It was inevitable

Post by **Sonic#** » Mon May 15, 2006 2:20 pm

GhaleonOne wrote:What a worthless fanboy you are then. Can't even keep the company alive and well.

Actually, phyco did the best possible thing a fanboy could do. By refusing to allow WD to compete on the basis of petty sales and finicky advertising campaigns, he has ensured the company's immortal superiority. ^_^

Working Designs -

Sony, Sega, Nintendo, Microsoft, etc. -

Post by **GhaleonOne** » Mon May 15, 2006 3:56 pm

Nice use of pictures.

I will concede my earlier comment then.

As for Vic, I imagine he's probably already got plans up his sleeve in the gaming industry. Call it a hunch.

phyco126 · Post by **phyco126** » Tue May 16, 2006 4:20 am

By the way, I just heard that suddenly Sony dropped the price to $500 and will only be releasing one version of the PS3. I doubt that it's true, but I'm not one to argue without knowing things for a fact. Anywho, is it true?

Post by **GhaleonOne** » Tue May 16, 2006 5:37 am

Not likely, seeing as it's not on any of the major gaming sites. If they did drop the launch price, they'd probably wait a while and use it as a bonus to help hype the system in the coming months, rather than a matter of days of the original announcement. Not sure if anyone mentioned this above (too tired to go back and re-read the entire thread) , but what most people don't realize is that while the system is ridiculously expensive, it's even more expensive for Sony to produce. Even at $600 a pop, they're loosing like $300-500 for every machine sold I believe.

HuBBsDoctor · Post by **HuBBsDoctor** » Tue May 16, 2006 5:54 am

Microsoft can deal with their losses better than Sony can. Microsoft is only losing $175 for every premium Xbox 360 bundle sold. Poor Sony can't risk selling the Premium PS3 package at a lower price and yet they might have to to keep the PS3 from going under like the PSX did.

phyco126 · Post by **phyco126** » Tue May 16, 2006 10:49 pm

Going under like the PSX did? I'm confused on what you meant by this. :?:

Also, if companies are losing money by selling gaming machines, then why sell them at all? Doesn't make any practical business sense. The only time it's okay to sell for something for less than it's production cost is usually the shopping day after turkey day or they have a major sale going on.

Imperial Knight · Post by **Imperial Knight** » Tue May 16, 2006 10:54 pm

phyco126 wrote:Also, if companies are losing money by selling gaming machines, then why sell them at all? Doesn't make any practical business sense. The only time it's okay to sell for something for less than it's production cost is usually the shopping day after turkey day or they have a major sale going on.

The idea is that they make their money on the sales of games (either directly or through third-party license fees), which means that it's in their best interests to get as many consoles sold as possible, even if it means selling them at a loss.

Post by **GhaleonOne** » Tue May 16, 2006 10:57 pm

Also, if companies are losing money by selling gaming machines, then why sell them at all? Doesn't make any practical business sense. The only time it's okay to sell for something for less than it's production cost is usually the shopping day after turkey day or they have a major sale going on.

Because they bank of software sales to make up for it. At least Sony and Microsoft. Nintendo's systems seem to cost less to produce (probably due to the lack of things such as DVD support, etc.)

Edit- Looks like Imperial Knight beat me to it.

phyco126 · Post by **phyco126** » Wed May 17, 2006 2:19 am

Hmmm, never thought of it that way, but I guess it makes sense.

HuBBsDoctor · Post by **HuBBsDoctor** » Wed May 17, 2006 3:33 am

I don't need to explain what G1 already said.

But anyway the PSX was Sony's tivo/DVD burner/ps2 combo system. It was released in japan about two years ago and will never be released in the US because the unit costs $1000 american and the sales figures aren't pretty.

phyco126 · Post by **phyco126** » Wed May 17, 2006 3:45 am

Oh, well, the PSX threw me off, because the regular PS was called the PSX here and there if I recall. PSOne, PS, PSX is the three I'm remembering.

Post by **Kizyr** » Wed May 17, 2006 5:42 am

phyco126 wrote:Oh, well, the PSX threw me off, because the regular PS was called the PSX here and there if I recall. PSOne, PS, PSX is the three I'm remembering.

If it makes you feel any better, someone back on the LunarHope forums a couple years ago was confused about hearing of a Lunar game for the PSX, when it was a US site using the "PSX" acronym instead of "PS" that mentioned it. So the confusion goes both ways. KF

Rivercrab · Post by **Rivercrab** » Wed May 17, 2006 8:07 am

I'd like to make a quick comment on this stuff. I own ~15 consoles including all of the current generation ones, and at first I thought I'd buy all the next-gen ones too. But after I add up the system cost, controllers, accessories games and tax, that's more money than I really SHOULD be spending, even if I can. I have enough current generation games to tide me over until there's some killer next-gen games. I don't want to buy something just because it's new and then wait years for the good games to come out. If I do get something on launch, it'll be Wii, because the launch titles, innovation and the price (hopefully XD) are most appealing to me, personally. ^^

About price affecting sales: to what extent, we'll have to see, but it certainly will be affected. Below I link two GameFaqs.com polls. Regardless of what people think of the message boards users there, the site itself is visited by a wide variety of gamers, and with a fair amount of accuracy we can see the opinons of the average gamer on these issues. The first poll is excellent, in that it isn't console specific and therefore isn't subject to fanboyism. 70% of the voters purchase fewer games because of prices or no new games out that they want. While price was dicussed already in great length here, it's also important to note that these consoles are just a means to play the games, and the games themselves are what's important. I think those two factors, price and software will be the strongest determining factors in how well these systems will sell.

http://www.gamefaqs.com/poll/index.html?poll=2378
http://www.gamefaqs.com/poll/index.html?poll=2379

HuBBsDoctor · Post by **HuBBsDoctor** » Wed May 17, 2006 2:04 pm

that is however a recent poll. And it wasn't until the Xbox 360 that games were consitantly over $60. However the Nintendo 64 had games raning from the $50 to 70 range but managed to sell theior games pretty well.

phyco126 · Post by **phyco126** » Thu May 18, 2006 2:55 am

Kizyr wrote:
phyco126 wrote:Oh, well, the PSX threw me off, because the regular PS was called the PSX here and there if I recall. PSOne, PS, PSX is the three I'm remembering.

If it makes you feel any better, someone back on the LunarHope forums a couple years ago was confused about hearing of a Lunar game for the PSX, when it was a US site using the "PSX" acronym instead of "PS" that mentioned it. So the confusion goes both ways. KF

Glad to know I'm not going crazy faster than the doctors told me I am. I seriously was beginning to think I got the PSX mixed up with something else, but glad to know I was right about the PS being called the PSX too

Lunar Threads

It was inevitable

Who is online