windbane said: Ok...I'd rather rebuy a good game than buy a terrible game. FF7: Crisis Core and FF: Dissidia are very anticipated. Can't say the same about many of those DS games. I'd say it's even between those and DQ9 and FF12.

Hehe trying to cut down on quote bubble size. We don't know much about Dissidia at all, history says FF7: Crisis Core will likely be bad (DoC anyone?). Even if you want to narrow it down: FFTA2 is very highly anticipated. FFTA is a higher rated game than FFT on Gamerankings. It's sequel is big news. DQ: Heroes and DQ: Monsters may not be huge, but Heroes sold well and was well reviewed. FF:CC is HUGE, and is getting a lot of attention and praise. So even if you refuse to include the DQ spinoffs, you have 2 games that you don't actually know much about at all vs. 4 games that are all played by major review sites and complemented heavily, plus tons of other unique releases that are good (even if not as great).

Edit: Please understand that the purpose in my post is that SE has shifted their focus heavily to the DS, not that the games will necessarily all suck on the PSP.  I can't change your opinion on the quality of the games, but I think I have sufficiently proven SE is a free agent that goes where the money is.

naznatips said: windbane said: Ok...I'd rather rebuy a good game than buy a terrible game. FF7: Crisis Core and FF: Dissidia are very anticipated. Can't say the same about many of those DS games. I'd say it's even between those and DQ9 and FF12. Hehe trying to cut down on quote bubble size. We don't know much about Dissidia at all, history says FF7: Crisis Core will likely be bad (DoC anyone?). Even if you want to narrow it down: FFTA2 is very highly anticipated. FFTA is a higher rated game than FFT on Gamerankings. It's sequel is big news. DQ: Heroes and DQ: Monsters may not be huge, but Heroes sold well and was well reviewed. FF:CC is HUGE, and is getting a lot of attention and praise. So even if you refuse to include the DQ spinoffs, you have 2 games that you don't actually know much about at all vs. 4 games that are all played by major review sites and complemented heavily, plus tons of other unique releases that are good (even if not as great).

Heh, fair enough. We'll see, then. I was very disappointed with Dawn of Mana. Reminded me of when I thought Square could do no wrong until they released Saga Frontier...and then did a sequel...

I will say, though, that Dirge of Cerebus had pretty bad gameplay but still had great cutscenes and a decent background story for Vincent and Sephiroth.  That game has nothing to do with Crisis Core though.  Last I checked it wasn't a FPS...if it is then I'll agree with you. 

@gorgepir: Like I said, I would rather play a good remake than a terrible new game. We'll see how it all plays out. I think the PSP is getting a surprising amount of focus from Square right now, and I think the future looks much better on the PS3 than the Wii. I'll have both, though, so as long as they don't shock the world and do a 360 exclusive I'll be ok. I'll probably get a DS eventually, too. Too much to play right now, though.

windbane said: naznatips said: windbane said: Ok...I'd rather rebuy a good game than buy a terrible game. FF7: Crisis Core and FF: Dissidia are very anticipated. Can't say the same about many of those DS games. I'd say it's even between those and DQ9 and FF12. Hehe trying to cut down on quote bubble size. We don't know much about Dissidia at all, history says FF7: Crisis Core will likely be bad (DoC anyone?). Even if you want to narrow it down: FFTA2 is very highly anticipated. FFTA is a higher rated game than FFT on Gamerankings. It's sequel is big news. DQ: Heroes and DQ: Monsters may not be huge, but Heroes sold well and was well reviewed. FF:CC is HUGE, and is getting a lot of attention and praise. So even if you refuse to include the DQ spinoffs, you have 2 games that you don't actually know much about at all vs. 4 games that are all played by major review sites and complemented heavily, plus tons of other unique releases that are good (even if not as great). Heh, fair enough. We'll see, then. I was very disappointed with Dawn of Mana. Reminded me of when I thought Square could do no wrong until they released Saga Frontier...and then did a sequel... I will say, though, that Dirge of Cerebus had pretty bad gameplay but still had great cutscenes and a decent background story for Vincent and Sephiroth. That game has nothing to do with Crisis Core though. Last I checked it wasn't a FPS...if it is then I'll agree with you. @gorgepir: Like I said, I would rather play a good remake than a terrible new game. We'll see how it all plays out. I think the PSP is getting a surprising amount of focus from Square right now, and I think the future looks much better on the PS3 than the Wii. I'll have both, though, so as long as they don't shock the world and do a 360 exclusive I'll be ok. I'll probably get a DS eventually, too. Too much to play right now, though.

 Agreed, Mana games have blown for quite a while lol.  Just showing the shift in development focus. 

windbane said: Dolla Dolla said: Good question: Would the CEO encourage holding Final Fantasy from being released if he thought it would fair better later in the PS3's life? No, because it will sells millions of PS3s.  FF creates its install base whereever it goes.

Except none of those systems cost more than half a frickin grand.

GhaudePhaede010 said: windbane said: Dolla Dolla said: Good question: Would the CEO encourage holding Final Fantasy from being released if he thought it would fair better later in the PS3's life? No, because it will sells millions of PS3s. FF creates its install base whereever it goes. Except none of those systems cost more than half a frickin grand.

Well, it doesn't in Japan, and it will get a price drop or 2 before FF13 comes out. What do you have new-comer?

windbane said: albionus said: @windbane Come now, most Wii fans have no problem with great graphics, I know I don't, however many, like me, do have major problems with video game consoles priced over $300 (unfortunately, most people can't afford to blow that amount of money on video games). What's wrong with Wii fans and fanboys going after the inferiorly priced consoles by commenting on this thread, the head of a major gaming company is critisizing those systems after all.   First of all, with inflation-adjusted numbers, the 360 (the real one, not the core) is priced about average when compared to the past consoles. The PS3 is one of the most expensive, and the Wii is one of the cheapest.  I think you get what you pay for. The head of a major gaming company is releasing far more games on the PS3 and PSP than other consoles, so I'm not very concerned with him justifying throwing away a major RPG release on a graphically inferior handheld. He said the install base was high, and it's probably cheaper. Considering it takes longer than 2 years to make a game, it looks like the Wii will miss the party. They have very few games in development for the Wii, and if they start any now they will be on the PS3 and/or the 360. Kinda like The Last Remnant, huh?

Well something we can agree on, the core is not a real 360.  Oh statistics, my pleasure of pleasures.  Since I enjoy statistics so much and since the rest of your comments have been debated before I'll focus on them.  Let's take a closer look at this "360 is about average in price" claim.  First I should note I'm using GDP implicit price deflator here, you may, assuming you ran the numbers yourself, have used the CPI which I don't like personally (my advance macroeconomics professor preferred CPI but then he also loved PPP so to me that just links the two) but the difference is only 6% in 1991 so it doesn't matter much.  This chart is entirely US figures and doesn't include also-rans like the 3DO or CDI.

System	Launch Price	Price in 2005$
NES	200	333
3rd Gen	200	333
Genesis	190	277
SNES	200	271
4th Gen	195	274
Saturn	400	500
PS1	300	371
N64	200	243
5th Gen	300	371
DC	200	235
PS2	300	345
Xbox	300	336
GCN	200	224
6th Gen	250	285
System Avg	249	313
Xbox360	400	400

A few of those systems, the NES and SNES, came with 2 controllers and a game while the Wii of course comes with a game so they are technically even cheaper.  The 360 is the 3rd most expensive system being bested only by the PS3 and Saturn.  Excepting the Saturn, prior to the 360 the average generational price was settling around $290.  The trend line in Excel has each system becoming $6.75 cheaper adjusting for inflation at launch until recently.  The PS1 is somewhat close to the 360 though unfortunately I don't have the time or information to be able to figure out how much each system sold for at what price. 

It's because of how long the 360 is hovering at $400 that its total average price is really being driven up.  I can find that the PS1 took 9 months to fall to $199 and 21 months to fall to $149.  We're at month 19 and the 360 just got more expensive with the $480 Elite.  Maybe we'll see a $200 price drop in 2 months but I doubt it.  Correcting for inflation and price drops the PS1 averaged around $280 in its first 2 years.  Assuming we get a Halo 3 $100 price cut on the 360 its 2 year price average is $379.  Even though at launch the 360 was only about 7% higher than the PS1 at this point in their lives it is 66% higher and even allowing for the price cute it will end its second year 35% higher. 

This is in comparison with the next most expensive system that it comes off that badly.  Comparing it to the SNES or N64 would be even worse.  The simple fact is that the 360 is not about average even when looking at launch prices and fares even worse when averaging it's price due to it's long price drop wait.  Again I didn't say an extra $100 was too much for some it's just too much for most.  The Wii by the way would be around $245 so it's tied with the N64 and above the GCN and DC in launch price.  Admittedly it could have easily launched at $200 (or even $150) but as we are seeing no point in Nintendo throwing away up to a billion in profits. 

Anyways, anymore stats you need me to shoot down?  It has been quite a delightful 40 minutes, I must thank you for that.

albionus said: windbane said: albionus said: @windbane Come now, most Wii fans have no problem with great graphics, I know I don't, however many, like me, do have major problems with video game consoles priced over $300 (unfortunately, most people can't afford to blow that amount of money on video games). What's wrong with Wii fans and fanboys going after the inferiorly priced consoles by commenting on this thread, the head of a major gaming company is critisizing those systems after all.   First of all, with inflation-adjusted numbers, the 360 (the real one, not the core) is priced about average when compared to the past consoles. The PS3 is one of the most expensive, and the Wii is one of the cheapest. I think you get what you pay for. The head of a major gaming company is releasing far more games on the PS3 and PSP than other consoles, so I'm not very concerned with him justifying throwing away a major RPG release on a graphically inferior handheld. He said the install base was high, and it's probably cheaper. Considering it takes longer than 2 years to make a game, it looks like the Wii will miss the party. They have very few games in development for the Wii, and if they start any now they will be on the PS3 and/or the 360. Kinda like The Last Remnant, huh?   Well something we can agree on, the core is not a real 360. Oh statistics, my pleasure of pleasures. Since I enjoy statistics so much and since the rest of your comments have been debated before I'll focus on them. Let's take a closer look at this "360 is about average in price" claim. First I should note I'm using GDP price deflator here, you may have used CPI which I don't like personally (that's assuming you actually ran the numbers yourself) but the difference is only 6% in 1991 so it doesn't matter much. This chart is entirely US figures and doesn't include also-rans like the 3DO or CDI. System Launch Price Price in 2005$ NES 200 333 3rd Gen 200 333 Genesis 190 277 SNES 200 271 4th Gen 195 274 Saturn 400 500 PS1 300 371 N64 200 243 5th Gen 300 371 DC 200 235 PS2 300 345 Xbox 300 336 GCN 200 224 6th Gen 250 285 System Avg 249 313 Xbox360 400 400 A few of those systems, the NES and SNES, came with 2 controllers and a game while the Wii of course comes with a game so they are technically even cheaper. The 360 is the 3rd most expensive system being bested only by the PS3 and Saturn. Excepting the Saturn, prior to the 360 the average generational price was settling around $290. The trend line in Excel has each system becoming $6.75 cheaper adjusting for inflation at launch until recently. The PS1 is somewhat close to the 360 though unfortunately I don't have the time or information to be able to figure out how much each system sold for at what price. It's in how long the 360 is hovering at $400 that is really driving up it's total average price. I can find that the PS1 took 9 months to fall to $199 and 21 months to fall to $149. We're at month 19 and the 360 just got more expensive with the $480 Elite. Maybe we'll see a $200 price drop in 2 months but I doubt it. Correcting for inflation and price drops the PS1 averaged around $280 in its first 2 years. Assuming we get a Halo 3 $100 price cut on the 360 its 2 year price average is $379. Even though at launch the 360 was only about 7% higher than the PS1 at this point in their lives it is 66% higher and even allowing for the price cute it will end its second year 35% higher. This is in comparison with the next most expensive system that it comes off that badly. Comparing it to the SNES or N64 would be even worse. The simple fact remains that the 360 is not about average even when looking at launch prices and comes off far worse when averaging it's price due to it's long price drop wait. Again I didn't say an extra $100 was too much for some it's just too much for most. The Wii by the way would be around $245 so it's tied with the N64 and above the GCN and DC in launch price. Admittedly it could have easily launched at $200 (or even $150) but as we are seeing no point in Nintendo throwing away up to a billion in profits. Anyways, anymore stats you need me to shoot down? It has been quite a delightful 40 minutes, I must thank you for that.

Not sure why you wasted so much time. We've already done a thread on this before, but here's a link that took me 10 seconds to find:

Ok, so the links don't work...just google "inflation adjusted console launch prices" without quotations.

windbane said: albionus said: windbane said: albionus said: @windbane Come now, most Wii fans have no problem with great graphics, I know I don't, however many, like me, do have major problems with video game consoles priced over $300 (unfortunately, most people can't afford to blow that amount of money on video games). What's wrong with Wii fans and fanboys going after the inferiorly priced consoles by commenting on this thread, the head of a major gaming company is critisizing those systems after all.   First of all, with inflation-adjusted numbers, the 360 (the real one, not the core) is priced about average when compared to the past consoles. The PS3 is one of the most expensive, and the Wii is one of the cheapest. I think you get what you pay for. The head of a major gaming company is releasing far more games on the PS3 and PSP than other consoles, so I'm not very concerned with him justifying throwing away a major RPG release on a graphically inferior handheld. He said the install base was high, and it's probably cheaper. Considering it takes longer than 2 years to make a game, it looks like the Wii will miss the party. They have very few games in development for the Wii, and if they start any now they will be on the PS3 and/or the 360. Kinda like The Last Remnant, huh?   Well something we can agree on, the core is not a real 360. Oh statistics, my pleasure of pleasures. Since I enjoy statistics so much and since the rest of your comments have been debated before I'll focus on them. Let's take a closer look at this "360 is about average in price" claim. First I should note I'm using GDP price deflator here, you may have used CPI which I don't like personally (that's assuming you actually ran the numbers yourself) but the difference is only 6% in 1991 so it doesn't matter much. This chart is entirely US figures and doesn't include also-rans like the 3DO or CDI. System Launch Price Price in 2005$ NES 200 333 3rd Gen 200 333 Genesis 190 277 SNES 200 271 4th Gen 195 274 Saturn 400 500 PS1 300 371 N64 200 243 5th Gen 300 371 DC 200 235 PS2 300 345 Xbox 300 336 GCN 200 224 6th Gen 250 285 System Avg 249 313 Xbox360 400 400 A few of those systems, the NES and SNES, came with 2 controllers and a game while the Wii of course comes with a game so they are technically even cheaper. The 360 is the 3rd most expensive system being bested only by the PS3 and Saturn. Excepting the Saturn, prior to the 360 the average generational price was settling around $290. The trend line in Excel has each system becoming $6.75 cheaper adjusting for inflation at launch until recently. The PS1 is somewhat close to the 360 though unfortunately I don't have the time or information to be able to figure out how much each system sold for at what price. It's in how long the 360 is hovering at $400 that is really driving up it's total average price. I can find that the PS1 took 9 months to fall to $199 and 21 months to fall to $149. We're at month 19 and the 360 just got more expensive with the $480 Elite. Maybe we'll see a $200 price drop in 2 months but I doubt it. Correcting for inflation and price drops the PS1 averaged around $280 in its first 2 years. Assuming we get a Halo 3 $100 price cut on the 360 its 2 year price average is $379. Even though at launch the 360 was only about 7% higher than the PS1 at this point in their lives it is 66% higher and even allowing for the price cute it will end its second year 35% higher. This is in comparison with the next most expensive system that it comes off that badly. Comparing it to the SNES or N64 would be even worse. The simple fact remains that the 360 is not about average even when looking at launch prices and comes off far worse when averaging it's price due to it's long price drop wait. Again I didn't say an extra $100 was too much for some it's just too much for most. The Wii by the way would be around $245 so it's tied with the N64 and above the GCN and DC in launch price. Admittedly it could have easily launched at $200 (or even $150) but as we are seeing no point in Nintendo throwing away up to a billion in profits. Anyways, anymore stats you need me to shoot down? It has been quite a delightful 40 minutes, I must thank you for that. Not sure why you wasted so much time. We've already done a thread on this before, but here's a link that took me 10 seconds to find: http://curmudgeongamer.com/imgdisplay.php3?shotfile=console-prices-relative.png Or for the full page:  http://curmudgeongamer.com/2006/05/history-of-console-prices-or-500-aint.html

