Opps wrong forum. Sorry

http://www.boomtown.net/en_uk/articl...ew.php?id=9818

Sony officially responds to games being locked to a single machine rumor. Basically, they said no way.

Still waiting for that big announcement from Sony. I can't believe that they would allow Microsoft to launch without making a sound about something.

That would make no difference to me, they could give the sony stuff away for free and i would ignore it and line up with my $400+ for the 360. Its all bout the games i want to play and sony aint the one...

Thanks for your very useful input. Please enjoy Kameo and all the other "must play" titles available for the 360's launch.

ps. please send me your free PS3 if you get one

Have you actually played Kameo yet?

No point in stepping in 360's spotlight. Their time will be coming soon enough. I doubt no matter what specs they kick out, they wouldn't slow the new console's launch.

As for me, currently I have more Xbox games than PS2, but that's because of the better graphics and HD abilities of the Xbox. If the PS3 comes out with superior abilities, that's the system I'd be on board with. Especially considering there are more PS2 franchises I love (Ratchet, Jak, Shadow of Colossus, God Of War, GTA) than Xbox franchises (Halo, ummmm.....). That's why I'm sitting this launch out. If the PS3 is a bomb (which I strongly doubt), then I'll go to the 360; otherwise I think I'd prefer Sony's system.

Now MS trying to steal Sony's launch thunder with Halo 3, now that makes a lot more sense.

You ignore one important factor in this though. Used games due lead to new revenue because many people will sell off their old games in order to purchase new ones. How often do you see people on here trading in 3 old games toward the purchase of a new release? Maybe now they don't have that extra revenue to put toward a new release and will instead wait for lower prices to compensate, and Sony takes away a full price sale.

Obviously this is irrelevant because Sony isn't doing this, but I just wanted to point out that used sales do benefit the companies indirectly.

Yeah I have, but that's not the point. The original post was stupid and was basically begging for a inflamatory response.

First thing you must assume is that of the 3 games you are trading in, none of them are published by the same company of the game you are purchasing. If that is true, then yes, they will have an additional revenue. Of course, the publishers of the games you are trading in lose revenue, but that is no concern to the one who has increased revenue.

You have to remember, for every used game purchased, those publishers loss money. If you trade in 3 game, that means 3 companies are losing money so that one company can make money.

Moving on... keep the 360 discussion out of this thread. We have other threads dedicated to it, so use those.

No it wasn't. It was begging to be ignored. Please do that in the future.

Thx

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

Gallant Pig, Moderator

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!" <--- 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