LOL, PS3 @ 600 bucks

[Michaelangelo]

They just handed all of the VG console audience to MS and Nintendo. I'm interested to see the extent of the online services for Wii and if they measure of to snuff with the 360 as far as that goes. Standalone games are ok....but online games and services bring more play value to the console. At least thats my opinion. And I think just plain retro downloads and standard online play isn't enough. Nintendo needs achievements, not just retro games but all sorts of games in an arcade service, MP3 support, Game Trailers, Skins, etc. If Nintendo pulls that off then I'd say it is a console that is truely well off as far as online gaming goes. But I think Nintendo is focusing more on standalone games and new controller concepts then anything else. Online support I think will be limited. That may not be a big deal for those Nintendo fans who will like them no matter what they put out. But if I want to go online and play for example Metroid online, I'd like to know that if I win the game in 2 hours or less that I'll get an achievement unlock.

[Xuzaf D]

I think just plain retro downloads and standard online play isn't enough. Nintendo needs achievements, not just retro games but all sorts of games in an arcade service, MP3 support, Game Trailers, Skins, etc. If Nintendo pulls that off then I'd say it is a console that is truely well off as far as online gaming goes. But I think Nintendo is focusing more on standalone games and new controller concepts then anything else. Online support I think will be limited. That may not be a big deal for those Nintendo fans who will like them no matter what they put out. But if I want to go online and play for example Metroid online, I'd like to know that if I win the game in 2 hours or less that I'll get an achievement unlock.

So instead of creating new content for the Wii, Nintendo should concentrate on being more X-box like?

[Michaelangelo]

So instead of creating new content for the Wii, Nintendo should concentrate on being more X-box like?

They should concentrate on both. Making new games as well as making better online services. And it doesn't have to be EXACTLY like XBox Live but be more involved then a basic system. At the same token I don't think Nintendo could make it any more advanced since they'll lose the kiddy vote if they do that. Not like a 5 year old kid would know how to download retro games or play against other people online anyways. And I'm almost sure that when you play a game online on the Wii they will regulate how people talk in the games meaning you won't be able to curse or speak freely.

[Achirio]

Basically, your saying that nintendo should stop making classic consoles (which is why i still respect nintendo, because they do want to keep making games just for the sake of their fans to enjoy it) , and be a more money making machine like the xbox (a.k.a souless machine).

[Darkmoon]

To be fair, nothing is more souless than Sony.

[Achirio]

Microsoft  is in my oppinion, there aren't many games on the xbox that i couldn't get for my computer, so why get that console if i could just use that money to upgrade my computer?
On the other hand, i enjoy Japanese stile games, and microsoft fails miserably  in the asian market. Which makes Nintendo and Sony very enjoyable.

[Michaelangelo]

To be fair, nothing is more souless than Sony.

Agreed. Sony raising the price to 600 bucks speaks volumes about their character.

Basically, your saying that nintendo should stop making classic consoles (which is why i still respect nintendo, because they do want to keep making games just for the sake of their fans to enjoy it) , and be a more money making machine like the xbox (a.k.a souless machine).

If Classic Consoles means that just like the Nintendo 64 that they refuse to evolve with other console companies to "keep it kid friendly and simple" then yeah. I believe thats pretty stupid. Anyone could see that Nintendo is trying to be kid friendly. They aren't doing anything to please any of their long term fans. They make bright and happy games because little kids can't play games where theres alot of violence and cursing. So they target an audience to make money primarily from that audience. Thats what Nintendo does. They make money off of being "family friendly". So they literally take candy from babies. Believe me they aren't making these Pokemon and Animal Crossing games because thats what people ask for. Nintendo can appeal to ALL audiences. But people over the age of 13 don't matter to them. They aren't going for adult and teen appeal even though some adults and teens play their games. As far as they've gone themselves with teens and adults is Metroid and Eternal Darkness. And that was only to silence the critics who were saying Gamecube was a kiddy console. It was mean't to cover that up so they could sneak in Animal Crossing, Pikmin games, Pokemon, Kiddy Zelda etc. without people noticing too much. Nintendo is looking to make money also man. They aren't this godly, compassionate company every Nintendo fan thinks they are. And if you read the interviews of the old Nintendo president Hiroshi Yamauchi, who is a racist bigot you'll see that. They are trying to make money for Japan and Japanese buisness and thats the ONLY reason they even sell in other countries. Believe me, they could care less about anyone who is not Japanese.  If you honestly think these Japs really love us that much after we dropped an atomic bomb on them you've gotta be kidding yourself. And for the record as Americans we do shitty things. So not many companies that make cars, VG consoles, or anything are gonna care that Americans are fans of them, odds are they just want your money. Plain and simple. Their own countries is a different story completely. I'm sure Hiroshi Yamauchi and other Japanese companies really care about their Japanese Fans. But if you think they care about anyone other then that you're kidding yourself. Japan will never forgive Americans for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, even though our generation had nothing to do with it. We're looked at as vicious, ruthless, and uncaring people. We're also looked at as a lazy, opportunistic society rather then hard workers. They stereotype us and we won't be able to get away from that. Point being Nintendo doesn't love you, they love your money. Sounds not only souless to me but stereotypical, judgemental and prejudice.

[Achirio]

Nope, i mean by classic consoles to consoles aimed for playing, not consoles that do everything a computer could easily do.
I don't give a crap about watching movies, listening to mp3 or browsing the web on a console. I want my consoles to play the games i like, that's it nothing more.
Like you say, Nintendo hasn't evolved past the kid market (which is why i left Nintendo for good after the n64... even tho i also prefered the genesis over the snes) but it doesn't mean they have to release consoles that aren't focused on playing videogames.

[Michaelangelo]

Nope, i mean by classic consoles to consoles aimed for playing, not consoles that do everything a computer could easily do.
I don't give a crap about watching movies, listening to mp3 or browsing the web on a console. I want my consoles to play the games i like, that's it nothing more.
Like you say, Nintendo hasn't evolved past the kid market (which is why i left Nintendo for good after the n64... even tho i also prefered the genesis over the snes) but it doesn't mean they have to release consoles that aren't focused on playing videogames.

Agreed. I think all companies need a big kick in the ass. And I'm not saying MS is perfect. Rare is complete and utter garbage now. The fact that MS is using Bungie and Rare as flagship companies is pretty much making them look like idiots. Games like Halo and PD0 blow. Rare really sucks and I think them more then any other company MS has needs the biggest boot in the ass to make better games. I didn't buy the 360 for Halo and PD0. I bought it for Fable 2, Gears of War, DOA4, Dead Rising, as well as other great games that get overshadowed by the ultimately shitty games Rare is just tossing out there randomly and of course the uniform Halo which is the most uniform boring FPS game with nothing interesting in it. Capcom's Lost for the 360 is a really awesome game but does it get as much press as shitty PD0? Of course not. Meanwhile its one of the best games coming out for the 360 and blows PD0 away.  I do like 360 but not for most of the games people like it for. And I don't even like the fact that most people treat it like its the next N64 now that Rare is onboard. Rare really needs to start stepping it up about 100 notches.

For the record you're right. And if all I thought MS had to offer was shitty Rare games and Halo which are the two things that get the most advertisement, I wouldn't want a 360 either. There are good games on 360. They are just hiding in the background. Which I have no idea why. They're the best games out on 360.

[ilpalazzo]

Like I stated last night Gears of War.

[Destina Faroda]

They just handed all of the VG console audience to MS and Nintendo.

It would if a)gamers were smart enough NOT to dish out that type of cash (which is iffy) and b)if the other consoles actually acted like they wanted to be even the #2 company (which is a definite NO).

I'm interested to see the extent of the online services for Wii and if they measure of to snuff with the 360 as far as that goes. Standalone games are ok....but online games and services bring more play value to the console. At least thats my opinion. And I think just plain retro downloads and standard online play isn't enough.

Sorry, man, but I definitely disagree.  While the idea of online play will lure some people, there are plenty of gamers who make a distinction between their games and the Internet.  Making on-line access a subscription service is going to turn more people off than garner subscribers.  After all, I don't play MK: DS much online any more and it's FREE.  Look at the number of people who abandon those on-line games after the newness wears off.  A good game is closed ended and needs no on-line play.

Nintendo needs achievements, not just retro games but all sorts of games in an arcade service, MP3 support, Game Trailers, Skins, etc. If Nintendo pulls that off then I'd say it is a console that is truely well off as far as online gaming goes. But I think Nintendo is focusing more on standalone games and new controller concepts then anything else. Online support I think will be limited. That may not be a big deal for those Nintendo fans who will like them no matter what they put out. But if I want to go online and play for example Metroid online, I'd like to know that if I win the game in 2 hours or less that I'll get an achievement unlock.

Quite frankly, that is the last thing Nintendo needs.  The one SMART thing it's doing is not trying to be an entertainment hub.  Console gamers generally like to play console games.  We may seek game related news and media on our own time, but that's because we like to play the games, not because all these fancy features are thrust on the user,  Because of the Internet and fan communities, there's already an unsponsored level of competition regarding single player games.  That the reason why some players like single player games is that we don't WANT to deal with other people and be judged by their standards.

For example, I like playing Mega Man 2.  Having a special "bonus" added to it will make me like it a lot less because I feel the game is judging me.  I want to be able to feel like I accomplished something by beating a game, even if it took 92 hours and a million tries.  Taking that sense of achievement away from me because of my horrible playing makes the game all about perfomance and not the journey, the latter the whole reason why I play.

And that's something else.  If a game only takes you a 2 hours to beat, then where's the enjoyment?

[Xuzaf D]

I really don't know if I should keep typing now, but I can at least give it a try.

System by system:


Sony PS3: Clearly offering a very powerful machine and probably the most powerful, but at 600 dollars it's difficult to believe that it can be sold to the masses. The PS3 may have the same fate as the Neo-Geo.

Nintendo Wii: Numerous games in every genre have been announced, including the exclusive and mature Red Steel and Metroid Prime 3. This system seems to have the weakest of graphics, but is also the cheaper by $200 when compared to the X-box 360's normal package (not the core system). The system also offers the new controller as well as a traditional controller. Nintendo also has the virtual console, which may not be a major thing, but its own existence displays clearly that the Wii is going to be on-line.

Microsoft X-box 360: This game system is already known by the public. As you may have heard, the core system is not worth it. The games so far have not offered much variety, and the system is clearly limited on innovation. Sure they have 1 fighting game, and 1 platformer, but beyond that we have shooters and sports games. There's more stuff coming though. More RPG's, more online games. If we're lucky, maybe a price drop.

On a final note: feel free to raise your hand if your going to buy PS3 at its release.

[ilpalazzo]

I'll wait a couple months until I buy my Ps3.

[Darkmoon]

I'll wait until either Sony goes bankrupt or the PS4 comes out to buy a PS3. The fact that the Blue-Ray is driving up the price and yet is as likely as not to even play HD/BlueRay movies means the system has little value to me as anything other than a game machine (not that I wouldn't likely buy a HDDVD or Blue Ray player eventually anyway), and 600 bucks for a game machine is so FAR outside anything I'd be willing to pay as to not even be funny.

I mean, Microsoft had it right in their statement: Buy a 360 and a Wii, spend less for two systems, and get all the games that will be released on the ps3 anyway.

[Bloodreign]

The damned thing is too expensive, I don't need a hard drive for it, as I prefer to use my PC for online gaming.


Hey Sony how about I give you 50 bucks, you give me the system with no control pads, and no AC adapter. 

[DragonCub]

There are still games I want for the systems I have. and $600 can buy a lot of those games. I want to enjoy what I have now without feeling like I have to rush out to get the next big thing or get left behind.

I'll get all three of the new systems, I'm just going to take my time doing it, like any smart gamer would.

[Nimrods Son]

yeah, that's a point. I don't care about advancements in graphic capacities - just look what the NES was capable of in its last period, compared to its beginning. I suppose PS3 graphics could be achieved on any 128 bit system if a hardware generation was given the time to fully arrive. Programmers hat 10 years or so to learn how to get the best out of the NES, and now they don't need to even think about ways to trick out the hardware's limitations, because the next generation is always ready fror the launch. That way, players get the feeling of great technological advancements, but in fact, less and less care is being given to gameplay and graphics. See CV: Curse of Darkness, which sucks IMO.

[Darkmoon]

Well, on the consoles that's true. With the portables, at least the Nintendo ones, you can always see articles about how the programmers have found new ways to get the hardware to do things...

[Nimrods Son]

yeah, that's a point. though I haven't seen anything on the DS so far that couldn't have been on the GBA, save for the N64 re-releases..
but perhaps, I might have my große surprise with portrait of ruin. with gratitude, I shall then regret my swearing. Then.

[DragonCub]

There was an article in the newest EGM about systems and their launch prices. They even used an inflation calculator to try to prove that the price of the new systems is about the same as systems of the past. Just trying to convince people to buy new systems and embrace them as soon as they are released. I got my launch day Gamecube. I got a GBA on launch day. Those are the only two systems I got on launch day. They both still work wonderfully. I went out of my way to get a PS2 shortly after launch, and it bit the dust. My first Playstation bit the dust. But yet none of my Nintendo systems have given me trouble. I am starting to see a pattern. I am not biased toward any brand, but I must say that I have always been more pleased with Nintendo's system quality. Sure I will eventually have all three of the new systems, but that doesn't mean I am going to lay down my money on launch day, no matter how much they tried to convince me that I have paid that much for my previous systems.

[Darkmoon]

Sony systems do tend to have issues for the first 2 or 3 years of life. Now, my PSX and my PS2 haven't ever experienced issues, but I also got them 3 years after launch each.

[Achirio]

Both my psx and ps2 still work great and they have never given me any troubles. I bought my psx in 1998 and my ps2 in 2002.

[Jack McSlay]

since it's been mentioned that consoles costs about as much as they used to, here's a chart:
without inflation:

with inflation:


so unless it's being counted really ancient consoles, that statement isn't quite valid, not for PS3 at least.

the problem with PS3 isn't only the console price, but the price of everything, not only the console itself is really expensive, but also the development, and as Kaz said, the games will be as well. After the E3 conference several producers started cutting off their PS3 development, since it's so expensive and is constantly losing its image. So it means they will need a very good reason to prefer developing to PS3 instead of Wii or X360. PS2 is also harder to develop than GC or XB, due to its badly architectured hardware (lots of processing power but low on everything else), but its userbase being over twice the sum o GC and XB makes up for it, which I doubt PS3 will achieve.

and I seriously don't see how adding a lot of non-gaming content will greatly help the console itself. $ony already failed the multifunctional idea miserably with PSX (the PS2 with extra functions, not the first Playstation). Besides, I've never met a single person who uses their consoles as their main media player. Sure it's cool to have videos and music on a console, but a gaming console is the last artifact I'm going to use for media playback

the virtual console is way more hot. between having media or a huge gaming library with most of the important games of three console generation, I'd definitely go with the games. which is what nintendo aims for, because it will attract old-school gamers and also people who like simpler games. and other gamers will finally be able to play games they coudn't before (Sin & Punishment yay!!!!!)

[Darkmoon]

They are putting a lot of faith into the BlueRay DVD play system. I doubt that a whole lot of people will care that they can watch movies in BlueRay HD when most people don't even have a HD TV.

[Kenji]

I've never been dissappointed in a Nintendo system. Well, aside from the Virtuaboy hurting my eyes, but some of the games were still fun. Anyways, yeah, like someone said in the topic, I prefer my game systems to play games. By now, 90% of the world already has a computer, some form of music player, and a DVD player. No need to cram all that into a game system just to make it more expensive. PSP? I would be interested if it wasn't so freaking expensive, didn't break so easily, and offered better games. Though I would like the Monster Hunter. Mmmm Monster Hunter.

Sides, since the Wii will be online 24/7, and downloading any new features and demos to your system, even the DS demos and stuff, I'm good with it. They've already stated that they'll be putting more effort into the online feature of their games. I'm sure after the initial setup, it'll be just a simple matter of clicking the "connect" button and bam, internet available for games and downloads.

I can honestly say I'll not be getting any of the X systems. There's only been one game on them I've cared about, since I played it's predecessor, and from what I've heard, they ruined it. That game being Conker. As for Sony... eh... always too expensive, and the first batch of their systems ALWAYS has major glitches in it. I still remember not being able to play blueback PS2 games on the very original PS2s. Most PSPs I heard about had tons of dead pixels after a few weeks after release. Yeah... don't think I wanna buy a second PS3 at that price. ..... Let alone a first.

Long story short.... Wii for me, all the way, baby. I'll be happy with my Zelda, Mario, Metroid, Kirby, Animal Crossing, and yes even the pocket critters, along with all my other favorite games.

[RJ]

I'll probably be getting a Wii too Multiplayer, yay! But the main reason is because of cost... It'll be over $600AU for the downgraded package, and then $999AU for the premium, which frankly sucks.

Sony isn't going to be making many friends in Australia with that. Then again, Australia has always been considered the beggar of the gaming regions. 

[Jack McSlay]

I'll probably be getting a Wii too Multiplayer, yay! But the main reason is because of cost... It'll be over $600AU for the downgraded package, and then $999AU for the premium, which frankly sucks.

Sony isn't going to be making many friends in Australia with that. Then again, Australia has always been considered the beggar of the gaming regions.

if Australia is the beggar of gaming world I wonder what that makes Brazil then... here the most optimistic estimates is that of full PS3 at R$3000-3500 (about U$1300-1500) and the games sell around R$180 up to whooping R$400 (U$78-173)

so it appears Wii will sell better here as well... that is unless they manage to find how to run pirated games on newer X360s.

I wonder how's Sony's strategies anyways...
ten years ago they got to the top by making a system more attractive to developers due to being easier and cheaper to develop for, when compared to the competition. and it won despite the price (PS1 = U$300 N64=U$200 SAT=U$400)

now, with Nintendo coming up with a system that easy as heck to develop for when compared to the competition (a developer at hudson estimated 2-4X cheaper), completely new gaming concept, and cheaper costs for the consumer, the answer is to make one of the most expensive consoles in history, even more expensive to develop for, and a controller that is a rip off Sidewinder Freestyle (which microsoft itself admits it sucked, since it would only play well in racing games)? really...

I don't think even blue-ray will keep it from failing, granted much better blue-ray players will appear not long after PS3's launch, and since PS3 doesn't have anything shiny to convince the developers to pay more to develop for it (such as XB's live or N64's superior 3d and multiplayer capabilities) it should at best have a slow painful death

[KarlOmega1]

I rather get either the Wii or the 360, or both since if you see it from another angle...if you bought a Wii and a 360, the purchase be around the same cost as a PS3...so what would you rather buy with $600... One console or Two consoles?

[Cvstos]

I said a lot of my thoughts about this on another thread, but here's a recap.

Sony's love of 1080p may be their undoing.  Powerful or not, 1080p is a MUCH harder resolution to pull than the 720p the Xbox 360 asks for, and graphics effects may have to be sacrificed to keep framerates up.  And if you thought the console's price was limiting, games are rumored to be even pricier than the 360's titles, and you can be assured that the controllers will be ungodly expensive.   Bluetooth is expensive all by itself, but the inclusion of motion sensing could send the cost skyrocketing to $75+ (worst case).

Microsoft's social strategy with the 360, Xbox Live, Live Anywhere (Vista, Windows Mobile), etc is a good move and may prove to be it's biggest strength.  There are some good games already here and more coming, too.  (Burnout Revenge is simply awesome on the 360.)

Nintendo's innovation is legendary, and the Wii's cheap price may entice a lot of people to come back into the Nintendo camp, or maybe buy it as a complement to their 360 or PS3.

In the end, I think all three will be successful.  This isn't the Dreamcast era, and the market is now big enough to support three consoles.  Which one will win?  Well, I don't know, but the gaming world is just going to get more awesome from here on out.

[Xuzaf D]

I hear Nintendo gets the best profit since anyone who owns there Gamecube can only really pick from their games. It makes sense considering X-box and PS2 only have a few things worth mentioning by way of first party. It's the people at SquareEnix and Namco (and others) that get all the good money out of the PS2.