The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Here are some FACTS:
When the PS1 was launched, games retailed for either £45 or £40. When the N64 was LAUNCHED, games retailed generally for £50, and yes, there were some for £65 (although this changed almost immediately).
PS1 games were lowered around about 1998 to £30 new, and at the same time N64 games were being released at about £40-45. The Platinum range was launched in the UK in 1998, with games at £20. The Gamer's Choice range was launched mid-1999, with games having lowered RRP's to £30. This didn't mean all the games cost this much. You could easily walk into a shop and pick up games like this for £10-20.
When the PS2 was launched at the end of 2000, I bought a DVD player for £150. A good, high quality Toshiba one, with more features than the laughably aweful PS2 one. Plus, it had scart connectivity. At the time of the GC launching, the PS2 was £70 more expensive. Excuse me if I'm wrong, but I've seen low-end DVD players retailing for as little as £50. And the PS2 is nothing more than a low-end DVD player.
Regardless, the PS2 console is the worst value for money. The GC does the nicest graphics, and is the cheapest. While the Xbox costs the same as the PS2, it already has a broadband adaptor (you have to pay about £50 for the PS2 one), it already has a hard drive (ditto, £110) and it has 4 controller ports. Sure, you have to pay £30 extra for DVD playback, but if you strip the initial cost of £200 of what you'd need to pay to get it the same as a PS2, you end up with a tecnologically superior console to the PS2 at £70. And I'm told the PS2 is the best value for money.
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.
When the PS1 was launched, games retailed for either £45 or £40. When the N64 was LAUNCHED, games retailed generally for £50, and yes, there were some for £65 (although this changed almost immediately).
PS1 games were lowered around about 1998 to £30 new, and at the same time N64 games were being released at about £40-45. The Platinum range was launched in the UK in 1998, with games at £20. The Gamer's Choice range was launched mid-1999, with games having lowered RRP's to £30. This didn't mean all the games cost this much. You could easily walk into a shop and pick up games like this for £10-20.
When the PS2 was launched at the end of 2000, I bought a DVD player for £150. A good, high quality Toshiba one, with more features than the laughably aweful PS2 one. Plus, it had scart connectivity. At the time of the GC launching, the PS2 was £70 more expensive. Excuse me if I'm wrong, but I've seen low-end DVD players retailing for as little as £50. And the PS2 is nothing more than a low-end DVD player.
Regardless, the PS2 console is the worst value for money. The GC does the nicest graphics, and is the cheapest. While the Xbox costs the same as the PS2, it already has a broadband adaptor (you have to pay about £50 for the PS2 one), it already has a hard drive (ditto, £110) and it has 4 controller ports. Sure, you have to pay £30 extra for DVD playback, but if you strip the initial cost of £200 of what you'd need to pay to get it the same as a PS2, you end up with a tecnologically superior console to the PS2 at £70. And I'm told the PS2 is the best value for money.
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.
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...
> 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...
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.
At least I don't make my arguments up out of thin air.
> 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.
Actually, on launch of the PS2, some DVDs were already priced as low as £89.99, and if you actually just took the player out of it (since adding the PS2 to the whole DVD creates a hell of a lot of redundant wiring) then it would only be worth say £50 or less. And of course you would again have to weight the price of the GameCube against inflation, dropping it to around £115, so all in all, you have GC + DVD for £165, if you want you can instead have a "quality" dvd player and bump the price to perhaps £200 tops, still much cheaper than the PS2 at launch. Your argument is as flawed as your thinking.
> Now today a average quality DVD player costs £120 plus
> £130 for GC that is £250 more than the difference of 2
> years ago.
Personally, I still think that the redundant wiring needs to come off that price, dropping it much lower anyway. Your point is just getting worse.
> Now who is talking rubbish and before you reply an average quality dvd
> player is not a £70 bush, but then some of us have standards.
Standards, yes. If you had standards, you'd fork out for a technics DVD player, instead of looking for the average quality freebie that comes with a PS2. Don't talk to me about standards you don't have.
> You only talk about things that are relevant to your argument, and
> leave out the bits that don't make your argument hold up.
At least I don't make my arguments up out of thin air.
> 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.
