The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Hats off to Sony unlike MS and Ninty they are there to make gaming affordable unlike the others who are only interested in profit.
Sony scored a big hit with the PS1 and platinum games, which were affordable quality games that had to sell a certain amount to turn platinum, while N64 was still trying to sell cartridges for £64.99 Sony's platinum range came in at £19.99 and proved a big hit.
I am glad to see they are carryiing on the tradition with there PS2 platinum range. I mean lets face it GT3 is a far superior game to Project Gotham and yet it is have the price. They say you have to pay for quality but on this evidence you don't.
Sony scored a big hit with the PS1 and platinum games, which were affordable quality games that had to sell a certain amount to turn platinum, while N64 was still trying to sell cartridges for £64.99 Sony's platinum range came in at £19.99 and proved a big hit.
I am glad to see they are carryiing on the tradition with there PS2 platinum range. I mean lets face it GT3 is a far superior game to Project Gotham and yet it is have the price. They say you have to pay for quality but on this evidence you don't.
Page:
Techno freak wrote:
> Ok we will stop now you have admitted that I TECHNO FREAK AM RIGHT.
This just highlights you're ignorance. Basically you're argument is playstion has a few platinum games, so therefore is the best console on the market. Anyone tries to challenge this and you put him or her down, because you somehow believe that with the totally biased and quite crap points you make 'should' be accepted by everyone.
You 'think' you’re right, so therefore everyone else here 'should' agree with you. In other words, you're a fan-boy.
> Ok we will stop now you have admitted that I TECHNO FREAK AM RIGHT.
This just highlights you're ignorance. Basically you're argument is playstion has a few platinum games, so therefore is the best console on the market. Anyone tries to challenge this and you put him or her down, because you somehow believe that with the totally biased and quite crap points you make 'should' be accepted by everyone.
You 'think' you’re right, so therefore everyone else here 'should' agree with you. In other words, you're a fan-boy.
Techno freak wrote:
> You a funny guy, I think you will find that the PS2 is £199 and
> that top titles on GC are £44.99 the only one being Star Wars,
> unless you rate the lemmings rip-off Pikimen.
I think you will find that the PS2, when it came out, which is how we are comparing things, was £299.99, £170.00 more than the GameCube. I also think you will find that GameCube games ARE £34.99 new. Just check around this site or Amazon.com. 'Lemmings rip-off'? 'Pikimen'? I assume you're referring to the highly innovative Pikmin, one of the most original games on any console to date. Have you even played Pikmin? If so, you'd see it was much much more than getting some little furry creatures to their house.
> Being a gaming fan I do like to buy quite a few games and most of the
> PS2 titles I have pick up are on special offers like buy one get 2nd
> half price, or buy 2 and get 3rd free and these are top titles. Then
> again I could always buy Extreme G3 for GC at £39.99 or on PS2
> platinum for £19.99.
Have you not read anything? Or do you not have any sense? The GameCube has been out for TWO months. The PS2 has been out for THREE years. Of course games are going to be cheaper! Have some sense.
> Go into second hand resale shops and there are cheap PS2 games all
> over the place it is the format of choice and there ain't nothing you
> can do about it.
And finally, to end on an obvious fanboy comment. There IS something that can be done, and it's the format of choice because it's been out the longest. Look at the GameCube - cheaper hardware, cheaper games, cheaper peripherals, best games company in the world ever behind it. You just wait and see.
> You a funny guy, I think you will find that the PS2 is £199 and
> that top titles on GC are £44.99 the only one being Star Wars,
> unless you rate the lemmings rip-off Pikimen.
I think you will find that the PS2, when it came out, which is how we are comparing things, was £299.99, £170.00 more than the GameCube. I also think you will find that GameCube games ARE £34.99 new. Just check around this site or Amazon.com. 'Lemmings rip-off'? 'Pikimen'? I assume you're referring to the highly innovative Pikmin, one of the most original games on any console to date. Have you even played Pikmin? If so, you'd see it was much much more than getting some little furry creatures to their house.
> Being a gaming fan I do like to buy quite a few games and most of the
> PS2 titles I have pick up are on special offers like buy one get 2nd
> half price, or buy 2 and get 3rd free and these are top titles. Then
> again I could always buy Extreme G3 for GC at £39.99 or on PS2
> platinum for £19.99.
Have you not read anything? Or do you not have any sense? The GameCube has been out for TWO months. The PS2 has been out for THREE years. Of course games are going to be cheaper! Have some sense.
> Go into second hand resale shops and there are cheap PS2 games all
> over the place it is the format of choice and there ain't nothing you
> can do about it.
And finally, to end on an obvious fanboy comment. There IS something that can be done, and it's the format of choice because it's been out the longest. Look at the GameCube - cheaper hardware, cheaper games, cheaper peripherals, best games company in the world ever behind it. You just wait and see.
You know Playstation make the cheapest games just look at all the SR platinum adverts if you don't believe me.
