this, why don't you do a little research. of all the things affected by inflation, video game costs have remained a constant. The 2600 debuted at $299. The Neo-geo was over $500 and The 3do was $699 as was the CD-I. So who cares, the PS3 will NOT be the hightest priced system in history, so to say the PS3 will cost an "arm and a leg" look back at video game history to see what people have shelled out for that had a lot less functionality, in your words.
 
I felt that it was more of an inquizitive "Sony and MS's systems cost a lot and nintendo's pricing is just right".

Well, it'll be silly of me if I said that especially when we don't even know the price of PS3 or Revo. However, what we know is that $400 price point is over the usual high point of game console price ($300). Sure, they can sell like hot cakes regardless of the price or not. And, the big part of the success, in my opinion, depends heavily on how consumers think of those added features (HD-DVD, BLU-RAY, MP3 player or whatever). If they don't think there are good enoough excuse to pay extra bucks for those, it'll be a hard battle for them. Heck, I bought my PC for $500 and it's great, so it's destined to compete with more than just Nintendo at that point. Do I still sound like someone flaming?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
no one sais ps3 or revo at all. My post you quoted refers to older systems as well.

And you say it would be silly of you to say that as you dont know the price of either the revo or ps3. So why, pre tel, would you make comments like "arm and a leg" when you dont know the price. And in your above post your claiming 300 is the "usual high console price". So why in your first post do you hint at the fact that you are in some way dissatisfied with the pricing?

And do you "still sound like someone flaming"? I never said you were...
 
before you post stupid topics like this, why don't you do a little research.  of all the things affected by inflation, video game costs have remained a constant.  The 2600 debuted at $299. The Neo-geo was over $500 and The 3do was $699 as was the CD-I.  So who cares, the PS3 will NOT be the hightest priced system in history, so to say the PS3 will cost an "arm and a leg" look back at video game history to see what people have shelled out for that had a lot less functionality, in your words.

The person who said that "the PS3 will cost an "arm and a leg" was Sony's talking head Kutaragi, not me. I guess, no matter how I put it, your PS3 complex will kick in and distort the whole thing. Yes, I'm about to give up my hope for civil discussion here. BTW I bought 3DO at $699, and it was the biggest waste of money in my life and 30,000 sales figure proved that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The PS3 has been preported to be very expensive by sony themselves, but personally I feel this was a marketing ploy to force the 360 to come out at its higher pricepoint so that when the PS3 DOES drop it will do so with a surprisingly better price:value ratio than people were expecting.

This it only conjecture on my part though as they've been so heavy handed in their comments. To me the price claims and Kutaragi's claims that companies where going to have to spend lots and LOTS more money and make higher budget games to truely maximize the next generation seems far too measured and brash a statement to not have been some form of psychological combat.

Extra added features are fine to me as long as they dont effect the ability to play games. If you told me "SystemX" plays movies on new types of disks I dont mind that as long as these disks can contain great games that arnt hindered by being on these disks, hell I might even buy the movie disks at some point if they offer a feature I dont get on a DVD. But If you tell me 'System X" requires a HDtv to play these games just because the disks thar the movies come on only work in HD then we have a problem because the movies are not what I bought the system for and I'm not buying a HDtv for them.

OMG, PS2 plays movies, the PSP plays movies too! so fucking what. This isn't harming gaming in the slightest, everything that plays games off a DVD plays movies these days, no harm no foul. The PSP needed a small high density media format that (wow!) apreantly can support other media, good for them, dosent mean I need to buy it and I haven't. Nintendo wanted to be different and go with a non DVD playing drive, that's fine, but I dont think it would have hurt it if it could play regular DVDs aside from maybe possibly wearing out the drive motor at some indeterminant point in a future far away that may or may not actually happen or making making the system less compact (though I actually like how compact it is because it dosent.)

The 360 is as expenesive as it is because of poor planning not because of anything new they put inside the machine, except maybe the Hardrive for playing old xbox games which, suprise!, isnt working out as well as planned.... ooooh wireless standard controllers! big deal, Highres picture! yawn, it's still not that impressive unless you HAVE a Highres monitor to play it on so personally I think they wasted an effort doing that this generation and it's a poor excuse for an overpriced systen that dosent look that much better than the last one.

The Revolution is going to be cheap. Sure, I'm not suprised at that, it's not like it's doing anything new! It's a rom box with a fancy peripheral for games we havent seen a single pixle of. It can't possibly justify being more expensive.

The supposed price increase really dosent bother me right now, I can save 5 or 6 hundred bucks out of my next 2 or 10 paychecks to pay for it seeing as it's still atleast 8 months away. BluRay disks might make the PS3 system more expensive, or it may not and it's all a ploy to raise everyone's expectations but if it makes a more enjoyable game I wont complain if it does cost a little more and ultimately that's the only thing they need to do to continue to gain my hard earned cash because I expect the PS3 to do something better than the PS2 did (the same as I expected the PS2 to do thigns better than the PS1) and not just have a higher resolution.
 
OMG, PS2 plays movies, the PSP plays movies too!

Actually, quite a few families around me chose PS2 back in the days because the parents wanted DVD player and kids wanted game machine. Of course, a dvd player is not a big deal, but it was a few years back. So, I was asking if those HD feature for 360/PS3 will do the same as DVD playback feature for PS2.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
i can't see how it would, its completely different. The PS2 and DVD playback worked with any tv, trust me i know, my wifes grandparents have a dvd player hooked up to something that looks like its from the early 70's and it works. So the PS2 out of the box worked with everyones tv and could be a big reason why someone would want the ps2, it was a big factor for me. but the 360/ps3, you have to have a specific tv to use the features. I'm sorry but i'm not going to run out and buy a $1,000-$2,000 tv for these features and i'm pretty sure there will be alot of people that think the same way.
 
Back
Top