Actually, on launch of the PS2, some DVDs were already priced as low as £89.99, and if you actually just took the player out of it (since adding the PS2 to the whole DVD creates a hell of a lot of redundant wiring) then it would only be worth say £50 or less. And of course you would again have to weight the price of the GameCube against inflation, dropping it to around £115, so all in all, you have GC + DVD for £165, if you want you can instead have a "quality" dvd player and bump the price to perhaps £200 tops, still much cheaper than the PS2 at launch. Your argument is as flawed as your thinking.
> Now today a average quality DVD player costs £120 plus
> £130 for GC that is £250 more than the difference of 2
> years ago.
Personally, I still think that the redundant wiring needs to come off that price, dropping it much lower anyway. Your point is just getting worse.
> Now who is talking rubbish and before you reply an average quality dvd
> player is not a £70 bush, but then some of us have standards.
Standards, yes. If you had standards, you'd fork out for a technics DVD player, instead of looking for the average quality freebie that comes with a PS2. Don't talk to me about standards you don't have.
Every console in the much hyped *console war* is good, it is just down to what you prefer. You obviously hate the GC but there's no need to put it down.
Techno Freak (notice he actually admits he's a freak) do you have a clue what you are talking about. You notice that the ps2 has been out longer so obviously the games will be cheaper. Man, do you really unederstand anything about the games industry? When have you ever seen a brand new console selling there games at half price withing a few months.... Just think about what you are saying before you post a dumb post like this.
Insane Bartender wrote:
> AfroJoe wrote:
> New DVD player (£100) + New GC (130) = cheaper than a PS2 was
> at
> launch.
>
> What's also useless is the £300 price tag, since it doesn't take
> into account 2 years of inflation.
>
> saying it's around 3.5%
>
> the price is thus:
>
> 2000 RRP: £300
> 2001 RRP: £310.50
> 2002 RRP: £321.37
>
> So the real term value of the PS2 at launch was in fact
> £321.37.
> Just thought I would point that out...
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.
Now today a average quality DVD player costs £120 plus £130 for GC that is £250 more than the difference of 2 years ago.
Now who is talking rubbish and before you reply an average quality dvd player is not a £70 bush, but then some of us have standards.
> AfroJoe wrote:
> New DVD player (£100) + New GC (130) = cheaper than a PS2 was
> at
> launch.
>
> What's also useless is the £300 price tag, since it doesn't take
> into account 2 years of inflation.
>
> saying it's around 3.5%
>
> the price is thus:
>
> 2000 RRP: £300
> 2001 RRP: £310.50
> 2002 RRP: £321.37
>
> So the real term value of the PS2 at launch was in fact
> £321.37.
> Just thought I would point that out...
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.
Now today a average quality DVD player costs £120 plus £130 for GC that is £250 more than the difference of 2 years ago.
Now who is talking rubbish and before you reply an average quality dvd player is not a £70 bush, but then some of us have standards.
Looks like we have the 2,858,908th console war topic here.........
Techno freak wrote:
> That list that Insane bloke wrote out is hardly what I would call a
> top title list try to spot one of those GC titles in the All formats
> top ten, the only ones that do are multi-format and thats because PS2
> sells about 80% of that figure I bet.
>
> They are hardly as good as:
>
> MGS2
> GTA3
> GT3 platinum
> Medal of Honour front line
>
> I could go on and on but you would only get jealous.
You've answered your own question there. Your ight, the playstation2 games do make up a lot of the main chart. However you forgot that many of these games are platinium (which are cheaper because the system is older) and the fact that there are many nmore owners of a PS2.
You therefore cannot judge the quality of the games by this, the new GC games are generally the same price as the PS2 games, but due to the PS2 being two years older there are many more customers.
As a PS2 owner (converted fron Nintendo when GTA3 came out) I can say that GC games are better on the whole (there are exceptions, but this is due to licensing).
You cannot really compare the GC and PS" until they have both had a fair run against each other 3-4 months isn't fair.
> That list that Insane bloke wrote out is hardly what I would call a
> top title list try to spot one of those GC titles in the All formats
> top ten, the only ones that do are multi-format and thats because PS2
> sells about 80% of that figure I bet.
>
> They are hardly as good as:
>
> MGS2
> GTA3
> GT3 platinum
> Medal of Honour front line
>
> I could go on and on but you would only get jealous.
You've answered your own question there. Your ight, the playstation2 games do make up a lot of the main chart. However you forgot that many of these games are platinium (which are cheaper because the system is older) and the fact that there are many nmore owners of a PS2.
