<b>This is an warning, please tone it down, this type of behavior isn't allowed

Gallant Pig, Moderator</b>

How does a publisher lose money every time a used game is purchased?

Because the customer just bought a used game which they get know money off of, instead of purchasing the game new where they get their normal cut.

Essentially with the used game, the publisher got money on the initial sale, but not from the person who bought it used. Where as if there were no used game sales, they would have gotten money from both customers.

But this assumes that all people who purchase a game used would have bought it new if they didn't have the used option. I don't think this is the case.

I think that is a better assumption than saying people will stop buying games if they can only buy new ones. Its not 100% true, but it is better than 50%

Not all, but most probably would have at least picked it up new when it hit $20 or so, if they were really interested in it. Thus the publisher would made some profit.

Not that I care, but used games, cds, dvds, etc. certainly hit the studios/publishers profits to some degree.

Maybe, but like mentioned above I sell 3 games to fund a new game purchase. Where is the higher profit margin, me spending that $50(with partially used funds) or waiting to buy when it hits $20?

Plus you aren't factoring in that $50 hit games make franchises, not the bargain bin ones.

Which leads to:

I'm betting that is far from the case.

That is an interesting question. I'm not sure how the royalties work out once they hit $20. Or how sales compare.

Good point, Michael.

Doesn't matter what price they drop the PS2 to. I can't think of any reason anyone who doesn't already have a PS2, would buy one at the end of it's lifespan, and with a new generation Xbox 360 coming out. As for PSP, that's a different market entirely. I doubt it has any effect on the console market. As for PS3 being priced at $300, well if you think that's going to happen, I've got a bridge to sell you. Unless Sony is willing to lose more money they than already are.

The best thing Sony could do is continue to shovel their BS, considering so many are buying it. Sony has made great consoles with the PS and PS2. Why they have to be deceptive, or flat out lie, is beyond me.

What are the lying about exactly? I'm a little confused by your post.

As for the price drops I think you are thinking too micro and not enough macro. The install base of the PS2 is a fraction of what it could be if it wasn't price prohibitive to some demographics. I'm thinking the "Walmart" demographic more than the "Target" demographic (sorry if that's being insensitive, but it's an analogy). If there was a price drop, For $300 you could get a $100 PS2, and an extra controller, 5 $20 games and 4 DVD's at least. That's a big difference between just an XBOX360. I think those without disposable income would be more apt to buy the former than the latter. This is compounded by the fact that most reviewers are saying the 360 needs to be played on an HDTV to be fully appreciated, further limiting the demographic of people who can afford to see it's true advantage.

I'm not sure of the exact percentage, but something like 50% of all PSOne units sold, were sold after the PS2 was released. With the PS2 selling much faster than the PSOne, I would expect them to repeat. For someone on a limited income, being able to purchase a PSTwo and know the games you are buying now will be able to work when you finally can afford a PS3 (maybe, 3-4 years down the road) is a hell of an incentive.

All indication are that it will be prices between $300 and $400. If anything, by Microsoft selling their console for $400, it allows Sony to take less losses than if Microsoft sold the 360 for $300 and Sony was lower the price. I wouldn't be surprised if Sony announced a $300 price one bit, as Japanese prices are rumored to be the same as they were for the PS1 and PS2 releases (which launched here for $300).

I too am confused about this "lie" claim? What exactly has Sony been lying about?

One I have always gotten a good laugh at is the "PS2 can render Toy Story 2 in REAL TIME!" rotfl <--- see.

They have hit the peak of its capabilities and it is nowhere near being able to render Antz in real time, much less Toy Story.

When I see it, I will believe it. All indication doesn't mean much when a console is a year away from being launched. The Blu-Ray drive alone should be costly. I say $450 bare minimum and we may be looking at $500 or more. But like I said, Sony could take huge losses and steal some of Microsoft's thunder by releasing it much cheaper. But Sony is already losing lots of money according to a number of articles I've read. Then again, so is Microsoft on the Xbox. We'll see. But I think anyone that expects a below $300 price tag is in fantasyland, or Sony just got dumber.

josh, I don't see a lower-priced PS2 stealing any thunder from Microsoft's Xbox 360 launch. With the 360 and PS3 on the horizon, and the PS2 at the end of it's lifespan, I don't think it matters how cheap it may be with a price drop.

Don't forget it will revolutionize gaming. I also saw an older episode of Tallarico's show on G4 where they were at E3, and I heard a Sony rep say with a straight face the PS3 was 10 times more powerful than the 360. BS and she knew it. How would she know how powerful the 360 was at that time. If you look at the released specs, they very similar, with the PS3 having some advantages, and the 360 having some advantages. When it's all said and done, I'll bet you anything graphics will be similar, and any differences will be minor, if not negligible. Don't even get me started on Killzone and a choice few other games. If anyone thinks PS3 games will look like Killzone, I've got a bridge that needs selling, and this is not the first time Sony has played around with the truth.

Before I get labeled a Microsoft fanboy, I don't even own an Xbox. I own a PS2. Owned a PS before that. But I will own an Xbox 360.

Straight from Jan-Bart in an article from PS3 Killzone at Guerrilla Games.

If it was realtime, he wouldn't need to say it's "a representation of the look and feel of the game we're trying to make." Notice he didn't say realtime. Yet people automatically believe Sony. Anyone with any experience with games should know that it was BS. The PS3 was far from being released, and they expect people to believe developers have already mastered the system to produce graphics on a CG level? C'mon.

I like Sony's consoles. But do they need to BS and be downright deceptive? I don't think so.

I also heard the ps3 can unbutton a girls bra in 3 seconds flat

I never said it would steal the thunder. You said you couldn't imagine anyone buying a PS2 when the Xbox 360 was coming out. I just responded with a fact that Sony continues to sell their old consoles very well. In fact, I believe EA is still making games for PS1 because they are still selling them.

So how about those lies, I'm very intrigued now. Or was that a threadcrap?

:lol: SOLD!

I love this forum... I respond to a thread crapper and Gallant Pig jumps down MY throat but Terrell and Corvin dump away with no consequence. Carry on kids.

ps. I'm patiently waiting to be reprimanded for typing this.

What kind of source is that anyway? Somebody's random blog? I find it hard to believe that comments from MS (in repsonse to Sony's initial claim, hence the Toy Story 2, hey PS2 can only render TS1!)), can magically get turned around on Sony w/o them ever saying anything remotely like that to begin with. Not in this age of the internet.

At anyrate, the 10 times more powerful bit rings a bit hollow. Like mentioned, it will most likely be slightly better than the 360 but not a whole generation ahead which is what that claim makes it out to be.

How in anyway is my initial post a thread fart?

josh, I gave you the guy and the company who worked on the actual trailer. He said it's a representation of the game we're trying to create. That means it's prerendered. Again, if it was realtime, he wouldn't have to make that statement. Seems pretty obvious. That's not the first time Sony has played the prerendered card. I'm not holding out Microsoft as a saint. They can play mind games as well. But Sony is the all-time king.

I have no doubt the PS3 will be a great machine, just as the Xbox 360. Both will put out great graphics. But I sometimes marvel at some of the things Sony people say.

I can't see it having any meaningful sales. Will it sell? Of course. The PS2 is selling even now. So is the Xbox. But the post posed the question that maybe Sony could steal some of the 360's thunder by lowering the price on the PS2.

<b>If you have a problem with other members, I suggest you add them to your ignore list. A threadcrap can be relatively subjective while aggressively going after a member you don't agree with is always no-no.</b>

<b>Guys take it down a level with the "I also heard the ps3 can unbutton a girls bra in 3 seconds flat" Hmmmkay? Thx.</b>

That's my blog. I find it easier to post a link rather than typing all that up again. And the sources are clearly linked in the article. If you think a better answer is out there, find it. I couldn't and neither could anyone else.

I believe the claim is 10 times more powerful than PS2, which going off the processor clock speed is correct. I believe they are claiming 2 times as powerful as the 360, which once again is true when looking soley at clockspeed of the processor. Now, I'm not saying those are 100% correct, but I can't see anyone saying that is a lie either.

no prob mod..... but really... can it do it? rotfl

I just saw the show. This was a lady, a Sony rep, talking to one of the show reporters. She said 10 times more powerful than Xbox 360 and 35 times more powerful than Xbox. She didn't even mention the PS2. I would not argue that the PS3 is 10 times more powerful than the PS2. That's seems reasonable.

As I understand it, Killzone PS3 Trailer was run on a PS3 dev kit at 3-5fps. It was then sped up (by rendering a single frame at a time and compiling them into a movie). That would fit with saying it represents what they are aiming for (it doesn't run like that when they made the trailer) but also that it was realtime (because it made using frames computed by the game engine on a PS3 dev kit). In any case, it is not CG - as the term "prerendering" has been used to describe. Its really a misnomer, because all game trailers are "prerendered" unless you are physically playing it at the time you show it. Its not a lie, its just a stretch of the truth. A lie would be something like "a wireless controller will be standard with every 360" and then sell a core system without a wireless controller.

It's actually 2 seconds, but you are discounting the pants unbuttoner subprocessor that truly shows off CEL technology. Just kidding Sony Guys. But yeah give the thread craps a rest unless you have stuff to back it up with like quotes, articles, stuff like that.

Thx.

Was it Molly Smith?

Have no clue. I didn't catch the name. I believe it was an older E3 Electric Playground show. It wasn't in the Sony press conference. She was talking to a rep on the floor, one on one, and she said something to the effect that "the RSX will make the PS3 10 times more powerful than the 360, and 35 times more powerful than the Xbox."

The only thing I can remember was under her name was she held some position with SCEA.

No big deal, really. Just commenting on the audacity of some of the things I've heard from Sony. Microsoft has probably fudged things as well, just not as much as Sony.

If you ever get the chance, read over the E3 announcements by Microsoft on the 360. You may be surprised how much changed in a few months.

This seems like a pointless argument. I just pay no attention at all to what these moron talking heads from any of the companies say for any of the consoles. It's all just marketing and PR BS as very few of us have any idea what these numbers mean anyway.

I just wait to see the games in action and then I can decide which system is more powerful. And even then I don't care much as I want to buy the system(s) with the types of games I want to play, not the one with the best looking games.

I don't doubt it josh. As I said, not a big deal. Sony just wows me sometimes. But I doubt any of us will lose sleep over this discussion or Sony and Microsoft's statements.

what dump? I was responding with an honest answer from the last line in the post above me. It wasn't some random threadcrap. I was around for the last generation along with a lot of others. Now that wasn't pretty.

At any rate, terrell is right, it is all pretty meaningless until release day comes around.

Not a dig, but a review of the article:
Seems like a decent read, but then you get to the "fanboy" part and kinda loses credibility. Puts your view on about the same level as the "fanboys."

BTW, the second link didn't work.

Yeah, I need to go back and take out all the frustration I had when I was writing it.

I just checked and they work for me. Are you referring to the Wired article?

Odd. It is working now. I'm on a mac at home = working. I was on XP at work and it wasn't working.

Anyway, what was this thread about? Oh yeah, the PS3 ;)

It looks like the Boomarang stays:

http://www.joystiq.com/entry/1234000237068481/

Hey, I just bought one a month and a half ago :(

Cool beans! Nothing wrong with buying a PS2 now, as there are many great games. I just don't think there will be that many people.