The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Dave RJR wrote:
> As far as the console goes, yes the GC is cheaper than PS2. But on
> average the PS2 software is cheaper. It's always possible to stretch
> the issue to include managers specials, or even 2nd user discs, but
> this is not representative of the majority of prices.
GC games are consistently priced at circa £35. Looking at the top 20 charts for both PS2 and GC, I notice a few things. Yes, the total cost of the GC top 20 is higher, however, the PS2 chart contains re-releases of games about 2 years old, which are obviously priced much lower (around £18), the rest of the stuff ranges from £22 to £45. So the high end software for PS2 is actually more expensive, and the main reason on the whole the prices are lower is because of budget re-releases, which I'm sure Nintendo will have once their console has been out for 2 years.
> As far as the console goes, yes the GC is cheaper than PS2. But on
> average the PS2 software is cheaper. It's always possible to stretch
> the issue to include managers specials, or even 2nd user discs, but
> this is not representative of the majority of prices.
GC games are consistently priced at circa £35. Looking at the top 20 charts for both PS2 and GC, I notice a few things. Yes, the total cost of the GC top 20 is higher, however, the PS2 chart contains re-releases of games about 2 years old, which are obviously priced much lower (around £18), the rest of the stuff ranges from £22 to £45. So the high end software for PS2 is actually more expensive, and the main reason on the whole the prices are lower is because of budget re-releases, which I'm sure Nintendo will have once their console has been out for 2 years.
GameCube - internet ready.
Will sort of. It has Serial ports, not the new USB standard like PS2 and PC. A modem for PSO GC is due. But no hard disc. The Sony PS2 can have the hard disc put inside (expansion bay at back), and XBox already has one. Broadband on GC (if it happens) will be slower at times because of the slow Serial interface. Sony's will be in the expansion bay - straight on the motherboard - so it should be faster.
Will sort of. It has Serial ports, not the new USB standard like PS2 and PC. A modem for PSO GC is due. But no hard disc. The Sony PS2 can have the hard disc put inside (expansion bay at back), and XBox already has one. Broadband on GC (if it happens) will be slower at times because of the slow Serial interface. Sony's will be in the expansion bay - straight on the motherboard - so it should be faster.
AfroJoe wrote:
> You can get a new DVD player and a new GC for about £230, which
> is £70 less than the PS2 was when it first came out.
Non point. DVD players were more expensive back then, too.
> You can get a new DVD player and a new GC for about £230, which
> is £70 less than the PS2 was when it first came out.
Non point. DVD players were more expensive back then, too.
Techno freak wrote:
> Only reason the GC is so cheap is because, it hasn't got the future
> proof format or features of the PS2, and that is why people still buy
> the £199 machine instead of the GC because it represents better
> value for money, plays dvd's and has a wide range of games at
> affordable prices.
---
You can get a new DVD player and a new GC for about £230, which is £70 less than the PS2 was when it first came out.
How can you say GC games aren't at affordable prices? They cost the same, if not less the the PS2 games.
> Only reason the GC is so cheap is because, it hasn't got the future
> proof format or features of the PS2, and that is why people still buy
> the £199 machine instead of the GC because it represents better
> value for money, plays dvd's and has a wide range of games at
> affordable prices.
---
You can get a new DVD player and a new GC for about £230, which is £70 less than the PS2 was when it first came out.
How can you say GC games aren't at affordable prices? They cost the same, if not less the the PS2 games.
Techno freak wrote:
> Only reason the GC is so cheap is because, it hasn't got the future
> proof format or features of the PS2, and that is why people still buy
> the £199 machine instead of the GC because it represents better
> value for money, plays dvd's and has a wide range of games at
> affordable prices.
Here we go again. Firstly, not everyone needs a DVD player 'cos they already have one. Secondly, the PS2 cheats by being able to play PSone games.
> Another point about MS, the PS2 didn't come down in price for about a
> year such is the popularity of the brand they didn't need to comprise
> the amount of money they spent developing it. However how many weeks
> did it take MS to drop the Xbox, they say it was to make gaming
> affordable more like they weren't selling any, smells of desperation
> to me.
One rule for the PS2 and one rule for the others huh? Sony's console is allowed to be expensive for a long time so that they can make profit with the gamers in mind? Heh... What you have just said gives ME the impression that Sony didn't want to lower the price of their console because they wanted to make as much money as possible while there was no competition. They aren't thinking about the gamers, just their own profit. The reason why the X-box lowered their console's price was to be in better competition with the other consoles. Also, they wanted to look caring towards the gamers. They aren't "desparate".
You have got to be one of the worst fanboys I have ever seen. You post utter nonsense. Oh, and yes, I do realise that you will respond to this post quoting me on my impressions about the PS2, trying to negate everything I have said with made up plop.
I'm not gonna argue that any console is better than any other. They all have their strengths and weaknesses.
> Only reason the GC is so cheap is because, it hasn't got the future
> proof format or features of the PS2, and that is why people still buy
> the £199 machine instead of the GC because it represents better
> value for money, plays dvd's and has a wide range of games at
> affordable prices.
Here we go again. Firstly, not everyone needs a DVD player 'cos they already have one. Secondly, the PS2 cheats by being able to play PSone games.
> Another point about MS, the PS2 didn't come down in price for about a
> year such is the popularity of the brand they didn't need to comprise
> the amount of money they spent developing it. However how many weeks
> did it take MS to drop the Xbox, they say it was to make gaming
> affordable more like they weren't selling any, smells of desperation
> to me.
One rule for the PS2 and one rule for the others huh? Sony's console is allowed to be expensive for a long time so that they can make profit with the gamers in mind? Heh... What you have just said gives ME the impression that Sony didn't want to lower the price of their console because they wanted to make as much money as possible while there was no competition. They aren't thinking about the gamers, just their own profit. The reason why the X-box lowered their console's price was to be in better competition with the other consoles. Also, they wanted to look caring towards the gamers. They aren't "desparate".
You have got to be one of the worst fanboys I have ever seen. You post utter nonsense. Oh, and yes, I do realise that you will respond to this post quoting me on my impressions about the PS2, trying to negate everything I have said with made up plop.
I'm not gonna argue that any console is better than any other. They all have their strengths and weaknesses.
Techno freak wrote:
> Only reason the GC is so cheap is because, it hasn't got the future
> proof format or features of the PS2,
The reason GameCube is so cheap is because it's purely a games machine. It *does* have the future proof format needed, actually. It's internet ready, and has four ports for multiplayer gaming - more cost effective than the Playstation's 'multitap'.
> and that is why people still buy the £199 machine instead of the GC
> because it represents better value for money, plays dvd's
So £170.00 more just for DVD and CD capabilities is worth it, is it? Don't make me laugh.
> and has a wide range of games at affordable prices.
Of course it does! It's been out for what, three years? The GameCube's been out for 2/3 months. Use some sense. There's going to be a promised 130 GameCube games by Christmas, also. And what's this about 'affordable prices'? PS2 games new = £44.99. GameCube games new = £34.99.
> Only reason the GC is so cheap is because, it hasn't got the future
> proof format or features of the PS2,
The reason GameCube is so cheap is because it's purely a games machine. It *does* have the future proof format needed, actually. It's internet ready, and has four ports for multiplayer gaming - more cost effective than the Playstation's 'multitap'.
> and that is why people still buy the £199 machine instead of the GC
> because it represents better value for money, plays dvd's
So £170.00 more just for DVD and CD capabilities is worth it, is it? Don't make me laugh.
> and has a wide range of games at affordable prices.
Of course it does! It's been out for what, three years? The GameCube's been out for 2/3 months. Use some sense. There's going to be a promised 130 GameCube games by Christmas, also. And what's this about 'affordable prices'? PS2 games new = £44.99. GameCube games new = £34.99.
AfroJoe wrote:
> LOL! You make me laugh. You're saying that Microsoft and Nintendo are
> the only ones interested in profit. Id' say Sony are in ones
> interested in profit rather than Nintendo. Who brought their console
> out at £300 when compared with £130? And wasn't it just
> yesterday you were the one saying that Nintendo were the cheap
> company? You're talking out of your rear-end, my friend.
> Yes, GT3 is a far superior game to Project Gotham... if you're a Sony
> fanboy. They are pretty similar when you look at the mreally, and
> X-Box's PGR isn't the same price as GT3, because it's been out for
> about 8 months less than GT3. Microsoft and Nintendo will introduce
> their own cheap games ranges once they have been out for a few more
> months. Sony have had their console out longer, which means their
> games are cheaper for the moment.
>
Only reason the GC is so cheap is because, it hasn't got the future proof format or features of the PS2, and that is why people still buy the £199 machine instead of the GC because it represents better value for money, plays dvd's and has a wide range of games at affordable prices.
As for PGR coming down in price in the future it should be at bargain basement now because it is only Sega's MSR in drag.