ShadowDragon wrote:
> Right. I've had enough. It doesn't matter what you say in here, the 3
> resident fanboys (you know who) will just turn around what you say. I
> give up replying in here. Oh, you can go on and on about how I've
> admitted defeat, (blah, blah) but you'll only prove something to me.
>
> Anyone else joining me in my "leaving the room that's not worth
> posting in campaign"? Oh, all bar 3 people? Heh. BYE!
Ok we will stop now you have admitted that I TECHNO FREAK AM RIGHT.
> Right. I've had enough. It doesn't matter what you say in here, the 3
> resident fanboys (you know who) will just turn around what you say. I
> give up replying in here. Oh, you can go on and on about how I've
> admitted defeat, (blah, blah) but you'll only prove something to me.
>
> Anyone else joining me in my "leaving the room that's not worth
> posting in campaign"? Oh, all bar 3 people? Heh. BYE!
Ok we will stop now you have admitted that I TECHNO FREAK AM RIGHT.
ShadowDragon wrote:
> Anyone else joining me in my "leaving the room that's not worth
> posting in campaign"? Oh, all bar 3 people? Heh. BYE!
Sure, their ignorance isn't worth the effort it takes to reply to.
*leaves*
> Anyone else joining me in my "leaving the room that's not worth
> posting in campaign"? Oh, all bar 3 people? Heh. BYE!
Sure, their ignorance isn't worth the effort it takes to reply to.
*leaves*
Techno freak wrote:
> Thanks for the essay Mario's butt boy.
Off on the right foot aren't you, you ignorant buffoon.
> You obviously have not played
> NBA Street and Burnout on a PS2 because they are exactly the same as
> the GC ones the reason being they are native to PS2 and the developers
> just want to make a quick buck by porting them to other consoles so
> all you have really got is a expensive PS2 emulator.
No, they are called multi-format games. The developers don't expect people to buy each console so that they can play their games, and so have them converted for other consoles so that everyone has the opportunity to sample the fruits of their labour. Sure they make money out of it too, but spreading their expertise is the name of the game.
> Developers will always produce games for the biggest market first and
> that just makes financial sense 32 million PS2 users to 4 million GC
> users work it out.
Even if those figures were accurate, which they aren't, think about it this way:
4million GCs in 3 months, equates to 34million in just over two years, so exactly how does that put PS2 ahead if GC is selling for an eventual par with it's major competitor?
Stop making figures up, and stop being such an annoying retard.
> Thanks for the essay Mario's butt boy.
Off on the right foot aren't you, you ignorant buffoon.
> You obviously have not played
> NBA Street and Burnout on a PS2 because they are exactly the same as
> the GC ones the reason being they are native to PS2 and the developers
> just want to make a quick buck by porting them to other consoles so
> all you have really got is a expensive PS2 emulator.
No, they are called multi-format games. The developers don't expect people to buy each console so that they can play their games, and so have them converted for other consoles so that everyone has the opportunity to sample the fruits of their labour. Sure they make money out of it too, but spreading their expertise is the name of the game.
> Developers will always produce games for the biggest market first and
> that just makes financial sense 32 million PS2 users to 4 million GC
> users work it out.
Even if those figures were accurate, which they aren't, think about it this way:
4million GCs in 3 months, equates to 34million in just over two years, so exactly how does that put PS2 ahead if GC is selling for an eventual par with it's major competitor?
Stop making figures up, and stop being such an annoying retard.
Right. I've had enough. It doesn't matter what you say in here, the 3 resident fanboys (you know who) will just turn around what you say. I give up replying in here. Oh, you can go on and on about how I've admitted defeat, (blah, blah) but you'll only prove something to me.
Anyone else joining me in my "leaving the room that's not worth posting in campaign"? Oh, all bar 3 people? Heh. BYE!
Anyone else joining me in my "leaving the room that's not worth posting in campaign"? Oh, all bar 3 people? Heh. BYE!
½pint wrote:
> Then onto the games. Brand new PS2 games are £40-45. Brand new
> GameCube games are £35-40. Don't compare games which are new on
> the GC to ones which are old on the PS2 - that won't work. It's like
> saying "SNES's are cheaper at £15 compared to PS2's at
> £200". It's a bad comparison.
>
> Regardless of everything, the GameCube represents the best value for
> money in terms of games. It blows the PS2 out of the water in terms
> of graphical capabilities, and if you want broadband/hard drive/DVD -
> get an Xbox.
Thanks for the essay Mario's butt boy. You obviously have not played NBA Street and Burnout on a PS2 because they are exactly the same as the GC ones the reason being they are native to PS2 and the developers just want to make a quick buck by porting them to other consoles so all you have really got is a expensive PS2 emulator.
Developers will always produce games for the biggest market first and that just makes financial sense 32 million PS2 users to 4 million GC users work it out.
> Then onto the games. Brand new PS2 games are £40-45. Brand new
> GameCube games are £35-40. Don't compare games which are new on
> the GC to ones which are old on the PS2 - that won't work. It's like
> saying "SNES's are cheaper at £15 compared to PS2's at
> £200". It's a bad comparison.
>
> Regardless of everything, the GameCube represents the best value for
> money in terms of games. It blows the PS2 out of the water in terms
> of graphical capabilities, and if you want broadband/hard drive/DVD -
> get an Xbox.
Thanks for the essay Mario's butt boy. You obviously have not played NBA Street and Burnout on a PS2 because they are exactly the same as the GC ones the reason being they are native to PS2 and the developers just want to make a quick buck by porting them to other consoles so all you have really got is a expensive PS2 emulator.
Developers will always produce games for the biggest market first and that just makes financial sense 32 million PS2 users to 4 million GC users work it out.
ShadowDragon wrote:
> Techno freak wrote:
> You only talk about things that are relevant to your argument, and
> leave out the bits that don't make your argument hold up.
>
> As I have pointed out the average quality DVD player of 2 years ago
> at
> the launch of the PS2 was £200 add that to the £130 GC
> that comes to £330 if the GC was launched at the same time.
>
> Don't you also need to buy the DVD remote control and the upgrade kit?
> About £15 - £20 for that, too, huh? So, add that onto the
> price of the console. That makes the PS2 £320. You'd save a
> tenner. Woo Hoo! Compare the console now and there isn't much
> difference in cost. Look at the cost of games at release and you
> already get that tenner back!
>
> Now today a average quality DVD player costs £120 plus
> £130 for GC that is £250 more than the difference of 2
> years ago.
>
> Nope, I bought a DVD-ROM for my PC, that runs just as well as a normal
> DVD player, for just £58. Now add that up. That makes
> £188. Hmmm. A lot less methinks. And before yo start going on
> about TV size, widescreen and speakers, these things don't really
> matter THAT much. Unless you're elitist, or something.
>
> Now who is talking rubbish
>
> YOU!
>
> but then some of us have standards.
>
> What was that word again? Oh yeah, elitist...
I hope this is a joke. TV size is important, so is Widescreen, so is the sound. U can add a DVD-ROM drive to a PC - provided u already have a good enough pc to handle it. What if you don't own a PC?. What if your existing PC is an original Pentium or worse still, a 486 with Windows 3.1 with 8Mb of Ram and 1Mb Video?. This would need a major upgrade or re-work or just give up and buy a new PC. Whichever, it's going to cost.
> Techno freak wrote:
> You only talk about things that are relevant to your argument, and
> leave out the bits that don't make your argument hold up.
>
> As I have pointed out the average quality DVD player of 2 years ago
> at
> the launch of the PS2 was £200 add that to the £130 GC
> that comes to £330 if the GC was launched at the same time.
>
> Don't you also need to buy the DVD remote control and the upgrade kit?
> About £15 - £20 for that, too, huh? So, add that onto the
> price of the console. That makes the PS2 £320. You'd save a
> tenner. Woo Hoo! Compare the console now and there isn't much
> difference in cost. Look at the cost of games at release and you
> already get that tenner back!
>
> Now today a average quality DVD player costs £120 plus
> £130 for GC that is £250 more than the difference of 2
> years ago.
>
> Nope, I bought a DVD-ROM for my PC, that runs just as well as a normal
> DVD player, for just £58. Now add that up. That makes
> £188. Hmmm. A lot less methinks. And before yo start going on
> about TV size, widescreen and speakers, these things don't really
> matter THAT much. Unless you're elitist, or something.
>
> Now who is talking rubbish
>
> YOU!
>
> but then some of us have standards.
>
> What was that word again? Oh yeah, elitist...
I hope this is a joke. TV size is important, so is Widescreen, so is the sound. U can add a DVD-ROM drive to a PC - provided u already have a good enough pc to handle it. What if you don't own a PC?. What if your existing PC is an original Pentium or worse still, a 486 with Windows 3.1 with 8Mb of Ram and 1Mb Video?. This would need a major upgrade or re-work or just give up and buy a new PC. Whichever, it's going to cost.
But the thing is, wouldn't we all just buy the games we'd like to play, rather than those that are cheapest?
Surely I'm not the only one this makes sense to. I bought a Gamecube, because it has games coming out for it I want to play. If these games were £50, so be it. I wouldn't buy an Xbox just because some of the games may have been cheaper, because there aren't many games on it that appeal to me.
As it happens the GC has the cheapest games at release, compared to Xbox and PS2. Then again, PC games are even cheaper - but less appealing to me.
Surely I'm not the only one this makes sense to. I bought a Gamecube, because it has games coming out for it I want to play. If these games were £50, so be it. I wouldn't buy an Xbox just because some of the games may have been cheaper, because there aren't many games on it that appeal to me.
As it happens the GC has the cheapest games at release, compared to Xbox and PS2. Then again, PC games are even cheaper - but less appealing to me.
Page: