PS3 600 dollars? Sony is on crack

[LightPhoenix]

Oh, come on. That's ridiculous. No game is going to sell on the strength of an entry 4-6 games ago in the series. The idea that there are people out there saying, "Well, even though every FF game after VI has sucked, I have to keep buying every new game in the series because VI was good" is completely ludicrous. Yes, the FF name carries weight, in part because of its history from the NES-SNES days, but the games still sell because they are damn good console RPGs, at least in the opinions of a lot of console gamers.

Right... you know, like say... RPG books. Nobody ever complains about having to buy new books, just because they like the Core Rules....

 

[Grog]

Right... you know, like say... RPG books. Nobody ever complains about having to buy new books, just because they like the Core Rules....

There is a world of difference between sequels to a video game and supplemental books for a tabletop RPG system.

 

[LightPhoenix]

There is a world of difference between sequels to a video game and supplemental books for a tabletop RPG system.

No, I really don't think there is.

People have complained often on this forum and others about both the quality and price of WotC's supplements, indignant because they have to buy it.

It's exactly the same with video games. You can go on GameFAQs or IGN or what have you and find rants about how everything has gone downhill since FF6, and yet they'll insist on continuing to play FF games.

Another prime example - Robert Jordan. How many people complain about his books, but continue to buy them? The answer is a lot, and the Usenet group and threads on this board show that.

 

[Grog]

People have complained often on this forum and others about both the quality and price of WotC's supplements, indignant because they have to buy it.

So? People don't have to buy anything. And like I said, there is a world of difference between a D&D supplement that adds content to the game system you're currently using, and a sequel to a video game that has nothing to do with any of the previous entries in the series.

It's exactly the same with video games. You can go on GameFAQs or IGN or what have you and find rants about how everything has gone downhill since FF6, and yet they'll insist on continuing to play FF games.

This is the internet. You can find rants about anything. If you want to seriously argue the point that a significant portion of the sales of each new FF game (remember, we're talking millions of sales here) are actually to people who hate the games but buy them anyway because FFVI was good, you're going to need a lot more to back you up than "A few people at GameFAQs complain about the new FF games."

Another prime example - Robert Jordan. How many people complain about his books, but continue to buy them? The answer is a lot, and the Usenet group and threads on this board show that.

Again, this is an invalid comparassion. The Robert Jordan books are all part of the same continuing story. People who dislike the later books may continue to buy them because they want to find out how that story ends. The FF games are not part of a continuing story - each new game in the series has nothing to do with any of the previous ones (the sole exception being FFX and FFX-2). Apples and oranges.

 

[DethStryke]

Originally Posted by Captain Tagon
So what do you guys think of the news coming out about Sony's 2000 patent regarding making it where the PS3 won't be able to play rented, borrowed, or preowned games?

I think the retail video game & rental market players will force them to sink that idea, assuming that this is not just a rumor/misinformation anyway. Places like Game Crazy or EB would be looking at a huge hit to their current business strategy that promotes used games... half or more of their entire store are used games!

 

[Welverin]

Just to be a bit nitpicky, one of the early knocks on the 360 launch titles was that some of the '2006' sports games (most notably Madden) had a lot of features missing relative to the PS2 and Xbox versions. This has been remedied (and pretty much reversed) in the '2007' games.

SOP, this seems to happen with each new generation, they cut back on feature apparently in an effort to beef up the graphics. Plus it allows them to slowly add them back in over time, thus allowing them to cut down on inovation.

It's kind of like a new edition of an rpg, release the new corebooks, release splats over the years, run out of splats to publish, make new edition.

The Blu-Ray is more expensive argument is the excuse Sony has been waiting for to hike the cost of games. There is absolutely, positively, no reason every game should be that expensive.

There most assuredly is, the more technicologically advance the hardware gets the more complex the programming needs to take advantage of it and the harder and more expensive it is to develop a game.

The cost f the media itself is relatively insignificant to the cost of all the work on the game itself. It takes a lot of work by a lot of people to make a game, and that is what you're really paying for. Well that and the licensing fee that is what really makes the console maker money.

The TurboGrafX-16 and Sega Genesis were out well before the SNES. The SNES probably won that era in the end (though the Genesis definitely made a run).

Um, no. The Genesis trounced the TurboGrafix-16, the SNES caught up to it and things were pretty much even from then on. The SNES stuck around longer because it came out later and it took Nintendo forever to release the N64.

 

[Ashrem Bayle]

...and at the moment, the 360 is sitting on store shelves not being purchased.

Really? Got any data to back that up? Last I heard, the 360 was selling just fine.

Nope, and neither do you. Link me some Q2 2006 stats.

MS Sells "Approximately" 5 Million Xbox 360s; Annual Revenue Grows 11%

Microsoft today revealed its fiscal results for Q4 and the full year. Annual profit was slightly better than flat while revenue grew in large part thanks to the success of the Xbox 360. The company said that about 5 million units were sold during the fiscal year. More within...

Microsoft announced today as part of its earnings release that it's hit its sales target for the Xbox 360 console. The company had expected to sell between 4.5 and 5.5 million units by the end of its fiscal year. The Home and Entertainment division said that "approximately" 5 million units were sold in the last fiscal year. 1.8 million of those were shipped during the fourth quarter.

This surge in Xbox 360 supply drove Xbox revenue up by 129 percent to $503 million for the fourth quarter. That said, Home and Entertainment's operating loss increased to $414 million for Q4. "Home and Entertainment operating loss increased primarily as a result of a $682 million increase in cost of revenue primarily associated with the Xbox 360, partially offset by the revenue growth," said Microsoft.

