PS3....

[Raw-C]

I'm almost positive its been anounced that PS3 games will be 59.99.

I know its not a far cry from 70 and I have little doubt that some games will be more expensive.

[anonymo]

According to my local EB games, PS3 games will be $69.99-$74.99 CAD compared to 360 games which are $49.99-$59.99 (not including Special Editions which usually run up to $69.99). That being said I really can't see Oblivion (a PS3 launch title) being more than $59.99 CAD

 

only time will tell

[appalachian_fox]

I stand corrected. I could have sworn that games were going to be $70, but a quick poke around the 'Net reveals that they will cost at least $60, and IGN reports that Sony has fixed its first-party titles at $59.99 (or, $60).

 

Apologies.

 

Though Konami isn't exactly a first-party developer, so anything's possible on pricing for it, I think even at $60 my point remains that, personally, I can't justify a console (at just about any price, really) for one game.

[[LaW]Maverick]

Fox, they did originally announce $70...but a lot of people got really angry really fast...

 

Still, that's $10 more than Microsoft's first party software, and the system is $200 more....that's harsh

[Raw-C]

And you get a lot more than a 360. But thats a whole nother argument.

 

I'm curious how the actual implementation of sony's FREE online service will compare with XBOX Live Gold/Silver. So far, all the announcements/projections make it look awesome and pretty comparable IMO. But, time will tell.

[appalachian_fox]

And you get a lot more than a 360. But thats a whole nother argument.

 

Agreed. And you could get a whole lot more spending $10,000 on a schweet desktop...I imagine it's possible. But how much are you willing to pay for more? And how much of that money has actual value to the consumer? It is unarguably a good value to someone who has the capacity to take on a 1080p experience and wants to break into the Blu-Ray era but doesn't want to be a crazy video/audiophile (I know people who sneer at the thought of a $600 HD disc player). For Joe Shallowpockets, you're getting stuff you won't be able to use. I don't have a 1080p TV. For people in my position I have to agree with Maverick -- The "more" I get doesn't have real value to me, but I get to pay $200 more for it. Or $100 more, I guess that's an option. Though something that I've only recently become aware of...

 

I'm curious how the actual implementation of sony's FREE online service will compare with XBOX Live Gold/Silver. So far, all the announcements/projections make it look awesome and pretty comparable IMO. But, time will tell.

 

That's gonna be a great thing, and for online gamers that could conceivably be the value that levels the playing field for Joe Shallowpockets. I doubt I'll be getting into the 1080p TV realm in the next four years -- I will be playing games, though. Four years of Gold is $200...Sounds exactly like the difference between the two.

 

Now THAT'S value. I still won't be purchasing one, though. I'm hoping this will drive the Gold subscription price down, but we are talking about Microsoft...

[anonymo]

Ok...someone doesn't get the online thing.

 

Xbox Live is a subscription service. You pay to keep the servers running.

 

Sony Online is a free service. Game companies keep the servers running using profits from their games and money made through DLC (downloadable content). So far EVERYTHING that you get from Sony online you have to pay for. This goes for game demos/videos to game content. Many games that are online will have fees, unlike their Xbox counterparts that will not charge fees.

 

Sony has stated that Sony Online for the PS3 will be almost identical to that for the PS2 except with a better UI and more content (now that they have hdds).

 

Personally, having used both Xbox live and Sony Online in the past, I'd much rather pay a monthly fee ($4/month) for quality servers/service and free content (its not all free, but its better than nothing) than have free servers/service that aren't regulated or taken care of by Sony and have to pay for just about every piece of content with Sony Online

 

Unless Sony pulls its thumb out and actually gives a rats behind about their online service, it will not be worth it and leave the Xbox as the console for online gaming.

[Raw-C]

Not really sure what else I can say.

 

XBOX Live has always been better than Sony's services so far. But, they've done a lot of work to try and get PS3's service to be competitive.

 

But, I guess it doesn't really matter either way. Theres enough fanboys of both sides to make any argument valid for either side.

[appalachian_fox]

Ok...someone doesn't get the online thing.

 

Guilty, apparently:

 

Sony Online is a free service. Game companies keep the servers running using profits from their games and money made through DLC (downloadable content). So far EVERYTHING that you get from Sony online you have to pay for. This goes for game demos/videos to game content. Many games that are online will have fees, unlike their Xbox counterparts that will not charge fees.

 

Wait, let me get this straight: Generic FPS comes to both XBox 360 and PS3. G-FPS doesn't cost me anything to play multiplayer on the XBox 360, because I already have my Gold-level subscription. However, Sony handles my payments to the producers of G-FPS, to whom I must pay some monthly fee to deathmatch it out with others? Does that imply that co-op runs between two players, and that will NOT cost money?

 

I'm not doubting it, I just want to make sure I'm understanding your summary: The majority of online gaming on the XBox 360 (with exceptions such as the new Phantasy Star game's online side) comes with your Gold subscription, but all online gaming will have to be handled on a game-by-game (or hopefully studio-by-studio) basis?

 

That seems like it's more expensive for everyone. That would really stink.

[Raw-C]

I can't say for sure either way and I'm not going to pretend I know exactly how its going to play out.

 

Is it possible that it'll be how you fear? Sure. Who knows what the suits will think is a good idea.

 

That being said, I really doubt anybody except maybe sony and the 3rd party game developers really know what is going to happen and unless someone can cite sources for all this 3rd party billing stuff, its just hearsay. And yes, its hearsay whether you think it'll be mostly free or mostly charged. I don't think theres been a detailed enough information release to know for sure.

[shaftiel]

Well, I have never been interested in a console game enough to decide to throw $300+ at a system, just for the opportunity to spend another $60 on a game. Then, after i get bored with the game, to have that $300+ games console just sit there until I find another game I'm interesed enough in to throw another $60 at. I know that PC's are usually more expensive, but they are also much more useful and flexible.

 

A PC is expensive sure. The games available usually cost as much as console games. But after you have grown tired of the games you have, you can still use your PC. It just won't sit there like a very expensive paper weight. Yeah, the new consoles can play DVD's, but nearly all the newer PC's can as well.

 

I just don't see what the big deal is regarding these consoles. Shrug.

 

 

 

 

Shaftiel

[Shazz]

go ahead and buy both the PS3 and Wii. This fella is making some money!

 

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/SONY-PLAYSTATION-3-PS3...1QQcmdZViewItem

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/SONY-PLAYSTATION-3-PS3...1QQcmdZViewItem

[anonymo]

fox...basically g-fps comes out and requires servers for online play. In this case, where server load is not very heavy, the game company definitely won't charge a monthly service fee to play on the PS3...and that is the problem, whereas on the 360 you've got maintained servers that will always stay up.

 

Online gaming is a service. I'd much rather pay for a service and have it be reliable and the providers be accountable than not have to pay for it and have it be adhoc and furthest from the minds of the providers. Not only that but say theres a game you absolutely love but isn't that popular and the developer decides they are losing money running the servers and don't think their consumers would pay a monthly fee, so they take down the servers, pointless.

[Raw-C]

Not to be too harsh, but what you're saying anonymo is complete conjecture. And it sounds to me like you're just trying to justify XBOX live costing money.

[appalachian_fox]

Does anyone have a reference to anything substantial that's come directly from Sony? Is it a fair assumption to say I could find something like this at IGN?

[Raw-C]

Unfortunately, I don't know where to find an actual statement from Sony.

Everywhere I've looked is full of rumors and propaganda either for or against sony. Its been very difficult to find facts.

[anonymo]

Not to be too harsh, but what you're saying anonymo is complete conjecture. And it sounds to me like you're just trying to justify XBOX live costing money.

That's exactly what I'm doing. It's easy to see why XBL is justified in charging $4/month for quality service. Sure Sony could pull a feat and provide great service for free, but it would be a huge undertaking for them while they are already struggling with just getting the console to market.

 

I'm a fanboy. I dislike everything Sony does. I dislike the fact that they throw so much money at developers that they don't have a rational choice not to make exclusive titles for PS2/3. They are buying the market and forcing you to use their proprietary hardware just to play the games you like. I know there's nothing I can do but try and get other people to see what they are doing and to get them to boycott it.

[Raw-C]

I have no problem with you using facts to back up your opinions. I just don't like seeing arguments being made that have little or no factual backing for the sake of trying to make something not be successful. But hey, its a forum and everyone can post however they want. So go for it.

[anonymo]

Considering we're talking about something that does not yet exist, then you can't really be upset with all the conjecture can you?

 

I know I have some pretty hefty ideas about SCEA's business practices but look at it this way. Why on earth would Square not release all their games onto Xbox and Xbox 360? That money has to be coming from somewhere and I'll give you three guess where. If you can offer a better explanation I'm all up for it. Same goes for Rockstar. In the end Sony lost that battle because there was just too much money involved and I can almost say that the profits from selling GTA games on PC and Xbox would have really hurt SCEA if they had to fully compensate R* for it.

[Raw-C]

I wasn't talking about Sony buying people out so they can have more exclusives. I don't know the details for how exclusives get set up and its very likely there are huge sums of money involved.

 

Whiles yes, it is something that doesn't exist in retail form yet, I don't think it boils down to complete conjecture. There hasn't been anything to backup your claims that we'll all have to pay a monthly fee for practically every online game. To be fair though, I admit this is a possibility. I really don't know how Sony is going to do all this stuff, I'm just trying to give them a fair shot at it.

[[LaW]Maverick]

Here's a little fuel for the fire:

 

People the play SOCOM (even the die-hard SONY fan boys) tell me that half the time the servers really suck, and it's hard to find one at times that has a lot of people in it that's worth staying in.

 

XBOX Live doesn't really have that problem...not in my experience in any case. The only annoying thing about it is the 12 year olds that think they sound sweet when they swear, talk ghetto, and talk crap. Of course, you'll have that on either console...or PC.

 

According to what SONY has told Gamestop, the game developers will be responsible for how online play works on the PS3, which is EXACTLY how the system is set up currently. The only real difference is that SONY is offering incentive (mostly in sales and distribution) for companies to have good online play support.

 

Is that going to stop EA from charging you to play the console version of Battlefield 2142? Maybe not, because that would be up to EA, and EA sucks.

 

If I had to add my experience from the sales side (we get a lot more inside info than people like to admit) I would have to say that it's likely that most of the online play on the PS3 will be free as it is now, HOWEVER, the servers will probably worse than they are right now if that's the case. Simply put, you need higher end servers to handle higher end games, and if companies strive to keep the online service free, servers are going to suck because they certainly don't get enough of a profit share from game sales through SONY. Next gen development is EXPENSIVE, and next gen servers will be too.

 

So it may be that the better games to play online on the PS3 will charge you on an individual basis. That is according to what SONY has released to GameStop.

[appalachian_fox]

Ok...someone doesn't get the online thing.

 

 

Considering we're talking about something that does not yet exist, then you can't really be upset with all the conjecture can you?

 

I know I have some pretty hefty ideas about SCEA's business practices...

 

I'm all for conjecture, but in the future, I'd appreciate it if you didn't bash my lack of knowledge of your conjecture. I don't take it personally -- I'm sure you would have jumped on anyone who posted the same thing -- but it's still offensive.

[anonymo]

Ok...someone doesn't get the online thing.

 

 

Considering we're talking about something that does not yet exist, then you can't really be upset with all the conjecture can you?

 

I know I have some pretty hefty ideas about SCEA's business practices...

 

I'm all for conjecture, but in the future, I'd appreciate it if you didn't bash my lack of knowledge of your conjecture. I don't take it personally -- I'm sure you would have jumped on anyone who posted the same thing -- but it's still offensive.

I must apologize...I spend too much time on Gamestop/gamefaq forums only to come in here with the same attitude.

[TheReverend(c)]

Ok...someone doesn't get the online thing.

 

 

Considering we're talking about something that does not yet exist, then you can't really be upset with all the conjecture can you?

 

I know I have some pretty hefty ideas about SCEA's business practices...

 

I'm all for conjecture, but in the future, I'd appreciate it if you didn't bash my lack of knowledge of your conjecture. I don't take it personally -- I'm sure you would have jumped on anyone who posted the same thing -- but it's still offensive.

I must apologize...I spend too much time on Gamestop/gamefaq forums only to come in here with the same attitude.

Bad Admin! Bad Admin! (slaps hand) eh... not that bad though.

[appalachian_fox]

I'm all for conjecture, but in the future, I'd appreciate it if you didn't bash my lack of knowledge of your conjecture. I don't take it personally -- I'm sure you would have jumped on anyone who posted the same thing -- but it's still offensive.

I must apologize...I spend too much time on Gamestop/gamefaq forums only to come in here with the same attitude.

 

I understand...Sometimes I'm still punchy after reading comments on Slashdot