|
To go further, the $60-80 for snes/gen rpgs, which is at least $150 in today's terms. I used to drop that kind of money down without thinking twice. I don't get this bizarre refusal to spend more than $50 of todays money on a game.
The only reasonable argument I can see is in the case where you can buy similar quality games for $30-50, then its just a case of basic value for money principles, as in why not buy the cheaper game. However why anyone would feel ripped off paying $60 for games such as Halo 3, GTA 5, Final Fantasy 13, Mario Revolution, etc. is completely beyond me. |
Originally Posted by Michael Corvin
Yep it is a shame. games have hovered around $50 for 15+ years with an odd cartridge here or there costing more. All of a sudden MS is in the business and $50 doesn't cut it. :lol: Bill Gates must be putting in that 37th wing to his house.
|
Of course for when the SNES was out many of us were still getting games bought by our parents. :-)
Still I dont' recall ever getting a game above $50. My parents wouldn't buy it. However why anyone would feel ripped off paying $60 for games such as Halo 3, GTA 5, Final Fantasy 13, Mario Revolution, etc. is completely beyond me. 1. They drop in price so damn fast and are just as fun to play in the future. 2. Lot to spend on something that's not my top hobby when I could buy a handful of DVDs or CDs (higher on my hobby list) for the same money. 3. Due to it no being my top hobby, and being a quantitive person (researcher) I like to not often spend more than $2 per hour of gameplay. Games are getting shorter, and now apparently more expensive, so that's a bad combo for me. |
Originally Posted by Chris_D
How it's MS fault that we might be paying more than 50 is beyond me. If sony priced all their games at 50 or lower then MS would be forced to follow. And when it comes down to it, they'll charge what the market will stand and no more.
|
Originally Posted by Josh Hinkle
Of course for when the SNES was out many of us were still getting games bought by our parents. :-)
Still I dont' recall ever getting a game above $50. My parents wouldn't buy it. $50 old money would still be $100 in today's terms. It is funny how it's acceptable that nearly every other good or service to steadily increase in price over time, but games don't get that benefit for some reason. |
To be fair, it's all entertainment media. Hell, CDs and Movies are cheaper than the were when I was younger. I don't remember being able to buy new release CDs for $9-11 back then.
People just have set limits there willing to pay on this stuff. |
I'm definitely with Josh on this one. I'm 25 and run on a tight budget. I just can't come up with a good reason to spend $60 on a game when I can just wait six months for it to drop or just find another game that's on sale to play for the time being.
|
Originally Posted by Josh Hinkle
Of course for when the SNES was out many of us were still getting games bought by our parents. :-)
Still I dont' recall ever getting a game above $50. My parents wouldn't buy it. I'm just tight with money (especially now that I'm a poor grad student) and $60 is a lot to spend on a game because: 1. They drop in price so damn fast and are just as fun to play in the future. 2. Lot to spend on something that's not my top hobby when I could buy a handful of DVDs or CDs (higher on my hobby list) for the same money. 3. Due to it no being my top hobby, and being a quantitive person (researcher) I like to not often spend more than $2 per hour of gameplay. Games are getting shorter, and now apparently more expensive, so that's a bad combo for me. It does piss me off paying full price for a game which lasts less than 15 hours. It seems like a consistent trend with games these days...nice and short, take the money. One part of me says, hey at least I didn't waste 25+ hours of my life playing friggin' game where I could have been doing something more constructive...but on the other end I would like to have that option of pissing my time away on a game. ;) |
Originally Posted by Chris_D
How it's MS fault that we might be paying more than 50 is beyond me. If sony priced all their games at 50 or lower then MS would be forced to follow. And when it comes down to it, they'll charge what the market will stand and no more.
|
Originally Posted by Josh Hinkle
To be fair, it's all entertainment media. Hell, CDs and Movies are cheaper than the were when I was younger. I don't remember being able to buy new release CDs for $9-11 back then.
People just have set limits there willing to pay on this stuff. |
Damage Control perhaps, but notable none the less. This may explain the graphical underwelming feeling from some of the new games at E3.
