Archive for Kotaku

British PS3 Sales

PS3 + Kotaku
10.17.2007 at 10:47 am

Last week, PS3 sales went up 178% in Britain but Kotaku is wondering how many of those sales were the 40 GB and how many was people grabbing the backwards compatible 60GB.

+ nosedive51

No Comments Digg This Story Save This Page

Exclusives For Each Console This Christmas?

Kotaku
10.10.2007 at 10:39 am

Check out Kotoaku for a post and comments about how many exclusives each console has this holiday season.

+ nosedive51

No Comments Digg This Story Save This Page

Backwards Compatibility on PS3 Wrap Up

PS3 + Joystiq + Kotaku + Comments + Blog + PS3 Fanboy
10.08.2007 at 8:47 pm

If you haven’t read the news the new 40gb PS3 sku has had the backwards compatibility completely removed from it. This has, of course, set off a good amount of blogging and commenting. Here is a wrap up from the last few days.

On October 5th at 2:00PM PS3 Fanboy’s Chris Powell posted:

“Now that Sony has finally come clean and announced its new 40GB PlayStation 3, it’s got some “splaining to do.” The biggest issue on most gamer’s minds is why Sony decided to cut the backwards compatibility feature that linked the PS3 with the PlayStation consoles that came before it.

SCEE managing director Ray Maguire said Sony will use the money it dedicated towards backwards compatibility to invest in new games or to perhaps lower prices so more gamers can afford to buy a PS3. “It was a big decision, and we know it is a very emotive subject as lots of people think that backwards compatibility is high on the agenda and yet few really use it,” he said.

We’re not sure how Maguire came to this conclusion, but the PS3’s backwards compatibility feature is always one that we’ve appreciated for a long time. With Sony’s commitment to a 10-year life span of its hardware and games still being published for last generation’s console, it seems like an odd choice to “cut the cord” at this point.”

Selected Comments from the post

“If you really want to have BC fork out a 100 euro more and you have it. As well as an extra controller and 2 games. Better deal than the 400 euro consoel if you ask me. Spin it all you like but the fact remains the PS3 just dropped 200 euros in price from 600 to 400 euros.”

“”…that backwards compatibility is high on the agenda and yet few really use it,”

Is this guy for real?! What other games beside Heavenly Sword, Resistance and Warhawk are out here that gamers play on their PS3? I dare you to name one.
This, by far, is the absolute worst explanation I’ve heard this year from any executive. I’m speechless”

“I think it’s a load of crap too. Seems like they’re just punishing the consumer for not buying the more expensive version. Kind of like how Intel apparently used to sell the same processor, but underclocked to different speeds at different prices - it costs the same for them regardless.

But I also think people make too big of a deal out of backwards compatibility. I mean, I love games, but how many games for the PS2 have you played (for however many YEARS at this point) that you STILL feel the need to play? I would definitely buy a non-BC PS3 if it’d save me money.”

“man who cares if it isnt b/c? KEEP UR OLD PS2 MINE WORKS FINE AFTER 4 YEARS… i don’t mind there’s no bc in this new 40gig model and others shouldn’t care either. i even have my original ps hooked up even though i don’t play it. so who gives a crap if there’s no b/c?! sheesh… lmao :)”

“I’m really glad I bought my PS3 when I did. Backwards compatibility is what I use my PS3 for the most. I own several PS3 titles, but I have a huge library of PS2 games and a bunch of PS games that I still play, alot. I retired my PS2 when I bought my PS3 last January. The only exception was Guitar Hero, but I finally got an adapter that works and I gave my PS2 to our niece and nephew.

I don’t want to have a bunch of consoles hooked up if I don’t have to. Sony said pre-launch that the PS3 would be fully backwards compatible. But it seems only if you bought the it early when it had a higher price tag.”

