Is Eberron a dead world yet?

[MoogleEmpMog]

Well, let's see, a PS2 was what, $250? A PS3 is around $600? Sounds like more than a brand new, better than average PC to me. Didn't say a word about multiple systems.

I haven't had a "new" computer in almost 10 years. I have parts in my current system that I've had for at least that long. Upgrading last year to a top of the line (at the time) video card was less than $250. A 512 RAM chip is around $100. Hard drives are now less than $1/Gig if you shop around.

It sounds like you don't know enough about computers to be able to inexpensively upgrade, which is fine. But it certainly doesn't hold true in general that keeping a PC able to run the current top of the line video games costs any more than keeping current with the consoles.

Let's say you buy that video card or an equivalent expenditure every other year - so, $125 a year. Over the FIVE YEAR lifecycle of the PS2 you've already spent MORE than the cost of a PS3 just on upgrades: $600 (PS3) vs. $625 (PC).

Plus, the PS3 is completely out of line with the pricing of consoles in prior generations, somewhat out of line with current-gen X-Box 360, and WAAAAY out of line with the current-gen Wii. The cost of the PS3 is specifically driven up by a non-gaming component (the blu-ray player) that would, if you were inclined to get it for your PC, run you more than an entire PS3. In any other console generation, that price would be completely untenable, and even in this one it has already clearly had a negative impact on PS3 sales...

... and yet, the PS3 is the only reasonable console option in the last two decades that would cost within $100 of your PC over the same period - WITH you saving money by doing it yourself.

For the $625 you'd be dropping, I could have snagged a PS2, an X-Box AND a GameCube - all three consoles - for less, provided I waited at least a year to buy any one of the three. If I waited a year after launch for all three it would be *considerably* less.

Now, if you somehow cut your costs down to only $300 over a five year period, maybe buying old video cards and waiting 1-2 years to play a game, you could get that down below the cost of any three consoles... and still be paying more than any last-gen console at launch, and probably any two if you waited the same 1-2 years.

 

[Twowolves]

Let's say you buy that video card or an equivalent expenditure every other year - so, $125 a year. Over the FIVE YEAR lifecycle of the PS2 you've already spent MORE than the cost of a PS3 just on upgrades: $600 (PS3) vs. $625 (PC).

Plus, the PS3 is completely out of line with the pricing of consoles in prior generations, somewhat out of line with current-gen X-Box 360, and WAAAAY out of line with the current-gen Wii. The cost of the PS3 is specifically driven up by a non-gaming component (the blu-ray player) that would, if you were inclined to get it for your PC, run you more than an entire PS3. In any other console generation, that price would be completely untenable, and even in this one it has already clearly had a negative impact on PS3 sales...

... and yet, the PS3 is the only reasonable console option in the last two decades that would cost within $100 of your PC over the same period - WITH you saving money by doing it yourself.

For the $625 you'd be dropping, I could have snagged a PS2, an X-Box AND a GameCube - all three consoles - for less, provided I waited at least a year to buy any one of the three. If I waited a year after launch for all three it would be *considerably* less.

Now, if you somehow cut your costs down to only $300 over a five year period, maybe buying old video cards and waiting 1-2 years to play a game, you could get that down below the cost of any three consoles... and still be paying more than any last-gen console at launch, and probably any two if you waited the same 1-2 years.

First of all, the price of a console system is going up, while the price of PCs are coming down. While it may be unfair to compare the combined cost of a PS2 and PS3 to the cost of a PC, I don't think it's out of line, nor will it be in the future. By the time the next console cycle comes around, it'll probably be around $500 for a new one (with the exception of Nintendo, which seems to not even be trying to compete with Xbox and PS), while PCs even now are about that much for a basic model.

I don't see how you can get a PS2, Xbox and a Gamecube for $625 until well after they had rotated out of the current console cycle, not just a year after launch. Also, keeping a PC up to date enough to run PC games shouldn't cost you more than $500, unless you bought a PC that wasn't very upgrade friendly to begin with.

Secondly, even if your assertation that keeping a computer updated was 10-50% more expensive than keeping current with console games, you are still leaving a HUGE part of the equation out; namely, you can do a million more things with a computer that you cannot do with a console. That should count for something. Not to mention the fact that most everything that console games could do for the past two cycles, PCs could do 3-5 years earlier, and I don't mean a few more pixels of graphics.

Upgrading a PC yourself isn't really very hard. I have had zero formal training, and what little I do know, I learned from looking over someone's shoulder. Plug and play. Almost as easy as changing a light bulb. In my opinion, console games are good for "twitchy" play (and the Wii takes that to a whole new level), while PCs are good for MMORPGs and RTS/TBS games.

In any event, I predict that within 10 years, the PC price will come down and the consoles price and utility will go up to the point where they will meet in the middle and become indistinguishible. Likewise, ISP and Cable/Satelite TV will probably merge, and you'll end up with a true "entertainment system" that does everything for the entire household, work, games, music, television, and walking the dog.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

First of all, the price of a console system is going up, while the price of PCs are coming down. While it may be unfair to compare the combined cost of a PS2 and PS3 to the cost of a PC, I don't think it's out of line, nor will it be in the future. By the time the next console cycle comes around, it'll probably be around $500 for a new one (with the exception of Nintendo, which seems to not even be trying to compete with Xbox and PS), while PCs even now are about that much for a basic model.

Generally speaking, I'd say 'vastly undercutting on price' is a *very* competitive strategy. It seems to be working out pretty well for the big N so far, anyway. The cost of consoles historically has capped out around $300. That the X-Box 360 and PS3 greatly exceeded this at launch is indicative of a very... interesting... business decision to embrace HDTV before that technology is mature, and in Sony's case to push Blu-Ray as well. Since Nintendo seems to be selling much, much better in this generation and the room for major graphical upgrades over the PS3 and X-Box 360 is very slim, the next gen consoles released five years from now will probably be... about $300. Their prices rose because they (over?)reached on component costs. Keep in mind both Sony and MS lost money on each console sold at launch, and Sony still is.

I don't see how you can get a PS2, Xbox and a Gamecube for $625 until well after they had rotated out of the current console cycle, not just a year after launch. Also, keeping a PC up to date enough to run PC games shouldn't cost you more than $500, unless you bought a PC that wasn't very upgrade friendly to begin with.

OK, so it's only $500 and thus more expensive than anything but a PS3 (and would be $1500 at least with a Blu-Ray player for your PC, BTW). Double the PS2's price. So, obviously, cheaper.

IIRC, the GameCube launched at $200, the PS2 and original 'Box at $250; all three had a $50 price drop near the end of the first year, bringing the total to around $550. I'll admit the PS2 and X-Box may have debuted at $300 briefly, which would throw this off; still, if you waited to buy each until it had at least two killer apps, they would all have been in the range I'm talking about.

Secondly, even if your assertation that keeping a computer updated was 10-50% more expensive than keeping current with console games, you are still leaving a HUGE part of the equation out; namely, you can do a million more things with a computer that you cannot do with a console. That should count for something.

It totally would!

Except it's patently untrue.

A midlist, unupgraded PC from 2001 could handle any modern software other than high-end graphic development and gaming prior to the introduction of Vista, and can continue to do so if you don't "upgrade" to Vista - which you would have little reason to do at this point unless you're using it for games.

To be fair, if you DON'T HAVE A PC AT ALL... how are you on the internet? Seriously though, it *used* to be cheaper to buy both a console and a non-gaming PC than it was to buy a gaming PC, and I do agree that's no longer the case.

Not to mention the fact that most everything that console games could do for the past two cycles, PCs could do 3-5 years earlier, and I don't mean a few more pixels of graphics.

If not a few more pixels or graphics, what do you mean? I haven't seen a genuinely innovative PC game since Ultima Online or, generously, Unreal Tournament and Quake 3 Arena. Half-Life would be the only other candidtate, and that pretty much brought back something PC games (admittedly in other genres) had been doing and stopped, and what console games had been doing all along.

Upgrading a PC yourself isn't really very hard. I have had zero formal training, and what little I do know, I learned from looking over someone's shoulder. Plug and play. Almost as easy as changing a light bulb.

Perhaps it's gotten easier of late? I've always struggled with installing internal hardware: hard drives, CD drives, etc.. to be fair, I haven't really tried it since the days when 'CD-ROM drives' were something you had to buy separately and upgrade to.

In my opinion, console games are good for "twitchy" play (and the Wii takes that to a whole new level), while PCs are good for MMORPGs and RTS/TBS games.

Whereas in my opinion, TBS is nearly dead on the PC. Civ 4, GalCiv2 and Heroes 5 (which is basically a graphical update to Heroes 3 and still inferior to it in other respects ) in the last, what, three, four years? Am I missing any - because if I am, I'd love to get them. Whereas the PS2 puts out a good 2-3 of these every year (the Nippon Ichi TRPGs and usually at least one or two others).

I play virtually no 'twitch games' and it's for that reason, not price, that I originally STOPPED BUYING PC GAMES. When TBS, turn-based RPG and point-and-click adventure games pretty much dried up, I pretty much moved to the consoles, where turn-based games were still *very* common and remain so to this day. To be fair, Final Fantasy 12 represents a very disturbing trend away from that tradition.

MMORPGs and RTSes (and FPSes - the quintessential twitch games) are indeed the PC's strengths, in the sense of being basically all that's put out for it. And Diablo- and Baldur's Gate-clones, although even those seem thin on the ground these days.

In any event, I predict that within 10 years, the PC price will come down and the consoles price and utility will go up to the point where they will meet in the middle and become indistinguishible. Likewise, ISP and Cable/Satelite TV will probably merge, and you'll end up with a true "entertainment system" that does everything for the entire household, work, games, music, television, and walking the dog.

Perhaps.

Certainly that's what Sony and Microsoft have been touting and promising for the last two console generations. So far... it hasn't happened. Sort of. A modern console does pretty much everything but the work (for which you have a glorified, $500-$1000 word processing machine - but it also does spreadsheets!)... people just don't seem to use them for that. I mean, the PS2, for example, is a more than servicable DVD and CD player, plays both PS1 and PS2 games, surfs the web (IIRC) and is hooked up to your TV. Around a hundred million PS2s have been sold - and yet, they don't seem to be put to this use very often.

 

[JeffB]

Even the better recent books (Faiths, Dragonmarked) are more hack jobs* than anything else. (I.e. they're collections of material that have been pasted together to make book, but they lack the unified vision that initially made the world attractive)...........

* = hack job doesn't refer to the quality of writing, but the books are obviously parceled out to various writers and then glued together under a pre-arranged scheme. Individual ideas are good but they
1) don't mesh or refer together
2) wind up contradicting each other

Precisely the issues The Realms had during the Dark Days of TSR...never recovered IMO...but I find it interesting that some feel this is how the Eberron books are "progressing"

:shrug: When one of the designers of a product isn't really "jazzed" about the setting he's writing for, I cannot imagine they are putting forth their best effort.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Whereas in my opinion, TBS is nearly dead on the PC. Civ 4, GalCiv2 and Heroes 5 (which is basically a graphical update to Heroes 3 and still inferior to it in other respects ) in the last, what, three, four years? Am I missing any - because if I am, I'd love to get them. Whereas the PS2 puts out a good 2-3 of these every year (the Nippon Ichi TRPGs and usually at least one or two others).

Roleplaying games were virtually dead on the PC until Diablo came along and set the world on fire. Not only did it get its own clones, it also revived the more roleplaying-heavy roleplaying games it was based on.

Turn-based strategy is dead until someone comes along with a great turn-based strategy game and reminds the money guys of the days before StarCraft.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Even the better recent books (Faiths, Dragonmarked) are more hack jobs* than anything else. (I.e. they're collections of material that have been pasted together to make book, but they lack the unified vision that initially made the world attractive).

* = hack job doesn't refer to the quality of writing, but the books are obviously parceled out to various writers and then glued together under a pre-arranged scheme. Individual ideas are good but they
1) don't mesh or refer together
2) wind up contradicting each other

While I certainly appreciate your listing of Faiths as one of the better recent books, I have to say that your take on how it fit together isn't entirely accurate. I can't speak to every chapter of the book, of course, but C.A. Suleiman and I were in constant contact during the writing process, sharing our material not only with each other, but also getting feedback from Keith, even though he wasn't on the book. There was nothing ad-hoc or random about how our sections fit together.

The fact is, every WotC book (with maybe the occasional rare assumption) is parceled out to various writers and then put together by the lead designer. But in most cases, or at least most cases in which I've been involved, the writers do make an effort to correspond with one another.

 

[ragboy]

Eberron's suffering from the same thing that D&D is suffering from. Too many rules and too many rules-related options. If you take that with the setting/organization/plot device options that Eberron has, you get quickly overwhelmed. I've got all of the books, but there's no way in hell I'm reading all of them.

Out of the ones that are published, I'd rate them this way (quality, usefulness):

ECS: Great, necessary
Sharn: Moderate, useful
Secrets of Xen'drik: Great, indispensible
Secrets of Sarlona: Moderate, not sure yet
Races of Eberron: Low; barely useful
Player's Guide: Moderate; somewhat useful
Magic of Eberron: Moderate; somewhat useful
Five Nations: Low; useless
Faiths of Eberron: Low; barely useful
Explorer's Handbook; Moderate; very useful
Dragonmarked: Low; barely useful


That being said, I don't think the setting is dead. But it seems to be slowing a bit...maybe because the last few books haven't been that useful (in my opinion). Looking forward to the Lich Queen mega-adventure and the Dragons book.

 

[drothgery]

Generally speaking, I'd say 'vastly undercutting on price' is a *very* competitive strategy. It seems to be working out pretty well for the big N so far, anyway. The cost of consoles historically has capped out around $300. That the X-Box 360 and PS3 greatly exceeded this at launch

Err.. the 360 Core is $299. Granted, it makes a lot more sense to by the Premium for $399, but it's certainly not required.

is indicative of a very... interesting... business decision to embrace HDTV before that technology is mature, and in Sony's case to push Blu-Ray as well.

While I agree about Blu-Ray, HDTV is probably going to hit mainstream price points (i.e. sub-$500 for decent-sized models -- 26-32 LCDs and CRTs) no later than next year. A console launched in 2005-2006 pretty much had to target HDTV unless you expected a very short life span (and I think that's Nintendo's business plan; don't be shocked when you see the Wii Advance in 2009).

IIRC, the GameCube launched at $200, the PS2 and original 'Box at $250; all three had a $50 price drop near the end of the first year, bringing the total to around $550. I'll admit the PS2 and X-Box may have debuted at $300 briefly, which would throw this off.

The PS2 and Xbox both debuted at $299 in the US (the PS2 in fall of 2000, the Xbox in fall of 2001); the GameCube launched at $199. In May of 2001 (about a year and a half after the PS2's US launch, and nearly two years after its Japanese launch), Sony cut the PS2 price to $199 in response to strong rumors that an Xbox price cut was coming at E3. Over the next few days the Xbox price fell to $199, and the GameCube to $149; no console in that generation was ever ~$250 in the US.

To be fair, if you DON'T HAVE A PC AT ALL... how are you on the internet? Seriously though, it *used* to be cheaper to buy both a console and a non-gaming PC than it was to buy a gaming PC, and I do agree that's no longer the case.

It almost certainly will be the case again relatively soon (almost certainly by next summer). We've got unusually low non-gaming PC prices right now (even aside from the general declining price trend in the industry) due to the AMD-Intel CPU price war that started just before the Core 2 Duo launch, and unusually high console prices because the current generation just launched, and Sony (and to much lesser extent, Microsoft) have launched at higher prices than normal.

For myself, I spent the same amount of money that I'd spent in the past on desktops on a laptop, and figure on picking up an HDTV and a later 360 this year. But after buying my PS2 only a few months before the first big price cut, I'm never paying launch price for a console again.

 

[Jer]

That being said, I don't think the setting is dead. But it seems to be slowing a bit...maybe because the last few books haven't been that useful (in my opinion). Looking forward to the Lich Queen mega-adventure and the Dragons book.

I don't necessarily agree with your usefulness ratings (I find Faiths of Eberron to be of much more use than you seem to, for example), but might it be that they're slowing a bit because the "obvious" books have now been done? I think that the main thing that Eberron has been missing are good adventures (which is why I think both Secrets of Xendrick and the Explorers Guide are must-have books for Eberron), and that seems to be the direction that Wizards are taking the setting.

What I hope DOESN'T happen is that Wizards advances the "metaplot" of the setting. Eberron is useful to me precisely because my players get to be the people who make the changes to the setting. If the NPCs start changing the world, I'll probably start losing interest (or, at least, losing interest in buying new stuff -- I have enough campaign ideas for Eberron right now that if they never release another sourcebook I still probably won't play through all of the campaigns I've got notes jotted down for in my campaign book before I die.)

 

[Odhanan]

Ravenloft, Spelljammer, Dark Sun, and Planescape are all still alive (albeit in 'net presence only) and they're not getting support from WotC.

What about table support, as in, still actually being played ? Because in my opinion, that's what determines whether a world is alive or "near death". Indeed, according to this criteria, none of the worlds you mentioned are dead... far from it. It's not because there is no "official support" that a game or world of fiction is dead. That's bogus indeed.