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...1817028,00.asp The Final Hardware ET: The demos that we've seen so far—the stuff on MTV, and that was running at the press conference last night and will be at the show—is that running on the actual final hardware? The three-core CPU and the final GPU, running at final clock speed? TH: No that's all running on Alpha Dev Kits. ET: What is in an Alpha Dev Kit and how does it compare to the final hardware? We've heard it's a two-CPU Power PC, not dual-core but two separate CPUs, and basically a 256MB Radeon X850. TH: Right. The best way to look at it is that, well it depends on which functions you're looking at, but in aggregate it's probably 30-40% of what the final product can do. ET: The final product will be at least twice as fast? TH: Right. ET: So all the stuff we've seen running so far… Gears of War, Kameo, Perfect Dark Zero, Test Drive, Need for Speed… all that stuff was running on an Alpha kit that is that is half or less the final system's power? TH: Right, right. I mean different games are going to behave differently, but as a rough number, yeah. ET: When do you plan to get to developers the final dev kits that have the real three-core CPU, the final GPU, the unified memory architecture, all that stuff? TH: That process is happening now. ET: So it's sort of trickling out to developers as we speak, they're getting their hands on them? TH: It's not really trickling…I would say that the process is happening. We are actively engaged in making that happen. ET: You could say that within the next couple of months, all the developers should have their hands on the final hardware and can begin running their games like it will run on the final Xbox 360, and optimizing for the architecture? TH: Yeah, that's a reasonable timeframe. ET: The original Xbox was home to a lot of homebrew development that Microsoft didn't really intend for. But that kind of thing has proven pretty popular, like with all the homebrew development happening around the PSP. Do you guys plan to embrace this notion more this time around, or is it too worrisome with Live always connected and the marketplace and so on? TH: It's very important to have a very secure system, and we're making sure we have a secure system. It's a very private system, very secure. ET: Can you explain how you're locking it down? TH: We're looking at it from a holistic standpoint, everything from servers to CPUs. We learned a lot from Xbox. We've architected the box to be very secure, and we started thinking about that from the ground up, and how to solve that problem holistically. |
What a crappy interview, but the point needs to be raised, with only six months until launch, why not have a game running at full spec available for E3? If they are truely shipping out final hardware, then why couldn't they play these demos on those for the show, rather than on these alpha kits? It doesn't make any sense to me - if the final hardware is available, why show a game on alpha hardware?
Only one of the two statements can be true. Either they are truely now shipping final hardware and they are making an excuse for why the games did not look as good as they intended (it is common for early builds to pull back on the processing) or final builds are not out there yet and developers are still in waiting. Either way, I would just like them to own up to it. |
New Castlevania for Xbox!
|
Originally Posted by PixyJunket
New Castlevania for Xbox!
I have to admit that the forthcoming 3D PS2 castlevania game sounds pretty good though, since it's got the SOTN/GBA game rpg elements and more emphasis on exploration, rather than just being a Devil May Cry knock off like the last PS2 Castlevania. |
Originally Posted by joshd2012
Only one of the two statements can be true. Either they are truely now shipping final hardware and they are making an excuse for why the games did not look as good as they intended (it is common for early builds to pull back on the processing) or final builds are not out there yet and developers are still in waiting. Either way, I would just like them to own up to it. |
What does everyone think of Lost Odyssey?
I could care less about graphics at this point, because anything above Jade Empire technically wows me. The concept behind Lost Odyssey sounds really interesting, but maybe I'm biased because Planescape: Torment is the best thing I've ever played. |
Here's gamespots report on the MS press conference that puts a fairly positive spin on the last few days:
http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/05...s_6125422.html "Moore made a few dreamy comments: advocating the days of region-by-region rollouts of games was a thing of the past," if only.. :( |
Originally Posted by joshd2012
Only one of the two statements can be true. Either they are truely now shipping final hardware and they are making an excuse for why the games did not look as good as they intended (it is common for early builds to pull back on the processing) or final builds are not out there yet and developers are still in waiting. Either way, I would just like them to own up to it.
|
Originally Posted by belboz
I have no idea what the truth is, but there's very good reason to choose to demo an older, stable build of your software rather than a newer, less proven build. If it was your job on the line to insure that the company doesn't look like a fuck-up by having its demo crash, which would you choose?
I said 'should' alot in that paragraph for a reason. |
Originally Posted by PixyJunket
New Castlevania for Xbox!
|
Time Magazine has an article on it.
http://i.timeinc.net/time/magazine/a...050523_400.jpg http://www.time.com/time/magazine/0,...050523,00.html OR http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101050523/ This is an audio info: http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101050523/gallery/ The thing that's sort of cool is that is shows all the prototypes the didn't choose. Didn't actually read the thing though, waiting for egm. And this thread needs some next gen pics. So here's one: http://i.timeinc.net/time/covers/110.../images/01.jpg |
|
OK those pics, I gotta admit, are pretty impressive
|
There booth was pretty underwhelming for me to say the least. Call of Duty 2 though was the game that stuck out. It looks incredible.
|
I'm pretty sure only that Ghost Recon 3 pic is the only one in realtime. Though, it does look very nice.
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:15 AM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.