You therefore cannot judge the quality of the games by this, the new GC games are generally the same price as the PS2 games, but due to the PS2 being two years older there are many more customers.
As a PS2 owner (converted fron Nintendo when GTA3 came out) I can say that GC games are better on the whole (there are exceptions, but this is due to licensing).
You cannot really compare the GC and PS" until they have both had a fair run against each other 3-4 months isn't fair.
Techno freak wrote:
> That list that Insane bloke wrote out is hardly what I would call a
> top title list try to spot one of those GC titles in the All formats
> top ten, the only ones that do are multi-format and thats because PS2
> sells about 80% of that figure I bet.
Are you that stupid? All-format sales figures aren't weighted by console unit numbers, so in reality, there is obviously a much larger player base for the PS2, hence it's dominant position in such a chart. If the figures were weighted, you would instead see that a large number of PS2 owners no longer buy games for their machine.
> They are hardly as good as:
>
> MGS2 - which is a sub-standard game
> GTA3 - which is an appalling game
> GT3 platinum - which is an ordinary game, albeit fairly pretty.
> Medal of Honour front line - which is a PC conversion
If I wanted any of those games I'd get them on PC anyway, but the fact is they aren't very good to begin with.
> I could go on and on but you would only get jealous.
Yes, you could go on, but sooner or later you're going to realise you're talking out of your backside. And I won't get jealous of anything PS2 related, because everything you get I can get for my PC, which can run it better anyway. Besides which, I'd choose the GC over the PS2 anyway, simply because it's the better console, and even if it wasn't, your incessant ranting is enough to convince anyone that PS2 owners are complete idiots.
> That list that Insane bloke wrote out is hardly what I would call a
> top title list try to spot one of those GC titles in the All formats
> top ten, the only ones that do are multi-format and thats because PS2
> sells about 80% of that figure I bet.
Are you that stupid? All-format sales figures aren't weighted by console unit numbers, so in reality, there is obviously a much larger player base for the PS2, hence it's dominant position in such a chart. If the figures were weighted, you would instead see that a large number of PS2 owners no longer buy games for their machine.
> They are hardly as good as:
>
> MGS2 - which is a sub-standard game
> GTA3 - which is an appalling game
> GT3 platinum - which is an ordinary game, albeit fairly pretty.
> Medal of Honour front line - which is a PC conversion
If I wanted any of those games I'd get them on PC anyway, but the fact is they aren't very good to begin with.
> I could go on and on but you would only get jealous.
Yes, you could go on, but sooner or later you're going to realise you're talking out of your backside. And I won't get jealous of anything PS2 related, because everything you get I can get for my PC, which can run it better anyway. Besides which, I'd choose the GC over the PS2 anyway, simply because it's the better console, and even if it wasn't, your incessant ranting is enough to convince anyone that PS2 owners are complete idiots.
Techno freak wrote:
> Hats off to Sony unlike MS and Ninty they are there to make gaming
> affordable unlike the others who are only interested in profit.
You mean to tell me Sony 'aren't' interested in profit? If that's true, then why did they release the PS2 too early, with not enough consoles to go around, some of which where faulty, and a host of unfinished and rather lacklustre games?
I'll tell you why, because Sony knew they would make a big profit if they released their console early, there was only the dreamcast at the time of it's release, and the other two consoles where a couple of years away. Releasing the console earlier than Microsoft and Nintendo meant they'd get a stranglehold of the market, regardless of how unfinished and rushed the games where.
This will be exactly the same strategy they will use when it comes to releasing the PS3, because Sony knows now there strategy works. It's all about the money for every console manufacturer out there, regardless of what games they bring out on budget.
> Hats off to Sony unlike MS and Ninty they are there to make gaming
> affordable unlike the others who are only interested in profit.
You mean to tell me Sony 'aren't' interested in profit? If that's true, then why did they release the PS2 too early, with not enough consoles to go around, some of which where faulty, and a host of unfinished and rather lacklustre games?
I'll tell you why, because Sony knew they would make a big profit if they released their console early, there was only the dreamcast at the time of it's release, and the other two consoles where a couple of years away. Releasing the console earlier than Microsoft and Nintendo meant they'd get a stranglehold of the market, regardless of how unfinished and rushed the games where.
This will be exactly the same strategy they will use when it comes to releasing the PS3, because Sony knows now there strategy works. It's all about the money for every console manufacturer out there, regardless of what games they bring out on budget.
Page: