thats not true. M$ first games in 2005 were 50 bucks each all sold well and made a profit. the 60 dollars is just to get more money out of us because of stores like gamestop and used game sales. they tested gamers to see if we would buy a game for more then 50 bucks and we all fell for it. If companies were worried about sales so much they should of pushed one system that sells world wide and made all the games on that... ( like in the past ps1 ps2, now the wii etc). game devs costs went up thats for sure and people are losing a lot of money thats for sure  but that because devs made games on different consoles and took bribe money from all console markers.  the jp devs are suffering the most because they choose to make games on xbox and not the wii and the ps3. they are suffering because of bad choices not because of a 50 or 60 dollar price tags. if all those RPGS that were only on xbox came out for the pswii the fan base would be much larger in japan and they would not be in this mess.

Also there is another reason companies are going out of business and thats called a recession. (which i would place my money on that being the most inportant factor since you can always make cheap games on DS and psp and now XBL, Wii ware and PSN)

Lastly we must not forget that all PC games are still 50 bucks... why is that?

Well from Ubi this gen I have enjoyed:

HAWX, Blazing Angels 1 & 2, Rainbow Six Vegas 1 & 2, loved AC I & 2, PoP and I didn't really get into GRAW 2

But still, I think they are wasting resources with games like Lost, Avatar and more. I am not against variety, but I think EA's policy of reducing the number of games they release per year. I will take the yearly FIFAs because they are doing really good work there, but in most cases, a release every 2 years is best for a franchise, and certainly in this market, from a financial perspective, don't make a mid-budget game, they really have to be low budget or big budget

However, this is getting off topic

Oh I know that inFAMOUS is more technically impressive, but I don't think the physics have a very notable impact on gameplay. I would much prefer that Sucker Punch had sought to maintain the frame rate a bit more, rather than push particle effects. But that's just me

And yes, it was a good run for the money. But just so we are absolutely clear, I love my exclusives.

This game will have better graphics and technology than Gears of War but I don't think it will be more fun than Gears 1 or 2 (and it's what really matters), especially after I saw this video:

Maybe the problem is that the guy sucks at his own game.

Games published by MS are a different matter, as they don't pay licensing fees to themselves. With PC games there are no licensing fees involved, that's why they're cheaper.

EA, Take 2, THQ and now Ubisoft as well aren't making money. Activision-Blizzard is, but judging from their reports it looks like most or all of it comes from Blizzard.

Those are 4 or 5 of the biggest publishers, if not the biggest.

What lie is that MS's first games in 2005 were $50?

They were most definitely $60 as I paid that $60 for my launch titles.

erm no. no it wasnt. It was 360 owners sayingt lol a Gera srip off.

PS3 owners are like no its like a Devil may cry shooter. So really it should be called a DMC killer not gears.

What a stupid post to make. I think you should get you facts right befor posting crap

Quantum, a third person action game from Team Tachyon, has long been touted as Sony's equivalent to Gears of War, a comparison that Tecmo themselves even welcomed.

Good for 360 owners, tough it still looks mediocre.

http://www.joystiq.com/2005/08/24/microsoft-first-party-xbox-360-games-to-retail-for-49-99/

please do some googling before you call someone a liar.

also i worked 6am and SOLD the first xboxs in my store i hated it so i remeber clearly what i sold and what i bought.....