OHHHHHH ok well ok that is not to bad. But you will be paying $25 for memroy cards. Also a KOTOR save can't be done on a card. So you do need that hard drive for some games. So you may end spending just as much as before. I also don't want a damn set-top box.

This is also where I must gave N huge porps they are a gaming company and make no buts about it.

Actually, the rumor is next gen that the systems will have built in flash memory to save games.

If not, mem cards are no big deal. $20-25, so if the systems $199 that's just $219-224 total, much better than $300 or more to have an HD etc. that I don't really need as I trade 99% games after beating them so I can just delete the save files and get by with one mem card.

Also, KOTOR was just a programmer's decision as I understand, and the save file could fit on the X-box mem card, they just didn't provide mem card support.

I don't see any console bashing in this thread per se. People have argued for and against all the systems and it's been a pretty good discussion so far.

To better explain my "botched XBOX hardware" comment, I meant to say that MS did a poor job of communicating the HW advantage to the average consumer. I felt the MP3 ripping wasn't really advertised too much and the other benfits of the drive were not really that clear to joe shmoe. Better loading times? sure. Downloadable content? only if you pay extra for LIVE service. This is why the PS2 was able to sell for the same price as the XBOX with less hardware and games in the box. The hardware difference appeared negligible. I'm sure they'll do a better job next time around leveraging the advantages. Live was the one feature they really advertised and implemented well as a competitive advantage.

As far as Nintendo goes, no doubt they know how to make money but most of their million seller games are developed in-house and not by 3rd party software houses. The reason a lot of 3rd party developers left the system during the N64 era was that the royalties for cart based games are much higher than for disc based games. As a result developers get less per game. They make oodles of money off of their GBA business but they are soon to challenged their too. Even if PSP falls flat on it's face (which it probably wont) there will be other competitors pretty soon and if they don't start evolving their business they may be in trouble. Coming late to the online game may be one of those mis-steps.

As far as the online or "mature" stance goes, the argument is getting kind of tired at this point. Would GC owners have been thrilled with a simple online interface for Mario Kart? I would bet yes. Would this have taken a lot of work to implement as a peer to peer service? I would say no. Why have an online peripheral that you refuse to support at all!? PSO is the only game that uses it. I mean the reason people are using warp-pipe is becuase they want to play GC games online. I don't get it? Why not patch a hole in your market even if it is half-hearted like Sony's online strategy. At least they are doing something.

As for "mature" games, I like to play bejeweled as much as anyone else on my cell phone. It's a perfect example of a game everyone can play regardless of age group, but it';s not the only thing I want to play. The majority of Nintendo games are targeted at this "everyone" demographic, which just happens to be skewed towards younger gamers. I "know my roots" as well, but now that I'm 27, I want to play something besides Mario. Nintendo has not made the GC an appealing console to develop "mature themed" 3rd party games on.

Franchise you are right they should have pushed the hardware much better. Also the fact the HD can be used as a huge memory card will be enough for allot of folks. I remember in wal-mart I told a lady that you needed no memory cards and she saw how much one cost. That saving did matter to her a great deal and I think her grad-son did end up with a xbox. That saving does matter to folks they need to show how xbox is a better value then PS2. So even if the HD is just used for game saves that is fine with me.


Also the kiddie game debate is dumb I love kiddie games. Sometimes it's fun to play a relaxing game where I don't have to kill everything and all the colors are colorful and everything.

Also Sony is number one thanks to bread name. I mean why do people think you still see the old PSX stamp on PSX2 game ad's?

Also N not doing on line I don't get it. N seems to tell their fans what they want it seems.

Also you're not going to see a cheaper system they are going to ask for as much as people are willing to pay. Just cause you take things out does not mean you will get a cheaper price.

Then why did the GC launch at $199 when the PS2 and X-box were $299?

Cause N was hurting from the the N64 and people lost allot of Faith in them. Also most family's don't want to spend $300 on a game system. Also remember $200 was not even low enough for GC they had to go down even more. If they can sell it for $99 now they could have done it at launch. They knew they could not go toe to toe with Sony and M$.

What are you talking about? The reason why the GCN was $200 was because it cost a HELL of a lot cheaper then PS2 and that much cheaper then XBox. And Nintendo wasn't the the first to lower their price. It has absolutely nothing to do with "going toe to toe" as you say.

Sorry, gotta go with TOPDAWG on this one. If Nintendo launched at the same price point as PS2 and XBOX the GC would have sold much worse than at $199. IF they were able to sell at $299 why didn't they? As a business decision it makes sense to launch a new console that is priced inline with what new consoles traditionally cost. They would have made way more $$ per console. But, since the GC was late to the game they had to compete on cost to get a good install base which they did by selling at a lower cost.

What is with you people? They didn't sell it at the same price because it didn't offer the same features. (DVD, HD) Nintendo said this from the very begining, less hardware = lower price.

Consoles have not traditionally been $300.

The GC launched at the same time as xbox, how come xbox didn't have to sell at a lower price?

I'm confused as to what "extra" stuff the PS2 had that allowed it to enjoy a $100 price premium? Surely crappy DVD playback didn't add $100 onto the system price!

I'm not going to respond to your comment, until you respond fully to mine. Sorry.

Q. What is with you people?
A. We answer questions with more questions?

Q. How come xbox didn't have to sell at a lower price?
A. Because MS felt they could compete with the PS2 at their price point rather than undercutting them on price. They still took a loss on the console but they sold at a higher price than GC and GC still barely beat out MS this generation. If XBOX had sold at the same price as GC then the argument would have been even more favorable towards MS. The XBOX still has more "hardware" than the other consoles but they choose to sell it at a similar to the PS2 since they can compete at that price point. What is the significant hardware difference in the PS2 and GC?


Sorry that this has goten so far off topic. I'll stop bantering now.

jesus christ, this thread sucks. people stop your bashing and know that TurboGrafx 16 has a 8 bit processor trying to pose as a 16 bit machine. Those sons of bitches.

This demonstrates a lack of knowledge of the manufacturing lifecycle.

You have to take into account the fact that at the time of the PS2's launch that dvd player prices were still fairly high compared to current prices. I'm sure that the "dvd playback" feature of the PS2 appealed to a number of buyers.

No I understand it fine. They could have taken a lose like M$. Yeah I know that is not smart but hey they could have done it. They sold it for as much as they knew they could get for it. So yes they could have sold it for $99 if they wanted to at lanch.

PS. We can talk about this all day nobody is going to be right or worng. None of us knows how much the system's cost to make or what they used to pay to make them.

In Japan you are damn right.

please chill

Decaf dude, decaf.

Cube is $99 now because its 3 years LATER. The hardware to make cube is cheaper, and they took out some useless features (Digital out I beleive). After 3 years, technology back then which cost alot of money, now is cheaper...so they can offer a, gasp, cheaper price.

Then how come Sony waited for Xbox to drop the price before they did it?

Because the PS2 was still outselling the X-box and GC. They had not reason to drop price before MS did.

My thoughts as well as well...had the xbox not dropped in price sony likely would have held as well.

HAHAHA Josh Hinkle and Copenhagen both of your post had spelling mistakes and bad wording. That is right my post are getting to you now come to the TOPDAWG side. You are becoming like me now.

Sometimes the cost of the system has nothing to do with it's price.