The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Money can be what determines a sale or not! I am a Nintendo fan but I do like Sony and especially Sega and I will undoubtedly like the X-box as well. So if the Gamecube comes out as £400 and the X-box costs £100 I could (although I probably won’t but others might) change the console I get!
So price is important so why is it Microsoft and Sony charge £300 for their systems? It has been bugging me for some time! Obviously it costs more to make but £300 is still a bit much. So what is it that makes it cost so much? Well it is probably due to what each system does! Sony doesn’t just make consoles (What you already knew wow your clever) they make TV’s, CD players and DVD players. Now DVD players aren’t cheap so if Sony charge £100 for the PS2 people are going to get that instead of a DVD player. Sony doesn’t want to out do themselves now do they?
Microsoft suffers the same problem as the X-box contains many bits that have been ripped out of a PC. If they charge little for it then who is going to want to get the Pentium 3 etc… when they can get it out the X-box for less? Again Microsoft isn’t going to out do themselves now are they?
This is why I think Nintendo may have a better chance this time round as they don’t have DVD or PC capabilities. They can charge as low as they want and Sony and Microsoft can’t do to much about it (apart from lower DVD player and PC prices).
Looks like Nintendo have one advantage over their rivals but will this help? I hope so!
Here’s to the future
Dringo
So price is important so why is it Microsoft and Sony charge £300 for their systems? It has been bugging me for some time! Obviously it costs more to make but £300 is still a bit much. So what is it that makes it cost so much? Well it is probably due to what each system does! Sony doesn’t just make consoles (What you already knew wow your clever) they make TV’s, CD players and DVD players. Now DVD players aren’t cheap so if Sony charge £100 for the PS2 people are going to get that instead of a DVD player. Sony doesn’t want to out do themselves now do they?
Microsoft suffers the same problem as the X-box contains many bits that have been ripped out of a PC. If they charge little for it then who is going to want to get the Pentium 3 etc… when they can get it out the X-box for less? Again Microsoft isn’t going to out do themselves now are they?
This is why I think Nintendo may have a better chance this time round as they don’t have DVD or PC capabilities. They can charge as low as they want and Sony and Microsoft can’t do to much about it (apart from lower DVD player and PC prices).
Looks like Nintendo have one advantage over their rivals but will this help? I hope so!
Here’s to the future
Dringo
Bonus wrote:
> The PS2 used a chipset made by a third party for DVD playback, the
> same one in the Wharfdale players!!
Is that true? Very intetesting. The Wharfdale player is basic but quite decent and better than the PS2 one. That would mean that the PS2s shortcomings aren't directly related to it's DVD architecture (unless it's not the EXACT same chipset).
> The PS2 used a chipset made by a third party for DVD playback, the
> same one in the Wharfdale players!!
Is that true? Very intetesting. The Wharfdale player is basic but quite decent and better than the PS2 one. That would mean that the PS2s shortcomings aren't directly related to it's DVD architecture (unless it's not the EXACT same chipset).
Dringo wrote:
> NOOOOO Sony make DVD players as well the PS2 one is good > but if it is really cheap! then who wants to buy the sony > DVD players!
If I was getting both then I would get the PS2 first and the DVD player second. The PS2 could be used as a temporary DVD player until I could afford a proper one. If I was only getting one of them to use for DVD films then I'd have no hesitation in getting the standalone player.
I'd want to watch films in the quality DVD was intended to bring and this cannot be provided by a PS2. I'm sorry but it's true.
> NOOOOO Sony make DVD players as well the PS2 one is good > but if it is really cheap! then who wants to buy the sony > DVD players!
If I was getting both then I would get the PS2 first and the DVD player second. The PS2 could be used as a temporary DVD player until I could afford a proper one. If I was only getting one of them to use for DVD films then I'd have no hesitation in getting the standalone player.
I'd want to watch films in the quality DVD was intended to bring and this cannot be provided by a PS2. I'm sorry but it's true.
SmokedKipper wrote:
> Dringo wrote:
> Sony charge £100 for the PS2 people are
> going to get that
> instead of a DVD player.
Not if they want
> a good DVD player they wont. Sony do make quite good standalone DVD
> plyers, even if they are a bit short on features, so why is the PS2
> one so below par?
NOOOOO Sony make DVD players as well the PS2 one is good but if it is really cheap! then who wants to buy the sony DVD players!
> Dringo wrote:
> Sony charge £100 for the PS2 people are
> going to get that
> instead of a DVD player.
Not if they want
> a good DVD player they wont. Sony do make quite good standalone DVD
> plyers, even if they are a bit short on features, so why is the PS2
> one so below par?
NOOOOO Sony make DVD players as well the PS2 one is good but if it is really cheap! then who wants to buy the sony DVD players!
The PS2 used a chipset made by a third party for DVD playback, the same one in the Wharfdale players!!
SmokedKipper wrote:
> Dringo wrote:
> Sony charge £100 for the PS2 people are
> going to get that
> instead of a DVD player.
Not if they want
> a good DVD player they wont. Sony do make quite good standalone DVD
> plyers, even if they are a bit short on features, so why is the PS2
> one so below par?
SmokedKipper wrote:
> Dringo wrote:
> Sony charge £100 for the PS2 people are
> going to get that
> instead of a DVD player.
Not if they want
> a good DVD player they wont. Sony do make quite good standalone DVD
> plyers, even if they are a bit short on features, so why is the PS2
> one so below par?
True but Nintendo has better specs and that costs less? Wheres the logic?
Dringo
Dringo
Dringo wrote:
> Sony charge £100 for the PS2 people are going to get that
> instead of a DVD player.
Not if they want a good DVD player they wont. Sony do make quite good standalone DVD plyers, even if they are a bit short on features, so why is the PS2 one so below par?
> Sony charge £100 for the PS2 people are going to get that
> instead of a DVD player.
Not if they want a good DVD player they wont. Sony do make quite good standalone DVD plyers, even if they are a bit short on features, so why is the PS2 one so below par?
You fail to see reason, the technology which is insie the PS2 is blinding for £300. One you have a core bus and processor dealing with 128bits at a rate of 300mhz. Secondly you have 5 independent processors all doing thier bit, each with their own memory stores. Rambus also makes a huge stake in the price as it is not cheap.
Money can be what determines a sale or not! I am a Nintendo fan but I do like Sony and especially Sega and I will undoubtedly like the X-box as well. So if the Gamecube comes out as £400 and the X-box costs £100 I could (although I probably won’t but others might) change the console I get!
So price is important so why is it Microsoft and Sony charge £300 for their systems? It has been bugging me for some time! Obviously it costs more to make but £300 is still a bit much. So what is it that makes it cost so much? Well it is probably due to what each system does! Sony doesn’t just make consoles (What you already knew wow your clever) they make TV’s, CD players and DVD players. Now DVD players aren’t cheap so if Sony charge £100 for the PS2 people are going to get that instead of a DVD player. Sony doesn’t want to out do themselves now do they?
Microsoft suffers the same problem as the X-box contains many bits that have been ripped out of a PC. If they charge little for it then who is going to want to get the Pentium 3 etc… when they can get it out the X-box for less? Again Microsoft isn’t going to out do themselves now are they?
This is why I think Nintendo may have a better chance this time round as they don’t have DVD or PC capabilities. They can charge as low as they want and Sony and Microsoft can’t do to much about it (apart from lower DVD player and PC prices).
Looks like Nintendo have one advantage over their rivals but will this help? I hope so!
Here’s to the future
Dringo
So price is important so why is it Microsoft and Sony charge £300 for their systems? It has been bugging me for some time! Obviously it costs more to make but £300 is still a bit much. So what is it that makes it cost so much? Well it is probably due to what each system does! Sony doesn’t just make consoles (What you already knew wow your clever) they make TV’s, CD players and DVD players. Now DVD players aren’t cheap so if Sony charge £100 for the PS2 people are going to get that instead of a DVD player. Sony doesn’t want to out do themselves now do they?
Microsoft suffers the same problem as the X-box contains many bits that have been ripped out of a PC. If they charge little for it then who is going to want to get the Pentium 3 etc… when they can get it out the X-box for less? Again Microsoft isn’t going to out do themselves now are they?
This is why I think Nintendo may have a better chance this time round as they don’t have DVD or PC capabilities. They can charge as low as they want and Sony and Microsoft can’t do to much about it (apart from lower DVD player and PC prices).
Looks like Nintendo have one advantage over their rivals but will this help? I hope so!
Here’s to the future
Dringo