Because I enjoy statistics and have nothing else to do at the moment .  Those links don't work by the way.  Those are just launch prices, which I went more in depth than that.

IGN's take...or, as I like to call it, the second link on google: http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/643/643170p1.html

Atari VCS launched in 1977 for $249.99	$811.21 in 2005
Nintendo Entertainment System launched in 1985 for $199.99	$354.91 in 2005
SEGA Genesis launched in 1989 for $249.99	$389.67 in 2005
NeoGeo launched in 1990 for $699.99	$1041.12 in 2005
Super Nintendo launched in 1991 for $199.99	$282.21 in 2005
Jaguar launched in 1993 for $249.99	$328.69 in 2005
3DO Interactive Multiplayer launched in 1993 for $699.95	$920.30 in 2005
SEGA Saturn launched in 1995 for $399.99	$497.66 in 2005
Nintendo 64 launched in 1996 for $199.99	$242.75 in 2005
SEGA Dreamcast launches in 1999 for $199.99	$228.09 in 2005
PlayStation launched in 1995 for $299.99	$372.01 in 2005
PlayStation 2 launched in 2000 for $299.99	$333.15 in 2005
Xbox Launched in 2001 for $299.99	$325.34 in 2005
GameCube launched in 2001 for $199.99	$216.89 in 2005

 

Costs about as much as a PS1 did. 

windbane said: IGN's take...or, as I like to call it, the second link on google: http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/643/643170p1.html Atari VCS launched in 1977 for $249.99 $811.21 in 2005 Nintendo Entertainment System launched in 1985 for $199.99 $354.91 in 2005 SEGA Genesis launched in 1989 for $249.99 $389.67 in 2005 NeoGeo launched in 1990 for $699.99 $1041.12 in 2005 Super Nintendo launched in 1991 for $199.99 $282.21 in 2005 Jaguar launched in 1993 for $249.99 $328.69 in 2005 3DO Interactive Multiplayer launched in 1993 for $699.95 $920.30 in 2005 SEGA Saturn launched in 1995 for $399.99 $497.66 in 2005 Nintendo 64 launched in 1996 for $199.99 $242.75 in 2005 SEGA Dreamcast launches in 1999 for $199.99 $228.09 in 2005 PlayStation launched in 1995 for $299.99 $372.01 in 2005 PlayStation 2 launched in 2000 for $299.99 $333.15 in 2005 Xbox Launched in 2001 for $299.99 $325.34 in 2005 GameCube launched in 2001 for $199.99 $216.89 in 2005   Costs about as much as a PS1 did.

If you note I said it costed about the same as a PS1 at launch, I then looked at the PS1's price over 2 years and the 360's.  It's not as important how much it costs at launch but rather how much it costs over it's lifetime.  Unless you think it matters to people that the PS1 was $371 at launch when 21 months later they are thinking of buying one for $180.  I don't think it's important but you seem to have a launch price obsession, as if people forever associate a system with its launch price (ok, that may just be the case with the PS3).  The PS1 had already been 33% cheaper for 10 months at this point and was about to fall to 50% cheaper.  The 360 still sits at 100% (well,~96% with inflation) with a possible drop to 75% at a point after the PS1 had already reached 50%.  Of course let's not forget the 360 is a little bit more expensive from the get go, so it's averaging well above the PS1 in its total average price.   That is, it's an expensive video game system to most people.