TheBigFatJ said:
Munkeh111 said:
GTA is a partially casual game, and there are many rumours that both the PS3 and 360 will receive price drops around that time, attracting more casual gamers |
It's definitely more casual than Halo 3. In fact, I'd argue that *most* GTA3 players were more along the lines of casual gamers. Not the kind of people who'd pay $460 or even $360 for the GTA experience, but the kind who'd buy it if they had the console or already planned on getting the console. The 360 was already $280 on the Halo 3 launch and it didn't move a ton of units. |
QFT.
Obviously GTA will move units, but how many is the question.
@mr-money, "graphics and big games," big games, yes... graphics, not so much. Since the PS2 was the weakest system, so "getting the most out of the PS2" would be a better way to state it. If developers/consumers wanted the best looking games, they should have made/bought games on the Xbox. Which, as far as I can tell, didn't happen.
@Munkeh111, "without a noticeable step up in graphics," 2 things: 1, I think there is a noticeable difference, and if you can't notice it, then... I don't know what to say. Can you notice a difference between the PS2 and the PS3? I don't have an HD tv, and I don't really think it's all that great, but I can't say, since I don't own one. I dont see much of a difference between games on the Wii that actually try to look nice, like SMG and say, COD4. Is there a difference? Certainly. Can I really see it? Not really. On a HD tv I might be able to, but I'm still 10 years away from one of those. I'll get the PS4 for that.
@Rol, "how long a console can last that is graphically a generation behind." I know you lost your faith in the Wii (or did you get that back?), but the Wii really isn't a generation behind (though maybe you weren't implying that?). The Xbox was ahead of it's time, I feel. Also, I feel the 360 is slightly ahead of it's time, while the PS3 is still a few years ahead of it's time. For the PS3 with it's blu-ray (which will be picking up in adoption rate in a few years), the PS2 would have had to be launched in 1998 or so. See here. I think the price would have been higher in that case. See here for prices of consoles adjusted for inflation.
This brings up an interesting point I've been meaning to look into. With such powerful systems, especially the PS3, it almost has to last 10 years. If it only lasts, say 6 years, like the PS2, and Sony wishes to release another console, and we assume they decide to make a system that is of more moderate power for the time period that it's release in, it'll only be a "step up" from the PS3. People say that in 5 years Nintendo will release Wii2 at about the same power as the PS3. Sony can't even respond. What to do? Make another console that's more powerful than the PS3? So far having the most powerful system hasn't worked so well. Continue with the PS3? By then it might have reached it's full potential, saleswise and performance wise. Then they basically have to wait 5 more years and jump back in during the 9th generation.
Ah long post. Sorry.