On October 5th at 4:55PM Joystiq’s Alexander Sliwinski posted:

“In separate interviews today both Sony UK boss Ray Maguire and Sony Europe spokesman Nick Sharples spoke about how the 40GB PS3 lacking backwards compatibility is fine. How is it fine? Maguire tells Eurogamer that by this Christmas the PS3 will have a whopping 65 games and so they feel “there’s sufficient choice in the marketplace and that we’re still better off using that money that we’d put into backwards compatibility in either investing in new games or using that money to help support bringing the price down.” Meanwhile, Sharples tells GameDaily, “We have made clear on many occasions that our priority is on developing innovative new features and services for PS3 and not on backwards compatibility.”

We really hate to do this, but we swear Sony must honestly think consumers and the press have the memories of goldfish. Let’s just take it back to the PlayStation brand for two seconds. Sony’s own Phil Harrison clearly and distinctly said in a 2006 interview with GamePro, “Backwards compatibility, as you know from PlayStation One and PlayStation 2, is a core value of what we believe we should offer. And access to the library of content people have created, bought for themselves, and accumulated over the years is necessary to create a format. PlayStation is a format meaning that it transcends many devices — PSOne, PS2, and now PS3.” A little over a year and “core values” go right out the window. Who needs backwards compatibility anyway when you’ve got 65 games to sell?”

Selected Comments from the post

“Ken Kutaragi:
“the PS3 will feature backwards compatibility with PS and PS2 games from day one. I’m emphasizing this because, from what I hear, there are some platforms that haven’t been able to completely do this. It’s costly in terms of hardware, but we’d rather invest firmly on compatibility from the beginning, rather than to have issues later on.”

Kinda hard to weasel out now?”

“Did Nintendo ever say that the SNES, N64 and GC would be backwards compatible with anything?NEVER.Did Microsoft say that backwards compatibility was a primary concern, and a core value for the brand?NEVER.

Did Sony say that BC was a primary concern, and a core value for the brand? YES.”

“sony themselves said they would be 100% backwards compatible. they set the standard for themselves, and now they’re breaking that promise a year later”

“Sony should have just kept their mouths shut after announcing this detriment to their brand value. To make things worse, they put out a figure of “65 games” for people to buy for the PS3. 65 PS3 games available isn’t something to be proud of, especially with a back-library of thousands of PS and PS2 games that they just made UNavailable to the system.

Sure, they found a way to drive their cost down. But it’s at the cost of their consumer’s understanding of the PS3. Multiple SKUs is bad enough (lookin at MS too!) to confuse the customers. But when you take away a /strength/ of, not only a product, but a whole brand, you’re just asking for a world of hurt.”

“Maybe the people are upset because you Sony, told that the PS3 will be %100 backward compatible from day one, bashing the 360.”

“People wanted a lower price. Sony is doing things according to what the consumers were demanding. When they made their original statement they thought that people would see what a good deal the PS3 is since it comes with a blu-ray drive, full b/c, free online etc…..BUT not everyone saw that. Sony had to change their strategy. That is exactly what is going on….because you guys obviously didn’t appreciate what they ever doing before.”

On October 5th at 7:20PM Kotaku’s Michael Mcwhertor posted:

“By now, we’re all aware of the price drop and feature drop of the PLAYSTATION 3 in Europe, resulting in a gimped 40GB model of the console. So why, exactly, was backwards compatibility dropped from the PS3? What was once a “core value” and “necessary” according to Sony Computer Entertainment’s Phil Harrison—not to mention a boastful talking point when asked about the Xbox 360’s BC— is now clearly not at all necessary, with the company’s priorities on “developing innovative new features and services for PS3 and not on backwards compatibility.”

Yeah, we get it. There’s an opportunity to save a couple bucks. But why remove the PlayStation 2 chipset altogether, after investing in software emulation and eliminating hundreds of titles from the PS3 library? According to an interview with SCEE reps at GamesIndustry BIZ a “reduced emphasis placed on this feature amongst later purchasers of PS3, as well as the availability of a more extensive line-up of PS3 specific titles” is the reason the company is nixing the once promised support.

Plus, they’ve got 65 PS3 titles ready for the holidays.

Solution? Buy the 60GB (while they’re still available), natch. This is the one time as an early hardware adopter that I don’t feel screwed over. Off to hug my Emotion Engine!”

Selected Comments from the post

“So in other words, they needed PS2 support to get the PS3 ball rolling, and now that they actually have games out they are removing it to make PS3s cheaper for everyone else? Actually, that sounds reasonable.”

“I for one don’t care about BC, I have a PS2 which I used to play my PS2 games (funnily enough) now I just want a PS3 I can afford.”

“If by reasonable you mean screwing over anyone that buys that then yes, it’s reasonable. Personally, if and when I do get a PS3 I would really rather not have to have my PS2 crammed in my already overcrowded entertainments center as well. This is pretty much just a giant slap in the face by Sony. Thanks guys.”

“I have to agree, Sony is certainly being two-faced about BC. I mean all the stuff they about how MS couldn’t have all the titles, blah blah blah. Look where they’re at now. Sad, Sony, very SAD.”

“Who cares? If you want the backward compatibility, go get the slightly more expensive unit. If you don’t care and want to save a C-note, go get the cheaper version.”

“I haven’t been interested in the PS3 at all until I saw some footage from MGS4 and I realized how much I really want it. Iv been getting increasingly interested in buying one. I currently own a regular PS2 so I could look past the backwards computability being dropped. I might actually end up picking up a PS3 this winter.”

“Normally, I’d piss and moan about this whole thing with the best of them, but this is the one time someone has removed a feature from their product and I really… don’t give a shit.
Call me a Never-Nervous-Pervis, but it seems to me that if you want Backwards Compatibility, you’ll still have that option. For those of us who are more frugal, and care not for the luxuries of playing the games of generations past, then there’ s a PlayStation 3 tailor-made for you. It’s got all the high-tech niceties of it’s high-end counterpart (Bluetooth, Blu-Ray, WiFi, expandable HDD) without a feature that I would argue 20% of its owners use. Dumbass move by Sony? Maybe. The best move they’ve made so far? That’s where my money is.”

On October 6th at 2:55PM Joystiq’s Ross Miller posted:

“Due to popular demand from a previous editorial (this is a blog, after all, and editorializing does happen from time to time), we thought it best to clarify further why, exactly, we feel Sony’s move to drop backwards compatibility from the 40GB PAL model was at best misguided and at worst cruel to its consumer base.

First off, the cost to Sony for including the software emulation is very minimal. Though some people have cited the Emotion Engine and Graphics Synthesizer, the combo chip was removed from the PAL design in late February 2007 and cost an estimated $27. Essentially, the software emulation has been running entirely on PS3 hardware for the full extent of its tenure in the PAL region. So that $27 that Sony is presumably saving by not using software backwards compatibility is misinformed.

Regarding PS One titles, Sony has told GameSpot that they will be compatible, which is a good sign. But why not extend those compatibility options to the PS2 library? As previously denoted, that software in its present form runs fine on PS3 hardware.

There has also been discussion about choice. For this, we want to remind the readers that the 40GB is currently only coming out in Europe, where their only other option is the soon-to-be-dropped (reaffirmed in a line from their recent press release) 60GB version. The 80GB model is not coming to PAL territories.

But perhaps it is a cost-cutting hardware issue that no one has seen. If that’s the case, then Sony would be wise to say so, instead of highlighting the 65 PS3 titles reportedly able to justify the loss or downplaying the importance of backwards compatibility when, as recently as 2006 Sony’s Phil Harrison said that “backwards compatibility, as you know from PlayStation One and PlayStation 2, is a core value of what we believe we should offer. And access to the library of content people have created, bought for themselves, and accumulated over the years is necessary to create a format. PlayStation is a format meaning that it transcends many devices — PSOne, PS2 and now PS3.”

Could the software be offered later as a download? That’s a possibility, although it would beg the question why the company couldn’t have added it originally (barring issues over the non-presence of the PS2 graphics synthesizer chip), as well as if that compatibility software would be provided for a nominal fee.

As it stands, no hardware deterrent has been revealed, and the public relations are doing nothing to remedy that error. Does adding the software during the production of the unit, particularly when other software like the operating system is being uploaded, cost that much more? We don’t see it, and we’re grasping at straws trying to find a reason for it. (Other than diverting PAL gamers’ money from buying last-gen software to new-gen offerings.)

So what’s the big deal - why does the backwards compatibility matter? The previously-mentioned “core value” quote from Phil Harrison best sums it up, that with the PS3 we are buying into the PlayStation brand and all that it entails. Gamers who pick up the 40GB model have lost access to over 8,000 titles - many of them the best gaming has to offer. The elephant in the room is that Sony could ween out backwards compatibility from all its available models over all regions. Should you care? We think so.

Update: With some help from Engadget Japan’s Ittousai, we have found diagrams indicating the switch from Emotion Engine + Graphic Synthesizer chip to just a graphics synthesizer chip, implying the software emulation was partially hardware-supported (as noted by many commenters). If that’s the case, then, the ability to download emulation software later may not be possible. We don’t want to spread misinformation, so for further clarification we have contacted Sony for a definitive answer.

Regardless, the loss of backwards compatibility marks a paradigm shift in the PlayStation branding. If you buy a PS3, your connection to the previous generation - one that saw Sony reign mightily in the realm of console gaming - is severed. Does the cost of branding outweigh the financial benefit of losing a graphics chip?”

On October 8th at 4:30PM PS3 Fanboy’s Andrew Yoon posted:

“Many people assumed that the PS3 was software emulating PS2 games, ever since the release of the 80GB model. That system removed the Emotion Engine from the hardware, and required Sony to implement a backwards compatibility solution that involved emulation. Many, including Joystiq, wondered why the new 40GB model couldn’t do the same.

SCEE’s Nick Sharples sent a technical explanation as to why the new 40GB model loses support for PS2 games. “Backwards compatibility for PS2 titles is largely made possible through the use of actual semiconductors, supported by the PS3 system software. The 20GB and 60GB PS3 models launched in Japan and the USA were equipped with both the PS2 Emotion Engine and Graphics Synthesiser chips and we could therefore guarantee over 90% backwards compatibility for PS2 titles.

“The 60GB model launched in Europe was a new model (shared with the 80GB model launched subsequently in USA) which contains only a modified version of the Graphics Synthesiser chip from the PS2 and not the Emotion Engine chip. The European launch model therefore used a combination of software and the modified version of the PS2 Graphics Synthesiser chip to deliver backwards compatibility for PS2 titles. As a result the percentage of backwards compatible PS2 titles was slightly reduced.

“The 40GB model, to be launched in Europe on 10th October, is a new model and is not equipped with any of the semi conductors from the PS2, and backwards compatibility would therefore have to be achieved by software emulation alone.” Because each game would have to be individually emulated (much like on the Xbox 360), Sony decided that an effort like that would be much too costly, and opted to remove BC support from the 40GB system entirely. That decision has not only produced a cheaper system for Sony to manufacture, but for consumers to buy as well.”

Selected Comments from the post

“If people really wanted BC support then they should have brought the 60/80gb models, they carnt really say it was never available

This is quite clever really, SONY released the BC support in early models for the true fans, who would pay alot to get a PS3 (like me).
And then they release a cheaper model, with less features for the more mainstream, casual audience.

Good tactic SONY :D”

“That makes sense to me. I guess if you’re trying to reduce the price of your system in order to compete, I understand the reasoning. I’m just glad that I bought the 60 Gig with the Emotion Chip.”

“Many of us have been saying this was the case since BC was announced as removed. But with anything Sony these days 10 more people spout out how “the end is nigh!”.”

“As long as they offer both BC and non-BC systems, i dont see what ppl are crying about. If BC is that important to you then you can pay the normal price for it.. ppl who dont care for BC get to save $100.”

“I agree. If people don’t like it, they won’t buy it. I own a ton of PS2 games so I’m glad I went with the 60Gb model. Now my poor friend who doesn’t have a PS2 (I know, poor misguided soul) can get in on the PS3 action without spending $$$ on stuff he doesn’t need.”

+ nosedive51

No Comments Digg This Story Save This Page

Money, Money, Money

Kotaku
10.03.2007 at 2:27 pm

Kotaku has put together a nice little overview of how much your wallet may get hit this holiday season. Go check it out and start saving.

+ nosedive51

No Comments Digg This Story Save This Page

Halo 360 Mod

Kotaku + Halo 3
09.24.2007 at 11:17 am

Kotaku has up some pictures of a 360 mod that makes the official Halo 360 look sad.

Kotaku Comments

“Awesome. From 360 to halo battleground.”

“Oh man, that thing rocks. (Here’s hoping it doesn’t RROD, man that would suck)”

“Ohmigod that’s awesome! Next-gen is when you can order a console like that. Me want. Me want bad. Think MS will send my 360 back looking like that? That’d be like, so much better than a free month of Live.”

“s NOT a case mod. more like a fancy base for your Xbox. That said–impressive as hell nevertheless. -runs out to buy Spartan action figures-”

+ nosedive51

No Comments Digg This Story Save This Page

Halo 3 Forge, Co-Op Impressions From Kotaku

Kotaku + Halo 3
09.23.2007 at 5:55 pm

Head over to the site for the full write up.

“Co-Op will probably be the main reason I play the retail version of the game at my house once it officially launches. I’ve already beaten it on my own, so I don’t really feel a burning need to do that again, but I would love to go through the game in Legendary mode co-op.”

Comments

“I want this game like a fat kid wants cake.”

“Forge is not meant to replace a map-editor. It is a MP game-type that includes editing. Real-time editing is the point, not complete control.”
“mmmm cake….”

“I really can’t wait for co-op campaign thats the first thing I’m going to play upon buying it.”

“The first thing i’ll be doing is 4 player co-op. Then I plan on hosting a bunch of custom games with only HUMAN weapons like I used to do in Halo:CE. Forge will be a blast. Halo 3 will be great. I won’t be on the web anymore to see all the haters, which is the best part.”

+ nosedive51

No Comments Digg This Story Save This Page

Paper Mario on VC?

Nintendo Wii + Kotaku
07.09.2007 at 10:23 am

I love the Paper Mario games so I was pretty happy when I read that Japan is getting Paper Mario on the Virtual Console this Tuesday. So now we hopefully wait for the American release.

Kotaku

“Man i wish i had the time to play through this classic agian but sadly i still need to beat spm and a ton of other games”

“having just finished the new one, and loved the GC one too, was always curios what i missed out on with the original, so barring goldeneye, this is about the only other thing i can think of left that’s worth the $10. Good job, Nintendo, get get me Earthbound, or at least Zombies Ate My Goddamn Neighbors.”

+ nosedive51

No Comments Digg This Story Save This Page

MS Drops Big Cash

Xbox360 + PS3 + Kotaku + Fanboys + Comments + Microsoft
06.18.2007 at 9:54 am

Kotaku is reporting that the amount dropped on exclusive GTA content is $50,000,000. That’s a pretty good sum but more fun to us is the good ol’ fashion fanboy slug feast that ensues.

“I can’t imagine this will have a big impact on the PS3 version, most people probably won’t download it anyway. Wasted money.”

“It’s a lot of money, but if MS are certain it will help convince people into buying a 360 instead of a PS3 then it could be money well spent. And if it works they likely won’t have to pay for any more exclusives as they will have such a large install base everyone will want to be publishing on 360.”

“Yeah Rusty, most people wont download it anyway, I mean who the hell “downloads” ANYTHING nowadays!? heh heh heh (sigh).”

“Hahaha. Yah. ’cause if it’s anything people hate, it’s more content for one of the most successful franchises in gaming history. You’re right. Nobody’s interested.”

“lol, Microshit is so desperate.”

“lol, Sony fapboys are so desperate.”

“No not really. Our console happens to be future-proof. The Xbox 360 is going to be a huge fiasco just like its predecessor. If you, despite this 50 million dollar move, don’t get it, that’s your problem.”

“It’ll get better for Sony’s part soon. Sony has basically won the HD format war now as well. Prepare for onslaught, Microshit losers”

“Oh cry about it, I don’t care much about how YOUR “war” will be going, I’ll be enjoying the good content of all three brands, thank you.”

“Our console? Hahahaha. God, that’s rich. So very desperate to belong. Our console happens to be future-proof. Incidentally also present-proof, past-proof, sale-proof, profit-proof and reasonable-price-proof.”

It pretty much goes on like that for while. It’s a pretty good shot-out.

+ nosedive51

No Comments Digg This Story Save This Page

Halo 3 Marketing Begins

Kotaku + Halo 3
06.17.2007 at 9:07 pm

Apparently the Halo 3 campaign has begun.

“Emails are coming from all over about an apparent Halo 3 Viral marketing campaign. Instead of keeping their virulent paws to the internet, this time they are taking it to the streets as well. Folks are being accosted on the streets by people with signs and flyers regarding an ancient alien race. The people carrying these signs are wearing t-shirts with a glyph that has appeared on a Halo 3 email from Microsoft and posted to the Halo 3 forums by administrator Adjutant Reflex as his avatar.”

Bounce over to Kotaku for the story.

“If they generate enough buzz to get the press and media going at this then a lot of those casual gamers who bought Halo/Halo2 might wake up and go “Huh, new Halo, wow! Huh new Xbox, WOW!”

“i hope this viral marketing will be played out before this year’s end. it’s stupid. utterly stupid.”

“I don’t think the viral marketing is aimed too much at people who aren’t interested/aware of Halo 3. If you know about Halo you’re either a fan or you’re not. It’s pretty cut and dry. At the same time, it’s just a bit of fun for the fans of the story; being able to bring some sense of reality to the Halo Universe. I just don’t understand why some people are so threatened to what amounts to a big game of Clue.”

“Well, if this turns out to be anything like I Love Bees, it will end up being much more than ‘just a marketing tactic.’ Call me crazy, but things like this are as much fanservice as they are marketing (whether or not the bigwigs at Microsoft’s marketing branch realize this).”

“Why does a game as overhyped as Halo 3 need a viral marketing campaign? Do they think there’s actually a gamer out there that hasn’t heard of this?”

“I actually enjoy these viral marketing campaigns they always do for Halo, it’s pretty exciting. My only problem with it, is that it usually turns out to be extremely disapointing when they finally reveal what it’s all about.”

“This is probably an ARG, or Alternate Reality Game, like the ilovebees ARG for Halo 2. If so, it’s primary aim is to tell a story to gamers who are willing to dig deep enough. Marketing the game is one of the objectives of an ARG, but not the first and foremost. Like Coweh said, Bungie knows how to write some very intricately designed fiction across multiple mediums all intertwining to tell one story.”

+ nosedive51

No Comments Digg This Story Save This Page

360 Shadowrun, $10 More

Xbox360 + Kotaku + Fanboys
05.16.2007 at 9:17 am

With the news that the Xbox 360s copy of Shadowrun is 10 bucks more than the PC version comes the avalanche of unhappy posters.

Kotaku

“So to sum that up: “We can charge what ever we like so STFU. Also we have to pay more to advertise the game because it’s exclusive so it’s your fault. NOW GIB M$ MUNNIES!!!”"

“I honestly don’t think they care much about the game at all. What they DO care about, is testing their little theory of how their little PC + 360 unified gaming structure is going to work, and what better way than a FPS, which is one of the key gaming types on both those systems.

Now, people on the Xbox are used to paying that price. Sure, not a very good excuse, but if they can nab an extra ten bucks, why the hell not, says MS. On the other side of the coin, all those people who are just buying new PCs preloaded with Vista might be looking for games ‘optimized’ for the system, and at an okay price point, that’s what they’re hoping people will pick up.

Honestly, if they get a hundred thousand people testing and playing the system, they can see what it looks like in action, see how they can market it better, etc. Never said anywhere this is some awesome plan or anything, but it almost feels like they’re using it for a test.”

“Stupid consumers (myself included) for letting them make it the standard price!
Before, it was to cover development costs… With a cheaper PC version, can’t exactly use that argument here!”

“Weak.

It’s priced that way because that’s how everyone else prices their games? I wasn’t aware that the industry standard was to price a multiplayer-only game at the same price as full-fledged games (with both singleplayer and multiplayer aspects).

To be fair, singleplayer-only games are fair game for full price, but I’ve always considered the multiplayer aspect of a game to be secondary (whether it is more fun that the singleplayer or not). Perhaps I’m wrong to think so, but the Warhawk comparison is a good one, considering that Sony plans to price that lower after scrapping the singleplayer campaign.

I would like to play the game, but it’s really not worth that much to me. I’ll wait for it to be $30 over Steam when they realize that plenty of people share that mentality.”

“You people arent even looking at the product. For only $10, youre not just getting a green case (superior to blue), youre getting better box art, and for the money, its a deal. Then again, i bought a PS3 before the inevitable price cut and will likely pick up flOw soon so you might not wish to seek my counsel on financial matters.”

“I’ve got no way to explain the disparity, but I can say I’m not that interested in buying either version. And frankly, I’m not feeling MS pushing people all that hard to buy it either.”

“I know this might break your heart, but Microsoft is a business. They’ll charge whatever they think people will pay. Apparently they think they can push the most PC units at $50 and the most 360 units at $60. And judging by the success of the company, they’re probably right. If you don’t want to pay that much - don’t buy it. Honestly, it’s as simple as that. Why waste your virtually breath whining?”

“PC users need the $10 after spending over $2000 on a rig that can play these games!”

“Paying 10 more for the console version is not that bad when you factor the price you have to pay for both vista and the pc. But, what is uber lame is the high price for multiplayer only. Look at half-life2, you pay 49$ for the game, and you get like 10 other games and mods like cs, dod, cs source, RICOCHET!(ew), and others. I wouldn’t pay 60 bucks for cs and I played that for years and I still play it, so why would I pay MS 60$ for the right to get my ass kicked by people who can play the game with keyboard and mouse.”

“The reason they charge more for the 360 version (which is no doubt the worse of the two versions) is because the vast majority of 360 owners have proven how much they just bend over and accept it in the past. It’s not complicated at all.”

“Here’s the thing. Companies are spending stupid money on games (how I don’t know as salaries and equipment don’t add up to nearly what the budgets say is being spent). They need to sell at an inflated price to re-coup that initial investment end of story. Even then they need to sell in excess of a million copies to break even. This can’t continue as the economics don’t add up. Some people somewhere are getting insanely rich on these 20 million budgets and it isn’t the salary men that make the games!”

“Yeah I thinkI will be giving shadow run a miss. Seriously publishers have to standardize thier pricing. I bought CC3 for the PC as well because it is cheaper than the price being qouted for the forthcoming xbox360 release. I love my 360 but more and more PC gaming is drawing me away from it.”

“… strop crying…

nobody would be saying anything if the pc version didn’t exist… cause 59.99$ is what you usually pay for a “current gen” (not next cause it’s OUT god dammit :) game…

Stop expecting stuff to be free cause it will never be… you don’t have to buy it if you think it’s too expensive… I’m sick of people crying about stuff on the marketplace and how expensive games are… get out of your parents basement, get a job, or find another hobby…

just like that do you know how much the “shadowrun” books cost?”

+ nosedive51

No Comments Digg This Story Save This Page

« Previous Entries