Looking at the full fiscal year for H&E, operating loss skyrocketed 160 percent to $1.26 billion. "Home and Entertainment operating loss increased primarily as a result of a $1.64 billion increase in cost of revenue primarily as a result of the number of Xbox 360 consoles sold and higher Xbox 360 unit costs, partially offset by the revenue growth," explained Microsoft. "Our fiscal year 2006 operating loss increase was also attributable to the significant impact of Halo 2 in fiscal year 2005."

While Microsoft's Xbox business continues to be a drain on the company, MS does expect it to eventually become a profitable venture. "Our business model anticipates that while we currently sell Xbox 360 consoles at a negative margin, product cost reductions and the future margins on sales of games and other products will enable us to achieve a positive margin over the Xbox 360 console lifecycle," said Microsoft. The company added, however, that it continues to sell the original Xbox at a loss.

Aside from H&E, Microsoft as a whole saw record fourth quarter revenue of $11.80 billion for the period ended June 30, while net income was down from $3.70 billion to $2.83 billion. For the entire fiscal year, revenue was up 11 percent to $44.28 billion and net income was up only slightly from $12.25 billion to $12.60 billion.

"We delivered a very strong finish to the fiscal year highlighted by customer demand for our recently launched products of Xbox 360, SQL Server 2005, Visual Studio 2005 and Microsoft Dynamics CRM 3.0, which fueled a combined 31% revenue growth of their business groups for the quarter," said Chris Liddell, chief financial officer of Microsoft.

Microsoft also provided guidance for the current quarter and fiscal year. For the quarter ending September 30, the company is expecting revenue in the range of $10.6 to $10.8 billion and earnings per share of $0.30 to $0.32. For the fiscal year ending June 30, 2007, Microsoft is expecting revenue to be between $49.7 and $50.7 billion and earnings per share to be in the range of $1.43 to $1.47.

As a side note, the company has announced a new share repurchase program and the completion of its previously announced $30 billion stock repurchase program. The new program, approved by Microsoft's board of directors, is "comprised of a $20 billion tender offer scheduled to be completed on August 17, 2006, as well as authorization for up to an additional $20 billion ongoing share repurchase program with an expiration of June 30, 2011."

So can we put this particular argument to rest now?

 

[John Crichton]

So can we put this particular argument to rest now?

Heheh, took a while for them to release the numbers, which is what I meant by "neither do you."

As for putting it to rest, it's interesting to see that MS is hitting their projections. Their are a bunch of numbers there, but they are "soft" numbers in spots. They said they wanted to sell between 4.5-5.5 million units in the fiscal year and said they sold about 5. What does that mean? It also says 1.8 were *shipped* in the Q4, which was April-June. They didn't say sold, which tells us nothing concrete. Articles like that released by the company are mostly propaganda for stockholders and a pulbic showing that things are going to plan and going well, to a point. Sony (and all other big companies) do the same thing.

So, does this put to rest how well the 360 is selling after the shortages were over? Absolutely not, because there are no solid numbers there.

I made an overstatement that "the 360 is sitting on the shelves" as it is highlighted in articles (not just the one you posted) as still being "in demand." But what does that mean? What is considered demand? And how many are they actually selling? Did they sell more than a million consoles after March? That would speak more to me about how popular the system is, considering how big the gaming market is now.

My original post was refuting your claim that "Sony will do ok in Japan, but they are going to take a beating in the US." The 360 will need to get a much bigger lead than they have right now if they want to do that, which is beat Sony in the US. And the must-have titles will need to start pumping out soon. MS will have to have a large library of games that you can't get anywhere else before the PS3 hits to beat Sony. They need to get all genres out there and in force as well. That is the secret to owning any generation of consoles.

To me, the 2 biggest wins for MS in the 360/PS3 era are launching first and getting a simultaneous release of GTA4. Those are big deals that should pull them closer to Sony. And there are few others as well that are a big deal like simultaneous release of other franchises such as Resident Evil, but then again Sony hasn't gotten the first of that franchise for a full generation, but it still matters for comparison purposes.

Actually, it's really a race to see who gets out a few killer titles first rather than when the PS3 launches vs MS's lead time. It will probably take at least 8 months before Sony starts releasing games that will make PS3 owners happy which gives the 360 a little more lead time to get their game library beefed up before all the Sony exclusives start pumping out and even if they don't get any more dwarf what MS will be offering, especially in terms of variety of genres.

Okay, I've rambled like hell now and I'm sick of me. The bottom line is that gamers are getting 2 consoles that will be pumping out HD games and trying to one-up each other which means lower prices over time, promotions and all that. Plus, there is another console that will be something different and have the classic Nintendo games on it.

I just have a problem with anyone wanting it differently. Competition is good. These are huge companies that we shouldn't be caring about as they all have their warts. As long as we get the great games, it doesn't matter. I have no routing interest at all except for the developers to support all 3 consoles as much as possible and make it worth my while to plunk down the initial $400+.

 

[trancejeremy]

According to the NPD, which releases numbers every month, the 360 has only sold about 2 million units in the US in the 8 months since it's launch, which is worse than the original Xbox, the PS2, and only slightly better than the gamecube.

You can see all the numbers here

http://videogamecharts.com/page3.html

MS might be saying it's shipped 5 million, but that's likely worldwide, and units shipped to stores

 

[Orius]

Actually, it's really a race to see who gets out a few killer titles first rather than when the PS3 launches vs MS's lead time.

I also think the quality of the games released on the respective consoles could very well make a difference too. There are times when games released to mutliple consoles have differences in all sorts of things, graphics, sounds, gameplay, etc. If the versions of games for one of the consoles ends up being consistantly better than the versions for the other console, that will almost certainly make a difference. If the competeing versions are more or less similar for the most part though, it probably won't matter.