Home Login Register
Poll
Question: is the PS3 worth $600?
yes - 9 (17.3%)
no - 43 (82.7%)
Total Voters: 51

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 8   Go Down
   
Author Topic: Is it worth it?  (Read 23709 times)
Offline ZeldaMaster

J-Money
*

Which path will you choose?


Posts: 1,411


WWW
« #20 on: May 01, 2007 »

I do believe he just proved the "revolution" argument. It is a revolution yes, but it is not prefect and I am sure it will be tweaked in the future.
Logged

Technado Forums                                                                             The Legend of Zelda:Darkness Within

There is an evil within...can you control it and use it to fight evil, or will you succumb to it? the choice is yours...
Offline Loki

Sage of Spirit
*

Welcome to the party.


Posts: 7,316


« #21 on: May 04, 2007 »

Lotta nonsense about "values"
Someone still doesn't understand the basic fundamental concept that companies are supposed to make a profit off of their goods, not a loss.
Logged


Honda's men are no longer Street Fighters. They see this as a Mortal Kombat, and they have the Killer Instinct. If you do not help your friends, this may be their Final Fight. . . Clayfighter.
Offline Scott Shelby

Sage of Forest
*

Posts: 1,328


« #22 on: May 04, 2007 »

Lotta nonsense about "values"
Someone still doesn't understand the basic fundamental concept that companies are supposed to make a profit off of their goods, not a loss.

Oh trust me Loki, I completely understand that concept. You misunderstood my argument.

Who pays when a company (like Nintendo) jack their prices up in order to make a profit? We, the gamers, do. Who wins? The company themselves.

Who pays when a company (like Sony or Microsoft) takes an enormous hit on each system sold? The company does. Who wins? We, the gamers, do.

^Now I don't know about you, but I couldn't give a crap about Sony, Microsoft, or Nintendo as companies. As a gamer, I want to see companies catering to me...not the other way around.

I'm not saying $250 is an unreasonable price. If it was, I wouldn't have 2 copies of the system. I'm simply saying that consumers would have "won" more if Nintendo had taken a larger hit on their systems. If Nintendo were to take the 150-200 dollar hit the others are taking, it would be:
A.) SUBSTANTIALLY lower than the competition in price
B.) An extremely good deal for consumers.

^In a sense, Nintendo would have won on two fronts. I just think they passed up on a (more) brilliant marketing move. A dollar 100 Wii would have a shot to win the console wars IMO.
Logged
Offline Ezlo's Apprentice

ThornSpell47
*

Posts: 7,017


WWW
« #23 on: May 04, 2007 »

Lotta nonsense and "A dollar 100 Wii would have a shot to win the console wars IMO."

Sorry, Uchi, couldn't resist. I'm a little amused at that whole last post which just seems to go back to ignoring the concept of businesses not being a charity.

If Nintendo can make a profit (and it is marginal) in the early days of their console's life cycle, good on them. The price will drop eventually, but at the moment a $250 Wii has more than a shot at winning the console war.

You might not give a crap about the companies, but the companies should at least try and give a crap about the companies, instead of giving handouts to the PSWii60 (x2) elites such as yourself...
Logged


Frozone | Kirlia | Togepi | Gligarman | Rotom



104 days, 9 hours and 34 minutes
Offline Shin Illuminated

Department store hero
*

Posts: 1,581


« #24 on: May 04, 2007 »

What do you need 2 Wiis for?

And where do you get the money for all this stuff?
Logged
Offline Scott Shelby

Sage of Forest
*

Posts: 1,328


« #25 on: May 04, 2007 »

Lotta nonsense and "A dollar 100 Wii would have a shot to win the console wars IMO."

Sorry, Uchi, couldn't resist. I'm a little amused at that whole last post which just seems to go back to ignoring the concept of businesses not being a charity.

If Nintendo can make a profit (and it is marginal) in the early days of their console's life cycle, good on them. The price will drop eventually, but at the moment a $250 Wii has more than a shot at winning the console war.

You might not give a crap about the companies, but the companies should at least try and give a crap about the companies, instead of giving handouts to the PSWii60 (x2) elites such as yourself...

My post didn't ignore anything. I acknowledged that business is not a charity. My main point is that Nintendo can end up amassing large sums of money with a $100 Wii.

When we talk about console works, we talk about predictable cycles.

Publisher releases gaming system at a loss===>Because of the low price, loads of consumers buy the product (yielding a high install base)===> 3rd party publishers begin to put their games on the systems with the highest install base===> People buy large amounts of software because that system has the best (largest amount of) games===>Company makes up for initial losses with high software sales.

I realize Nintendo is not a mega-electronics conglomerate, but I do think they could have dropped the price a bit and still made a profit at the same time. I also realize that more systems sold at a loss equates with more debt, but I believe the software would have put Nintendo in the black by a considerable margin.

This isn't a Nintendo bash, I'm just expressing my concern. Already the Wii has been selling at an excellent rate. Just imagine what would have happened if it was even cheaper. I think there would have been more Wii exclusive games than we're seeing now from 3rd party devs.

^I know the next logical rebuttal will be something like "but why shouldn't Nintendo make the most profit as possible". My answer has to do with my own personal view on the console wars, as I believe that most units sold=winning the console war. But hey, I've had plenty of people on Nintendo forums disagree with me there.

What do you need 2 Wiis for?

And where do you get the money for all this stuff?
I see a derailment coming. Hit me up via PM or AIM if you want to know stuff like this.
« Last Edit: May 04, 2007 by Uchiha Madara » Logged
Offline JordAnime

Jordan's the name, Anime's the Game
*

Posts: 6,766


« #26 on: May 05, 2007 »

Publisher releases gaming system at a loss===>Because of the low price, loads of consumers buy the product (yielding a high install base)===> 3rd party publishers begin to put their games on the systems with the highest install base===> People buy large amounts of software because that system has the best (largest amount of) games===>Company makes up for initial losses with high software sales.

See that all works great, if the system is affordable and you have enough money to pull such a stunt.  In the case of the PS3, it isn't cheap by most people's standards and in Nintendo's case, it can't afford to throw away billions of dollars to only gain a few hundred million ala Sony and so far Microsoft's gained nothing out of the entire entertainment division since the original Xbox cam out. 

I realize Nintendo is not a mega-electronics conglomerate, but I do think they could have dropped the price a bit and still made a profit at the same time

Nintendo  wanted to sell the system at $200, it was actually RETAIL that wanted it at a higher price.  $250 is still significantly cheaper than the PlayStation 3 and the 360(the non-crippled version), and finally, the Wii's completely sold out virtually everywhere, so there's no need to take a loss. 

Already the Wii has been selling at an excellent rate. Just imagine what would have happened if it was even cheaper.

Nintendo would have needlessly thrown away hundreds of millions of dollars because the system's sold out, and as a result of major losses, Nintendo would run into future operating issues which might cause additional shortages to supply, which is lower than the demand.

When Nintendo reaches a point where it sees Wii sales tapering off, it'll lower the price.
Logged


Offline Mikazukinoyaiba

Goron
*

Posts: 123


« #27 on: May 09, 2007 »

No, its not*uses sarcastic tone*

Nintendo just randomly makes a remote/nunchuk controller that pwns, has motion sensing in it, has a list of games that most people in the gaming community would die to play and you can download classics such a Mario 64 straight to the system.


Hardly a revolution eh? *sarcastic tone used again*
You misused sarcasm. educate;

Lastly, remind me what is this supposedly list of games that people would die to play?

Unless you were speaking about future titles, which I would say is unfair ground to bring up.

How is the Wii a revolution?

What you just said proves how it is not, to be a revolution you have to inspire and successfully create change.

The Wii has yet to do that and if you honestly think spouting "downloadable content" as a revolutionary feature, I recommend you take a look at the competition.

The idea of downloadable content has existed before the Wii and honestly is inevitable.
Logged
Offline Sheldon Cooper PhD

Halo Master
*

This is the way the world ends....


Posts: 1,744


« #28 on: May 09, 2007 »

I was refering to the future titles which to be honest is not unfair because right now on the consoles there isnt much of anything. The Wii has TP. Big Woop. The PS3 has Resistance. Yawn. The 360 has Dead Rising and Gears. Sigh. I see nothing much in the future of the PS3 worth playing. The 360 will have Fable 2 and Halo 3. The Wii will have SSBB, MP3, Donkey Kong, the inevitable next-gen Zelda, Super Mario Galaxy and a handful of other creative titles.

     Downloadable Content. No crap that it was around before the Wii. I used Xbox Live on the old Xbox and have used the XBL Marketplace as well. PS2 had a few downloads and the Dreamcast is what started it. What I meant by the Content download was that what other system can I download Mario 64, Ocarina of Time, Castlevania, Sonic and about fifty others to without roms and at a cheap, affordable price on top of that. That is what is so revolutionary about the Wii's downloads.

    Lastly, The Wii's controller is what truly is the revolution.  A remote and a nunchuk probally could not have been thought of by anyone other than Nintendo. The whole concept of having to move to play most games for a console is intriguing to gamer such as myself. Beforee you get all pissed, the PS3 does have motion sensing. Truth is that it doesnt work worth crap. Sony simply saw a good idea as they have done before and claimed it as thier own. It would have happened eventually but no one expected it in this generation.

There, my case presented.
Logged

Offline Mikazukinoyaiba

Goron
*

Posts: 123


« #29 on: May 09, 2007 »

I was refering to the future titles which to be honest is not unfair because right now on the consoles there isnt much of anything.
It is unfair, you can't name unreleased titles as "revolutionary" when you can't even observe their results and the changes they have made.

Lastly, The Wii's controller is what truly is the revolution.  A remote and a nunchuk probally could not have been thought of by anyone other than Nintendo. The whole concept of having to move to play most games for a console is intriguing to gamer such as myself.
'kay

So if the Wii's controller is truly Revolutionary, tell me what changes and impact it had on the industry that are lasting.

Oh wait, you can't. It has only been 6 months since launch.  :

Oh and surprise surprise, Nintendo was not the first ot make it that you have to move to play your games, plenty of arcades accomplished that decades ago.

There, my case presented.
and nulled.
Logged
Offline Shin Illuminated

Department store hero
*

Posts: 1,581


« #30 on: May 10, 2007 »

Hmm...you must have been one of the 5.
Logged
Offline Mikazukinoyaiba

Goron
*

Posts: 123


« #31 on: May 10, 2007 »

Hmm...you must have been one of the 5.
I haven't voted.  8)

So no I am not one of the five. Even so what does it matter?
Logged
Offline Shin Illuminated

Department store hero
*

Posts: 1,581


« #32 on: May 10, 2007 »

Oh, nothing.

Not gonna get into a whole thing here.
Logged
Offline Ezlo's Apprentice

ThornSpell47
*

Posts: 7,017


WWW
« #33 on: May 16, 2007 »

Captain Obvious strikes! $1.9 Billion dollar loses for Sony from their gaming division, once their most successful business.

That definitely isn't loose change. And of course, you cut the price, you lose even more money... *wonders about Uchi's business model and whether Sony are now asking themselves "Is it worth it?"*
Logged


Frozone | Kirlia | Togepi | Gligarman | Rotom



104 days, 9 hours and 34 minutes
Offline Hyruleansoldier

Twilight Dreamlander
*

The Paradox of Kirby: Suckage = Ownage ^_^


Posts: 7,535


« #34 on: May 16, 2007 »

One day Sony will make up and realise they've made the biggest mistake in their lives by stepping into the gaming industry...

And yet, what would they be without it?  My point exactly.

Great job on screwing not only the customer but also themselves over.  Even if they plan on keeping the PS3 "alive" for the next decade, they'll at first have to make it viable you know, or their claims (again) will mean strikingly little...

Also: snap
Logged

Offline Ezlo's Apprentice

ThornSpell47
*

Posts: 7,017


WWW
« #35 on: May 16, 2007 »

One day Sony will make up and realise they've made the biggest mistake in their lives by stepping into the gaming industry...

Wouldn't go too far. Although I am not keen on the PS or PS2, they did bring more to the industry than just one company (i.e. Nintendo) could alone.

Their biggest mistake however would be considering that their hold over the industry was eternal and they could just piss on everyone by demanding an extraordinary sum of money from customers for a piece of hardware which developers have to put an extraordinary sum of money into to produce games for.
Logged


Frozone | Kirlia | Togepi | Gligarman | Rotom



104 days, 9 hours and 34 minutes
Offline maddysageofhyrule

Goron
*

Playing Zelda for 8 years!


Posts: 194


« #36 on: May 18, 2007 »

PS3 is defintly NOT worth it. I mean why spend 600 bucks on one console when you can almost buy two diffrent consoles for the same price! And there is nothing good out for it right now. I'm a Wii person. The 360 has not got my attention because no rpgs=bad. If Final Fantasy XIII comes out on the 360 I will buy it. Posibly with Blue Dragon if its good.
Logged

Offline Sheldon Cooper PhD

Halo Master
*

This is the way the world ends....


Posts: 1,744


« #37 on: May 20, 2007 »

The 360 has not got my attention because no rpgs=bad.


No RPG's?!?!

Where have you been?

Lets see here, Oblivion, Enchanted Arms, Phantasy Star Universe, Final Fantasy XI, Umpteen expansions for Oblivion and many more to come.

Upcoming ones include: Mass Effect, Blue Dragon, Lost Odyssey, PSU Expansion, Two Worlds, Blue Dragon 2

Rumored: KOTOR 3, Jade Empire 2, Final Fantasy XIII, Star Ocean 4
Logged

Offline maddysageofhyrule

Goron
*

Playing Zelda for 8 years!


Posts: 194


« #38 on: May 20, 2007 »

Yes Oblivion looks nice but I can buy it for the PC as well. Besides PS2 and PC have tons of RPGS.
Logged

Offline Scott Shelby

Sage of Forest
*

Posts: 1,328


« #39 on: May 20, 2007 »

Lets see here, Oblivion, Enchanted Arms, Phantasy Star Universe, Final Fantasy XI, Umpteen expansions for Oblivion and many more to come.

Oblivion/expansions=multiplatform
PSU=multiplatform
FFXI=Multiplatform
Enchanted arms=multiplatform


Upcoming ones include: Mass Effect, Blue Dragon, Lost Odyssey, PSU Expansion, Two Worlds, Blue Dragon 2

Notable games no doubt, but none are proven franchises yet. That's not to say some of the games won't be good (possibly excellent)

Rumored: KOTOR 3, Jade Empire 2, Final Fantasy XIII, Star Ocean 4

At this point, most of what's listed is pure speculation, save Star Ocean 4. But then again, that's multiplatform.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 8   Go Up
   
 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.082 seconds with 23 queries.