Another point about MS, the PS2 didn't come down in price for about a year such is the popularity of the brand they didn't need to comprise the amount of money they spent developing it. However how many weeks did it take MS to drop the Xbox, they say it was to make gaming affordable more like they weren't selling any, smells of desperation to me.
> LOL! You make me laugh. You're saying that Microsoft and Nintendo are
> the only ones interested in profit. Id' say Sony are in ones
> interested in profit rather than Nintendo. Who brought their console
> out at £300 when compared with £130? And wasn't it just
> yesterday you were the one saying that Nintendo were the cheap
> company? You're talking out of your rear-end, my friend.
> Yes, GT3 is a far superior game to Project Gotham... if you're a Sony
> fanboy. They are pretty similar when you look at the mreally, and
> X-Box's PGR isn't the same price as GT3, because it's been out for
> about 8 months less than GT3. Microsoft and Nintendo will introduce
> their own cheap games ranges once they have been out for a few more
> months. Sony have had their console out longer, which means their
> games are cheaper for the moment.
>
Only reason the GC is so cheap is because, it hasn't got the future proof format or features of the PS2, and that is why people still buy the £199 machine instead of the GC because it represents better value for money, plays dvd's and has a wide range of games at affordable prices.
As for PGR coming down in price in the future it should be at bargain basement now because it is only Sega's MSR in drag.
Another point about MS, the PS2 didn't come down in price for about a year such is the popularity of the brand they didn't need to comprise the amount of money they spent developing it. However how many weeks did it take MS to drop the Xbox, they say it was to make gaming affordable more like they weren't selling any, smells of desperation to me.
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.
---
LOL! You make me laugh. You're saying that Microsoft and Nintendo are the only ones interested in profit. Id' say Sony are in ones interested in profit rather than Nintendo. Who brought their console out at £300 when compared with £130? And wasn't it just yesterday you were the one saying that Nintendo were the cheap company? You're talking out of your rear-end, my friend.
---
> 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.
---
£64.99??? £64.99!!! WTF are you talking about? Ok, so yes, Lylat Wars, which came free with a Rumble Pak (which cost £25) came for £64.99, but you think any other games were sold for that price? If you do, you are seriously stoned. Sony's Platinum range had competition from Nintendo's Player's Choice range, and some of the N64 games in there were £19.99, exactly the same as Sony's, so I don't see what you're blabbing about here.
---
> 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.
---
Yes, GT3 is a far superior game to Project Gotham... if you're a Sony fanboy. They are pretty similar when you look at the mreally, and X-Box's PGR isn't the same price as GT3, because it's been out for about 8 months less than GT3. Microsoft and Nintendo will introduce their own cheap games ranges once they have been out for a few more months. Sony have had their console out longer, which means their games are cheaper for the moment.
Just wait, Mr. Fanboy. Just wait.
> Hats off to Sony unlike MS and Ninty they are there to make gaming
> affordable unlike the others who are only interested in profit.
---
LOL! You make me laugh. You're saying that Microsoft and Nintendo are the only ones interested in profit. Id' say Sony are in ones interested in profit rather than Nintendo. Who brought their console out at £300 when compared with £130? And wasn't it just yesterday you were the one saying that Nintendo were the cheap company? You're talking out of your rear-end, my friend.
---
> 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.
---
£64.99??? £64.99!!! WTF are you talking about? Ok, so yes, Lylat Wars, which came free with a Rumble Pak (which cost £25) came for £64.99, but you think any other games were sold for that price? If you do, you are seriously stoned. Sony's Platinum range had competition from Nintendo's Player's Choice range, and some of the N64 games in there were £19.99, exactly the same as Sony's, so I don't see what you're blabbing about here.
---
> 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.
---
Yes, GT3 is a far superior game to Project Gotham... if you're a Sony fanboy. They are pretty similar when you look at the mreally, and X-Box's PGR isn't the same price as GT3, because it's been out for about 8 months less than GT3. Microsoft and Nintendo will introduce their own cheap games ranges once they have been out for a few more months. Sony have had their console out longer, which means their games are cheaper for the moment.
Just wait, Mr. Fanboy. Just wait.
Well actually wasn't Turok £70 when it was first released.
>N64 was still trying to sell cartridges for £64.99 Sony's ....
What are you on about! I never saw 1 N64 game any more then £59.99, and that was just ONE game. All others were generally £49.99 or less.
65 quid my.....
What are you on about! I never saw 1 N64 game any more then £59.99, and that was just ONE game. All others were generally £49.99 or less.
65 quid my.....
Page: