yeah, I don't think rockstar is all that great of a developer. they make pretty good GTA games, that's true. But when all's said and done...I don't know, it almost seems like they're a one trick pony.
GTA is for sure not their only good game.
Manhunt has an average rating of 76% according to Metacritic
Bully is
of 8.9/10 from IGN, 9.0/10 from Games Radar, a perfect 10/10 from 1UP.com and Electronic Gaming Monthly, 8.7/10 from GameSpot, 8.75/10 from VGRC.net, a 5/5 from X-Play, and made the Top 10 Games of '06 in Playstation Magazine. Canis Canem Edit also got 9 / 10 from OPS2 Magazine.
i don't know about midnight club or red dead revolver but they're good enough to get sequels
and of course The Warriors which as you can see is all around well liked
those games don't make them a great developer. they're "good" at best. What I'm trying to say here is Sony touting a Rockstar exclusive really isn't something all that great. It's like they're assuming Rockstar will make another game reminiscent of GTA's success but the only game they've made that even comes close that is...well...GTA. I just wouldn't be surprised if what they produce ends up to be as forgettable as many of their other projects seem to be. At the worst it might just be mediocre.
yeah, I don't think rockstar is all that great of a developer. they make pretty good GTA games, that's true. But when all's said and done...I don't know, it almost seems like they're a one trick pony.
GTA is for sure not their only good game.
Manhunt has an average rating of 76% according to Metacritic
Bully is
of 8.9/10 from IGN, 9.0/10 from Games Radar, a perfect 10/10 from 1UP.com and Electronic Gaming Monthly, 8.7/10 from GameSpot, 8.75/10 from VGRC.net, a 5/5 from X-Play, and made the Top 10 Games of '06 in Playstation Magazine. Canis Canem Edit also got 9 / 10 from OPS2 Magazine.
i don't know about midnight club or red dead revolver but they're good enough to get sequels
and of course The Warriors which as you can see is all around well liked
those games don't make them a great developer. they're "good" at best. What I'm trying to say here is Sony touting a Rockstar exclusive really isn't something all that great. It's like they're assuming Rockstar will make another game reminiscent of GTA's success but the only game they've made that even comes close that is...well...GTA. I just wouldn't be surprised if what they produce ends up to be as forgettable as many of their other projects seem to be. At the worst it might just be mediocre.
yeah, I don't think rockstar is all that great of a developer. they make pretty good GTA games, that's true. But when all's said and done...I don't know, it almost seems like they're a one trick pony.
GTA is for sure not their only good game.
Manhunt has an average rating of 76% according to Metacritic
Bully is
of 8.9/10 from IGN, 9.0/10 from Games Radar, a perfect 10/10 from 1UP.com and Electronic Gaming Monthly, 8.7/10 from GameSpot, 8.75/10 from VGRC.net, a 5/5 from X-Play, and made the Top 10 Games of '06 in Playstation Magazine. Canis Canem Edit also got 9 / 10 from OPS2 Magazine.
i don't know about midnight club or red dead revolver but they're good enough to get sequels
and of course The Warriors which as you can see is all around well liked
those games don't make them a great developer. they're "good" at best. What I'm trying to say here is Sony touting a Rockstar exclusive really isn't something all that great. It's like they're assuming Rockstar will make another game reminiscent of GTA's success but the only game they've made that even comes close that is...well...GTA. I just wouldn't be surprised if what they produce ends up to be as forgettable as many of their other projects seem to be. At the worst it might just be mediocre.
yeah, I don't think rockstar is all that great of a developer. they make pretty good GTA games, that's true. But when all's said and done...I don't know, it almost seems like they're a one trick pony.
GTA is for sure not their only good game.
Manhunt has an average rating of 76% according to Metacritic
Bully is
of 8.9/10 from IGN, 9.0/10 from Games Radar, a perfect 10/10 from 1UP.com and Electronic Gaming Monthly, 8.7/10 from GameSpot, 8.75/10 from VGRC.net, a 5/5 from X-Play, and made the Top 10 Games of '06 in Playstation Magazine. Canis Canem Edit also got 9 / 10 from OPS2 Magazine.
i don't know about midnight club or red dead revolver but they're good enough to get sequels
and of course The Warriors which as you can see is all around well liked
those games don't make them a great developer. they're "good" at best. What I'm trying to say here is Sony touting a Rockstar exclusive really isn't something all that great. It's like they're assuming Rockstar will make another game reminiscent of GTA's success but the only game they've made that even comes close that is...well...GTA. I just wouldn't be surprised if what they produce ends up to be as forgettable as many of their other projects seem to be. At the worst it might just be mediocre.
"great" is relative.
He's just saying that even though those games you've listed are good/great, they're not as significant as GTA, and based on R*'s lack of anything as important and widespread as GTA (besides gta), it's unlikely that this new franchise will be as huge or as important as GTA is.
Maybe it will be. But what Guek is saying is that R* may have a track record of good games, they've still only managed to put out 1 franchise that would really sell systems; and based on that, it's unlikely (although possible) that this new one is going to be as great or important as perhaps Sony is implying that it will be.
Amazon.co.uk Review
Red Dead Revolver has had an unusual history, starting life as an update of Capcom's old Gun Smoke arcade game before being canned. So confident were the developer's of the game's worth though that they convinced Grand Theft Auto publishers Rockstar to buy up the rights and allow them to finish their work.
I just wanted to mention that the latest issue of Game Informer (the one with Prototype on the cover)speaks of a $400 "version" of the PS3 as if it were fact. Well, it's in their rumors section, but they give specifics and use words like "will" a lot. They must have a trusted source.
Basically, to cut costs, they say it will have no EE OR GS for backwards compatability and it will have a 40GB drive (likely to differentiate it from the 20GB model). That's kinda like saying "Blu-Ray made it cost too much so we switched it for a DVD drive" except, you know, this is much more possible.
I believe that there would have to be some other concession to hit that price, such as having a wired rumble-less controller or something, though I'd still expect HDMI (it isn't at all what is making the 360 Elite cost any more).
Memory is cheap, and the BC is software based, meaning Sony doesn't save any money off dropping it unless the company stops development on it entirely.
I really don't think there's any kind of hardware Sony can drop that would make a difference without crippling the machine.
Sony has already dropped ONE of TWO essential PS2 hardware chips in favor of emulation, not both as Game Informer suggests. Also, considering that the PS2 has both combined into one "EE+GS" chip (see Wikipedia), it really isn't saving them anything until they drop both because they can't keep two manufacturing lines open. It's probably just helping clear out a warehouse of old GS chips before they introduce the model with no BC.
While I'm all for a cheaper PS3, that has got to be bullshit.
Why?
Because Europe already had the EE taken out, and the price went up. And they're cutting it from the US 80 Gig unit and the price has gone up.
And in the UK we have already been denied a cheaper 20Gig unit, and will apparently not be getting the 80Gig EE-less unit to replace the existing EE-less 60 Gig £425/$850 single option unit.
So if the US gets a further significant price reduction, and yet another PS3 price/hardware variation, how the Hell would they translate this to Europe without creating frustration at getting a very shitty end of a hardware stick, or even creating rediculous amounts of confusion over the four models in the US?
The best solution would be to just drop the bloody price already and stop pissing around with country-specific hardware variations.
Same answer. The price went up because it wasn't actually saving them anything and the European customer base is (seemingly) willing to eat a little more of their own hardware losses. I speculated that way back when they first announced the European differences based on the info that they'd be replacing an EE+GS with a GS or dropping an EE from an EE & GS (I was looking for confirmation of which is actually in the NTSC models).
I'm on the fence about the PS3. I know I'm going to get one because of MGS4 (And eventually, FFXIII), and, due to me working my ass off for the last month, I'll have some extra cash. I figured "Well, since it's only $499 now (lol) and still has the EE chip and I can probably get a friend of mine to give me his employee discount at Gamestop, I'll get it now." Thing is. . .I already own a Wii and a 360. So, I'm looking solely at exclusives from now to the Holidays.
Unfortunately, Lair seems to be a bust. I've also heard Heavenly Sword seems to be a bit overhyped. Which leaves me with Ninja Gaiden (Which I've already played), Warhawk and Tekken (Not interested in R&D or LittleBigPlanet). Should I wait until the Holidays and try to find a 60GB EE PS3 then? Or should I bite the bullet and buy one now with little to no games on it?
If all you want it for is MGS 4 and FF XIII, and aren't really interested in the entertainment center stuff, then I'd say no, unless the superior hardware BC really matters to you that much.
If all you want it for is MGS 4 and FF XIII, and aren't really interested in the entertainment center stuff, then I'd say no, unless the superior hardware BC really matters to you that much.
Agreed.
Especially if you already have a PS2, in which case backwards compatibilty ain't that big of a deal.
Myself, I'm gonna wait till MGS4 and FFXIII are actually out, then i'll grab one. And since thats looking like late 2008, early 2009 I should be able to find a deal on one for under 3 bills.
If all you want it for is MGS 4 and FF XIII, and aren't really interested in the entertainment center stuff, then I'd say no, unless the superior hardware BC really matters to you that much.
Well, technically, I own a PS2 (It's my girlfriend's, but she lives with me so I can play it whenever). I just wanted to put it in our room, and use the PS3 solely for my PS1-3 needs. I don't know now. . .
Lynx on
0
Options
KlykaDO you have anySPARE BATTERIES?Registered Userregular
edited July 2007
I'm waiting till end of 2008/early 2009 before even considering getting a PS3.
There are no games out that interest me and there will be no games out until FF13 and MGS4 are out.
I'll then wait for reviews/videos. And then, if there are 3 other games that interest me coming out, I'll get one used from EBay with some extra stuff.
So basically, I'll do what I did with my 360.
Rockstar is crafting a brand new franchise exclusively for PlayStation 3.
That's the word from Sony America's director of third party relations, Michael Shorrock, who told Sony's US blog that the game was "not LA Noire," in case anybody tried to put two and two together, "but something all-new".
You don't want LA Noire to be the exclusive. My mate worked for the Australian dev company that is making it, and the horror stories I've been told - it will be a miracle if the game is at all playable. Internally, the company is tearing itself apart, it would not surprise me if the game ends up in development hell.
I usually wait until six or seven games I really want to play have come out on any given console before I buy it. It's not a hard or fast rule or anything--I don't sit there going, "No, you fool, only five games! There must be at least one more to ensure cosmic harmony is not disrupted!" There might be only two or three games, but the point of the rule is, make sure something you can actually play now and enjoy is available. If you don't really like anything in Sony's current lineup of PS3 exclusives, you might just as well pick up a PS2 for yourself and save the rest of your cash for this fall's avalanche of awesome games.
I usually wait until six or seven games I really want to play have come out on any given console before I buy it. It's not a hard or fast rule or anything--I don't sit there going, "No, you fool, only five games! There must be at least one more to ensure cosmic harmony is not disrupted!" There might be only two or three games, but the point of the rule is, make sure something you can actually play now and enjoy is available. If you don't really like anything in Sony's current lineup of PS3 exclusives, you might just as well pick up a PS2 for yourself and save the rest of your cash for this fall's avalanche of awesome games.
It turns out that the PS3 is going to overtake the market in 2009, with the release of "Duke Nukem Forever 2: Forever and a Day" as an exclusive title. Unfortunately, Sony will respond to the increase in demand by raising the price.
And then a civil war breaks out, and video games are all melted down for amunition, so it doesn't matter.
see, the main problem for me is I can't justify buying it at $500 or up for any amount of games. That's just TOO much for a college student to fork over for anything. Even if there were 20 good games that I desperately wanted to play, there's no way in hell I'd be able to purchase those. Heck, I'd be lucky enough to scrounge up the money to just buy the system, let alone a few games. Conversely with the wii and 360, I can justify it a lot more, even if I end up spending the same amount of money for system + more games because that money is spent more gradually and as I come into possession of it.
Man, I didn't get a PS2 until like 4 years after it had out, because I was a stubbornn GCN owner. I didn't want to admit I had backed the wrong horse, for one thing, and I didn't really want to drop the money on another console if I didn't have to (after all, the GCN still had plenty of games I wanted to play, but didn't really buy).
Do you know what I did when the PS2 or XBOX got a game that I wanted to play? I rented the system from Blockbuster, beat the game, then returned the game and system. Or more typically, I would just borrow my friend's system for like two weeks (and the game if he had it, otherwse I'd just rent it), offering up my Gamecube as collateral if need be.
Is this kind of behavior archaic or something? I really don't understand why someone would buy a whole system over just one or two games when they can just rent or borrow the thing long enough to beat the game. I mean sure, that doesn't work if you're the type to want to beat MGS3 30 different times and 30 different ways, but for the rest of us...
You know what it took me to buy the PS2? A lot of things. There were big games, but like I said, I would just rent/borrow when one came out that I had to play. It got to the point that there were just so many awesome games coming out for the PS2 that I wanted to play, with more coming down the pipe, that I became overwhelmed. It became obvious that the system needed to be bought if I wanted to enjoy all those games - renting/borrowing would just become inefficient at that point. Further, there were the hardware price drops, which lowered my price inhibitions. There was the fact that every single person I knew seemed to own a PS2, making the system "cool" and lowering the inhibition created by my absolutely irrelevent fear of looking like a complete gaming nerd by having like 4 consoles in my room (believe it or not, "Will I look like a dork for having this (additional) system?" is a pretty big question for a lot of people).
I have some friends who have quite a lot of money, and fronting the cash for a PS3 is absolutely piddling for them. But they still won't get one. It's not because it's too expensive, or even because there aren't many games out for it that look fun (though the latter is influencial). A lot of it is just because it isn't cool to own a PS3 right now. Like it or not, if you're a bandwagon chaser right now, you're going after the Wii. I still find it amazing, by the way, that Sony was able to take such a formidable brand name like Playstation and, within six months, render it almost obsolete next to a complete newcomer brand name.
Anyway, two points to this big wandering post:
1) Even if you would consider buying a PS3 for one game, and I don't understand that mentality, what's forcing other people to do the same? I feel like a good number of people are going to find ways to play the likes of MGS4 and FFXIII without necessarily buying the PS3. I'm almost positive I'm going to be one of them.
2) This should be obvious, but a few killer AAA games don't sell systems. Maybe they do when the system is first releases, but at this point, people have images of the systems in their minds. They have stigmas attached to them. They have psychological barriers that need to be overcome. If Sony wants to sell significantly more PS3s, they're going to need to release an onslaught of AAA games, drop the price, make the Playstation the "it" brand again, reverse the bandwagon effect on the Wii and make it their own...
I STILL don't own a PS2, and I have been borrowing 3 different friends' PS2s over the course of 2 years just to play DDR.
I told myself back then that if the slim dropped to $100 I would probably buy one so I could stop bugging my friends, but Sony's been "smart" about it and hasn't dropped it yet. I'm sure the fact that it's still selling more than the PS3 hasn't pushed them toward a drop any faster either.
Plus, despite the Wii not being "Nintendo" in the title, EVERYONE knows it's a Nintendo console, so it still carries that brand recognition. Most adults even though they would buy playstations for their kids still know the name Nintendo from the NES/SNES days at least and will trust it with a purchase. Especially with the hype and demand for it.
I STILL don't own a PS2, and I have been borrowing 3 different friends' PS2s over the course of 2 years just to play DDR.
I told myself back then that if the slim dropped to $100 I would probably buy one so I could stop bugging my friends, but Sony's been "smart" about it and hasn't dropped it yet. I'm sure the fact that it's still selling more than the PS3 hasn't pushed them toward a drop any faster either.
Plus, despite the Wii not being "Nintendo" in the title, EVERYONE knows it's a Nintendo console, so it still carries that brand recognition. Most adults even though they would buy playstations for their kids still know the name Nintendo from the NES/SNES days at least and will trust it with a purchase. Especially with the hype and demand for it.
True, but slowly (and surely) Nintendo's recignition is being changed from "teh kiddie" to something different... I don't know what it is quite yet, but definately something different.
I backed the Wii this generation. I promised myself I wouldn't back Nintendo this generation, but when I saw the Wii I couldn't help it. Now, while it seems I backed the right horse in terms of sales, I worry about it in terms of games. If nothing is shown at tgs (from third parties, Nintendo won't be there), then I'm really going to start worrying.
DS was the right horse for me, though.
Eteric on
0
Options
Kevin CristI make the devil hit his kneesand say the 'our father'Registered Userregular
I backed the Wii this generation. I promised myself I wouldn't back Nintendo this generation, but when I saw the Wii I couldn't help it. Now, while it seems I backed the right horse in terms of sales, I worry about it in terms of games. If nothing is shown at tgs (from third parties, Nintendo won't be there), then I'm really going to start worrying.
Give that you're talking about the Tokyo game show, and that Nintendo is outselling its competitors combined by about 3-to-1 in Japan, I think you're unlikely to be concerned in a month or so. At least that's my take on it.
I backed the Wii this generation. I promised myself I wouldn't back Nintendo this generation, but when I saw the Wii I couldn't help it. Now, while it seems I backed the right horse in terms of sales, I worry about it in terms of games. If nothing is shown at tgs (from third parties, Nintendo won't be there), then I'm really going to start worrying.
Give that you're talking about the Tokyo game show, and that Nintendo is outselling its competitors combined by about 3-to-1 in Japan, I think you're unlikely to be concerned in a month or so. At least that's my take on it.
Plus a ton of 3rd parties have already said that they're going to develop more for the Wii....
Rockstar is crafting a brand new franchise exclusively for PlayStation 3.
That's the word from Sony America's director of third party relations, Michael Shorrock, who told Sony's US blog that the game was "not LA Noire," in case anybody tried to put two and two together, "but something all-new".
You don't want LA Noire to be the exclusive. My mate worked for the Australian dev company that is making it, and the horror stories I've been told - it will be a miracle if the game is at all playable. Internally, the company is tearing itself apart, it would not surprise me if the game ends up in development hell.
I backed the Wii this generation. I promised myself I wouldn't back Nintendo this generation, but when I saw the Wii I couldn't help it. Now, while it seems I backed the right horse in terms of sales, I worry about it in terms of games. If nothing is shown at tgs (from third parties, Nintendo won't be there), then I'm really going to start worrying.
Give that you're talking about the Tokyo game show, and that Nintendo is outselling its competitors combined by about 3-to-1 in Japan, I think you're unlikely to be concerned in a month or so. At least that's my take on it.
Plus a ton of 3rd parties have already said that they're going to develop more for the Wii....
Actions really speak louder than words. Aside from Nintendo's own games, I've got nothing really "awesome" to look forward to from third parties at the moment accept Square-Enix's games.
A bit dissapointed about that. I mean, I'm not hoping for RE5 or MGS or anything, but something that's different enough to get my (and other's) attention.
Rockstar is crafting a brand new franchise exclusively for PlayStation 3.
That's the word from Sony America's director of third party relations, Michael Shorrock, who told Sony's US blog that the game was "not LA Noire," in case anybody tried to put two and two together, "but something all-new".
You don't want LA Noire to be the exclusive. My mate worked for the Australian dev company that is making it, and the horror stories I've been told - it will be a miracle if the game is at all playable. Internally, the company is tearing itself apart, it would not surprise me if the game ends up in development hell.
I see your friend has no respect for his job or employer. That's the kind of stuff you get fired for if found out.
He did say "worked", so presumably the friend moved on.
I'd also have to say that if it's true, and the company was treating it's people like shit and in a state of total disorder... I think the guy is perfectly fine if he didn't respect the company or his job any longer.
If they don't respect their workers or even their products enough to make them worthwhile, the workers sure as hell aren't going to take pride in being abused or creating a mediocre (at best) product.
The point is, Halo moves a hell of alot more units then MSG and FF, especially when you consider how little Halo probably sells in Japan. Not to mention it's sales seem to be going up, whereas FF and MSGs are headed down. We'll, of course, have to see if Halo 3 continues this.
The point is, Halo moves a hell of alot more units then MSG and FF, especially when you consider how little Halo probably sells in Japan. Not to mention it's sales seem to be going up, whereas FF and MSGs are headed down. We'll, of course, have to see if Halo 3 continues this.
Halo 3 I don't think can sell as much as Halo 2 did when all is said and done, considering the amount of 360's out there compared to Xboxes when Halo 2 was released (although it is going to sell a ton of systems, we'll see), but I think it's definitely going to have similar first day numbers (Halo 2 sold 2.4 million in 24 hours). I'm confident Microsoft will advertise it even more heavily than they did Halo 2.
Halo 3 will, however, come bundled with a special edition 360 that is basically the Elite, with a smaller hard-drive. If they do a price drop right before, I could see alot of people without a 360 picking up that bundle.
Halo 3 I don't think can sell as much as Halo 2 did when all is said and done, considering the amount of 360's out there compared to Xboxes when Halo 2 was released (although it is going to sell a ton of systems, we'll see), but I think it's definitely going to have similar first day numbers (Halo 2 sold 2.4 million in 24 hours). I'm confident Microsoft will advertise it even more heavily than they did Halo 2.
I actually think it's going to be the opposite. Halo 3 is going to sell as much as Halo 2, if not more, although it will take time for this to happen. However, while it'll definitely sell systems, it may not be as much as some people think. I am guessing that a lot of Halo fans already have a 360.
That said, there was a huge 360 sales uptick last holiday season in general, and there's going to be another one this holiday. The big question is going to be how big the spike is for the PS3 and the Wii (which may, yet again, be supply limited).
Halo 3 will not be bundled, the Halo 360 does not come with the game.
Which is fucking ridiculous considering that not one customer for that box is not going to buy Halo 3 and any one of them can add (add the cost of the game in full to the price). Simplify the transaction.
Halo 3 will not be bundled, the Halo 360 does not come with the game.
Which is fucking ridiculous considering that not one customer for that box is not going to buy Halo 3 and any one of them can add (add the cost of the game in full to the price). Simplify the transaction.
But alot of the people who are going to buy the Halo 360 are the same kind of people who are going to buy the 120 dollar Halo 3 Legendary Edition complete with Master Chief Helmet
Halo 3 I don't think can sell as much as Halo 2 did when all is said and done, considering the amount of 360's out there compared to Xboxes when Halo 2 was released (although it is going to sell a ton of systems, we'll see), but I think it's definitely going to have similar first day numbers (Halo 2 sold 2.4 million in 24 hours). I'm confident Microsoft will advertise it even more heavily than they did Halo 2.
I actually think it's going to be the opposite. Halo 3 is going to sell as much as Halo 2, if not more, although it will take time for this to happen. However, while it'll definitely sell systems, it may not be as much as some people think. I am guessing that a lot of Halo fans already have a 360.
That said, there was a huge 360 sales uptick last holiday season in general, and there's going to be another one this holiday. The big question is going to be how big the spike is for the PS3 and the Wii (which may, yet again, be supply limited).
I guess it's hard to say whether or not Halo 3 is going to keep saying. Halo I remember was on the NPD software charts for a LONG time after release (like 2 years, right?), but Halo 2 sold 6 out of its 8 million in the first 2 weeks out. Selling 2 million after that is still pretty great, but still the majority of copies of the game were sold just after release.
As for the game selling systems, I do think the majority of hardcore Xbox/Halo fans already have 360s, but that's not 8 million people. There's millions of frat dudes and metalhead teenagers and whatever that bought Halo 2 and don't have 360 yet that likely will buy a 360 and Halo 3 (and probably GTAIV) this holiday.
Posts
I despise all weavers of the black arts.
those games don't make them a great developer. they're "good" at best. What I'm trying to say here is Sony touting a Rockstar exclusive really isn't something all that great. It's like they're assuming Rockstar will make another game reminiscent of GTA's success but the only game they've made that even comes close that is...well...GTA. I just wouldn't be surprised if what they produce ends up to be as forgettable as many of their other projects seem to be. At the worst it might just be mediocre.
"great" is relative.
well duh.
He's just saying that even though those games you've listed are good/great, they're not as significant as GTA, and based on R*'s lack of anything as important and widespread as GTA (besides gta), it's unlikely that this new franchise will be as huge or as important as GTA is.
Maybe it will be. But what Guek is saying is that R* may have a track record of good games, they've still only managed to put out 1 franchise that would really sell systems; and based on that, it's unlikely (although possible) that this new one is going to be as great or important as perhaps Sony is implying that it will be.
Steam ID: slashx000______Twitter: @bill_at_zeboyd______ Facebook: Zeboyd Games
I don't even like the GTA games that much, so I'd like to see them do something other than those. I don't have any odd preconceptions, though.
yeah and that was made 13 years ago
Source.
Same answer. The price went up because it wasn't actually saving them anything and the European customer base is (seemingly) willing to eat a little more of their own hardware losses. I speculated that way back when they first announced the European differences based on the info that they'd be replacing an EE+GS with a GS or dropping an EE from an EE & GS (I was looking for confirmation of which is actually in the NTSC models).
Unfortunately, Lair seems to be a bust. I've also heard Heavenly Sword seems to be a bit overhyped. Which leaves me with Ninja Gaiden (Which I've already played), Warhawk and Tekken (Not interested in R&D or LittleBigPlanet). Should I wait until the Holidays and try to find a 60GB EE PS3 then? Or should I bite the bullet and buy one now with little to no games on it?
Especially if you already have a PS2, in which case backwards compatibilty ain't that big of a deal.
Myself, I'm gonna wait till MGS4 and FFXIII are actually out, then i'll grab one. And since thats looking like late 2008, early 2009 I should be able to find a deal on one for under 3 bills.
Well, technically, I own a PS2 (It's my girlfriend's, but she lives with me so I can play it whenever). I just wanted to put it in our room, and use the PS3 solely for my PS1-3 needs. I don't know now. . .
There are no games out that interest me and there will be no games out until FF13 and MGS4 are out.
I'll then wait for reviews/videos. And then, if there are 3 other games that interest me coming out, I'll get one used from EBay with some extra stuff.
So basically, I'll do what I did with my 360.
You don't want LA Noire to be the exclusive. My mate worked for the Australian dev company that is making it, and the horror stories I've been told - it will be a miracle if the game is at all playable. Internally, the company is tearing itself apart, it would not surprise me if the game ends up in development hell.
Hmmm. . .I suppose you're right. I'll wait until MGS4 then.
I just got off the phone with John Titor.
It turns out that the PS3 is going to overtake the market in 2009, with the release of "Duke Nukem Forever 2: Forever and a Day" as an exclusive title. Unfortunately, Sony will respond to the increase in demand by raising the price.
And then a civil war breaks out, and video games are all melted down for amunition, so it doesn't matter.
Seriously, what is with that dude and civil wars?
Do you know what I did when the PS2 or XBOX got a game that I wanted to play? I rented the system from Blockbuster, beat the game, then returned the game and system. Or more typically, I would just borrow my friend's system for like two weeks (and the game if he had it, otherwse I'd just rent it), offering up my Gamecube as collateral if need be.
Is this kind of behavior archaic or something? I really don't understand why someone would buy a whole system over just one or two games when they can just rent or borrow the thing long enough to beat the game. I mean sure, that doesn't work if you're the type to want to beat MGS3 30 different times and 30 different ways, but for the rest of us...
You know what it took me to buy the PS2? A lot of things. There were big games, but like I said, I would just rent/borrow when one came out that I had to play. It got to the point that there were just so many awesome games coming out for the PS2 that I wanted to play, with more coming down the pipe, that I became overwhelmed. It became obvious that the system needed to be bought if I wanted to enjoy all those games - renting/borrowing would just become inefficient at that point. Further, there were the hardware price drops, which lowered my price inhibitions. There was the fact that every single person I knew seemed to own a PS2, making the system "cool" and lowering the inhibition created by my absolutely irrelevent fear of looking like a complete gaming nerd by having like 4 consoles in my room (believe it or not, "Will I look like a dork for having this (additional) system?" is a pretty big question for a lot of people).
I have some friends who have quite a lot of money, and fronting the cash for a PS3 is absolutely piddling for them. But they still won't get one. It's not because it's too expensive, or even because there aren't many games out for it that look fun (though the latter is influencial). A lot of it is just because it isn't cool to own a PS3 right now. Like it or not, if you're a bandwagon chaser right now, you're going after the Wii. I still find it amazing, by the way, that Sony was able to take such a formidable brand name like Playstation and, within six months, render it almost obsolete next to a complete newcomer brand name.
Anyway, two points to this big wandering post:
1) Even if you would consider buying a PS3 for one game, and I don't understand that mentality, what's forcing other people to do the same? I feel like a good number of people are going to find ways to play the likes of MGS4 and FFXIII without necessarily buying the PS3. I'm almost positive I'm going to be one of them.
2) This should be obvious, but a few killer AAA games don't sell systems. Maybe they do when the system is first releases, but at this point, people have images of the systems in their minds. They have stigmas attached to them. They have psychological barriers that need to be overcome. If Sony wants to sell significantly more PS3s, they're going to need to release an onslaught of AAA games, drop the price, make the Playstation the "it" brand again, reverse the bandwagon effect on the Wii and make it their own...
I dunno if they can do all that.
I STILL don't own a PS2, and I have been borrowing 3 different friends' PS2s over the course of 2 years just to play DDR.
I told myself back then that if the slim dropped to $100 I would probably buy one so I could stop bugging my friends, but Sony's been "smart" about it and hasn't dropped it yet. I'm sure the fact that it's still selling more than the PS3 hasn't pushed them toward a drop any faster either.
Plus, despite the Wii not being "Nintendo" in the title, EVERYONE knows it's a Nintendo console, so it still carries that brand recognition. Most adults even though they would buy playstations for their kids still know the name Nintendo from the NES/SNES days at least and will trust it with a purchase. Especially with the hype and demand for it.
True, but slowly (and surely) Nintendo's recignition is being changed from "teh kiddie" to something different... I don't know what it is quite yet, but definately something different.
I backed the Wii this generation. I promised myself I wouldn't back Nintendo this generation, but when I saw the Wii I couldn't help it. Now, while it seems I backed the right horse in terms of sales, I worry about it in terms of games. If nothing is shown at tgs (from third parties, Nintendo won't be there), then I'm really going to start worrying.
DS was the right horse for me, though.
Lawsuit involving the Cell.
Edit: Gamespot had a news story about it yesterday.
Edit#2: insert "lol, 666th post" joke here.
Steam: YOU FACE JARAXXUS| Twitch.tv: CainLoveless
Plus a ton of 3rd parties have already said that they're going to develop more for the Wii....
I see your friend has no respect for his job or employer. That's the kind of stuff you get fired for if found out.
Battle.net: Fireflash#1425
Steam Friend code: 45386507
He did say "worked", so presumably the friend moved on.
Actions really speak louder than words. Aside from Nintendo's own games, I've got nothing really "awesome" to look forward to from third parties at the moment accept Square-Enix's games.
A bit dissapointed about that. I mean, I'm not hoping for RE5 or MGS or anything, but something that's different enough to get my (and other's) attention.
Oh, if only Powell had more respect for his job and less respect for his employer.
I'd also have to say that if it's true, and the company was treating it's people like shit and in a state of total disorder... I think the guy is perfectly fine if he didn't respect the company or his job any longer.
If they don't respect their workers or even their products enough to make them worthwhile, the workers sure as hell aren't going to take pride in being abused or creating a mediocre (at best) product.
Halo: Combat Evolved (5 million)
Halo 2 (8 million)
Final Fantasy X (5 million)
Final Fantasy X-2 (3 million)
Final Fantasy XII (3.68 million approximately, 2.38 million in Japan, 1.3 million in US)
Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty (7 million)
Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater (3.7 million)
And, for a little MSG based perspective:
Metal Gear Solid (6.6 million) <From the PS1>
From: Wikipedia's List of Best Selling Video Games
The point is, Halo moves a hell of alot more units then MSG and FF, especially when you consider how little Halo probably sells in Japan. Not to mention it's sales seem to be going up, whereas FF and MSGs are headed down. We'll, of course, have to see if Halo 3 continues this.
Halo 3 I don't think can sell as much as Halo 2 did when all is said and done, considering the amount of 360's out there compared to Xboxes when Halo 2 was released (although it is going to sell a ton of systems, we'll see), but I think it's definitely going to have similar first day numbers (Halo 2 sold 2.4 million in 24 hours). I'm confident Microsoft will advertise it even more heavily than they did Halo 2.
I actually think it's going to be the opposite. Halo 3 is going to sell as much as Halo 2, if not more, although it will take time for this to happen. However, while it'll definitely sell systems, it may not be as much as some people think. I am guessing that a lot of Halo fans already have a 360.
That said, there was a huge 360 sales uptick last holiday season in general, and there's going to be another one this holiday. The big question is going to be how big the spike is for the PS3 and the Wii (which may, yet again, be supply limited).
- Don't add me, I'm at/near the friend limit
Steam: JC_Rooks
Twitter: http://twitter.com/JiunweiC
I work on this: http://www.xbox.com
Which is fucking ridiculous considering that not one customer for that box is not going to buy Halo 3 and any one of them can add (add the cost of the game in full to the price). Simplify the transaction.
But alot of the people who are going to buy the Halo 360 are the same kind of people who are going to buy the 120 dollar Halo 3 Legendary Edition complete with Master Chief Helmet
I guess it's hard to say whether or not Halo 3 is going to keep saying. Halo I remember was on the NPD software charts for a LONG time after release (like 2 years, right?), but Halo 2 sold 6 out of its 8 million in the first 2 weeks out. Selling 2 million after that is still pretty great, but still the majority of copies of the game were sold just after release.
As for the game selling systems, I do think the majority of hardcore Xbox/Halo fans already have 360s, but that's not 8 million people. There's millions of frat dudes and metalhead teenagers and whatever that bought Halo 2 and don't have 360 yet that likely will buy a 360 and Halo 3 (and probably GTAIV) this holiday.