The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
½pint wrote:
> Nice one. Comparing the most expensive price for an N64 game with the
> lowest price for a PSone game. How about £10 N64 games compared
> with initial £45 PlayStation games. Not so cocky now, are
> you?
>
> The fact that the GameCube is more affordable than the PS2 obviously
> doesn't come into the equation here.
>
> Moron.
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.
> Nice one. Comparing the most expensive price for an N64 game with the
> lowest price for a PSone game. How about £10 N64 games compared
> with initial £45 PlayStation games. Not so cocky now, are
> you?
>
> The fact that the GameCube is more affordable than the PS2 obviously
> doesn't come into the equation here.
>
> Moron.
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.
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.
Not true, as I've already said, new GameCube games come out at £34.99 and new PS2 games come out at £44.99.
Because they're only 8cm in diameter, they're easier and cheaper to produce. Amazingly, they can also hold the same amount of info as a DVD
> 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.
Not true, as I've already said, new GameCube games come out at £34.99 and new PS2 games come out at £44.99.
Because they're only 8cm in diameter, they're easier and cheaper to produce. Amazingly, they can also hold the same amount of info as a DVD
No, GC discs are more expensive to produce and can't hold as much data, but still, Nintendo don't take as big a cut as Sony so the games can retail cheaper.
>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.....
Well actually wasn't Turok £70 when it was first released.
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.
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:
> 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.
Page: