PS3 scraps GT HD..plus more doom and gloom!

[ThaMaskedGamer]

This has been a bittersweet launch indeed for Sony. It seems they have been reading our forum or perhaps thousands of other people have also commented that PS3 releasing a bunch of retreads from last generation is just stupid. So GT HD is caput!
<a href="http://ps3.ign.com/articles/748/748610p1.html">GT HD Canned!</a>

Then there is even more bad news. For those of you who thought the PS3 was going to have as much diversity as the PS2, this may throw you for a loop. I suspected companies would have a tough time making profitable games on the PS3, it looks like Namco is confirming this. Apparently they feel a game must sell 500,000 copies before it begins to be profitable for a developer. As a result according to the article game developers are thinking twice about bringing projects to the PS3.

<a href="http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/launchnews.asp?newsid=155051">PS3 Break-even Threshold</a>

This is going to be problematic for the PS3 on a number of fronts. Look at games like Rainbow6 and Oblivion as well as games like FEAR or maybe even a Colin McCrae game. These games assuredly cost more than your average Namco game, so the break-even point for a more technically complex game on the PS3 might be 750k or maybe a million! There is no way in hell all of those 360 ports are going to do well on the PS3. The minute a developer gets burned, they are done with the PS3. So that will cut into the PC-esque western games that we see early on with the PS3, this is gonna dry up!

Next you have the niche games that were prevalent on the PS2. They will be hard pressed to sell 500,000, putting the pressure on smaller projects to go somewhere else. If the PS3 had the PS2's installed base, maybe? But it doesn't and it will be a slow road just to 20 million installed for PS3. Plus the worse thing about all of this for PS3 is the apparent unwillingness of Sony consumers to pull the trigger on software. XBOX and 360 consumers spend much more on games, already we have seen 6 or 7 games sell a million copies. This is phenomenal considering there is only 6 million users world wide. If PS3 hovers below or around the 10 million installed mark for a long time, its software sales will languish. But what comes first the chicken or the egg? Without many good games, gamers will wait before buying a PS3. If gamers wait, developers won't get the numbers they want to see before launching a project. Or they take a risk and get burned. I don't know how this is all gonna turn out, but it don't look good.

Lastly, we have on analyst from japan predicting the PS3 will mark the end of Sony's foray into the console business. He states he can't imagine Sony making a PS4.
<a href="http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/launchnews.asp?newsid=155051">Analyst: No PS4!</b>

So has Sony shot themselves in the foot, and all we are doing is watching them slowly bleed to death? Maybe so! They have put a lot of money behind a lot of shaky projects. PSP, UMD, Bluray, Cell, PS3! Right now NONE of them are on fire! They are losing insane money, perhaps as much as $300 on each console they sell! If the PS3 is not a smash hit, Sony will probably survive overall, but they definitely won't have the money to launch a PS4 and compete against a profitable successor to the 360.

[Cuddly Knife]

GTHD - If people smell bullsh!t, they sure don't want to get closer and take a whiff. I don't think it's the whole last-gen port to this gen, I think it's more that this game was going to be a micro-transaction fiesta, and people don't want that.

So now they're giving it away for free so people can see the power of PS3, but wait, it won't be online. We'll have to wait until GT5: The Online Car Life Simulator.

[Mochan]

Scrapping GT HD actually sounds like a good idea to me, because GT HD was such a BAD idea.

If the PS3 loses dev support, well then that's that, game over and 360 wins and I will end up buying a 360 for Metal Gear and whatever else. If not, then I will stay with the PS3. In the meantime I get a Wii for all the niche games and play the best stuff on my PC.

[Fivespot]

Actually the bigger Sony news is that KK got demoted and Kaz Hirai is now in charge. Gee, I wonder why? ;)

Could it be the constant sticking foot in mouth or the arrogant attitude? Obviously Sony Corp. knows that his continued leadership could have ruined the entire ordeal hence this move.

My guess is that it will be one of the smartest moves Sony makes this console race if they expect to be as competitive as they'd like.

[Cuddly Knife]

I think if Sony starts to lose support for the PS3, that they'll try to win a fanbase by keeping the big guns as exclusive as they can. I really don't think we'll see MGS4 or DMC4 on the 360.

Maybe their saving grace will be the Playstation Store with their 500 MB limit on games.

Actually, now that I think about it, that kind of puts devs in a pickle. On one hand, they can't make big-budget games unless they know that they'll break even by going semi-platinum. On the other hand, 500MB is smaller size that what the PS1 had to work with, so there can only be so much done on that side. And what does it cost to put a game on the Playstation Store?
EDIT- Who's KK?

[Fivespot]

KK is Mr. Blunder or otherwise known as Ken Kuturagi [sp]

[folken001]

I don't have no problem with cockiness. If he earned it, then why shouldn't he be cocky? But, I honestly was looking foward to how this GTHD is going to work. fail or succeed, I'd like to see them try at least. It is unfortunate.

PS3 is not losing support. Xbox360 is gainning support. Beside the M$ first party games, PS3 will have most if not all of the 3rd party games (good ones of course). It will just have less exclusives for the time being. Right now, game makers aren't sure who they should put their money on yet since PS3 had a shaky start. However, if you look around, PS3 60 gig sells out more than the 20 gig version. That tells you just how supported PS3 truly is despite the higher price tag.

[ThaMaskedGamer]

Many people have said Sony is to big and have their hands in too many pots. There have been calls to break-up the company so that divisions can be free to do their own thing. Sony was an 8 cylinder engine that was only firing on one or two cylinders, but one of those cylinders was a beast, the Playstation gaming division. I guess you could say their movies and music division wasn't doing half-bad. But what they decided to do was just stupid. They effed with the Playstation division in an attempt to save consumer electronics. They want to sell bluray, they want to sell 1080P TV sets, and now they may have just knocked themselves out of the console business. I think they are just staggering around in the ring and the final blow might come 5 years from now. Maybe they get their head together and comeback with a big sucker punch, but that's the only chance they have now, a puncher's chance. They have to come out from underneath a lot of debt!

They better have some monster games on the horizon and they better be damn slick! And Bluray better win out or perhaps Sony can reach some kind of deal, along with the Toshiba group and they both save money and save face. But if they remain locked in a pro-longed battle with 360 and HD-DVD, they simply CANNOT come out from their debt. The only way PS3 can succeed is to get the kind of volume PS2 had, that's it.

Either way, the future still seems in doubt to me. Say Sony does eventually win out with the PS3 and Bluray. How long will they have to smell the roses? If they do succeed it will be closer to year 5 than year 1! Given that we already know MS is working on the successor the 360! We already know MS is gonna work Zune, and Zune has a better chance to compete against IPOD than anything Sony is doing now. We already know MS is gonna rake in more $$$ with Vista. In the long-run this is a deep-pockets fight, and MS is simply NOT going to give up. They will keep improving and keep improving.

With Bluray even if it succeeds there is no way it will ever do as well as DVDs. If bluray or hd-dvd wins, whatever the next format ends up being, it won't last as long as DVD did. Before you know it, we won't have media, or it won't have the presence it has now. We will get more and more of our content from a fiber or right out of thin air. Making whatever possible win Sony achieves with Bluray very temporary. Sony is really looking at this backwards. This is war for the living room, not a war for a media format. Who ever can provide the best services, prices, and convenience will succeed here. This is a foregone conclusion, not MS winning, but the fact the media really doesn't matter anymore. Just look at music, look at IPOD, the same thing is gonna happen with games, movies, and TV content. In the end, with everybody snackin' on the ass in the consumer electronics department, Sony is gonna get out-thunk and out-spent by MS on the software side.

[folken001]

Many people have said Sony is to big and have their hands in too many pots. There have been calls to break-up the company so that divisions can be free to do their own thing. Sony was an 8 cylinder engine that was only firing on one or two cylinders, but one of those cylinders was a beast, the Playstation gaming division. I guess you could say their movies and music division wasn't doing half-bad. But what they decided to do was just stupid. They effed with the Playstation division in an attempt to save consumer electronics. They want to sell bluray, they want to sell 1080P TV sets, and now they may have just knocked themselves out of the console business. I think they are just staggering around in the ring and the final blow might come 5 years from now. Maybe they get their head together and comeback with a big sucker punch, but that's the only chance they have now, a puncher's chance. They have to come out from underneath a lot of debt!

They better have some monster games on the horizon and they better be damn slick! And Bluray better win out or perhaps Sony can reach some kind of deal, along with the Toshiba group and they both save money and save face. But if they remain locked in a pro-longed battle with 360 and HD-DVD, they simply CANNOT come out from their debt. The only way PS3 can succeed is to get the kind of volume PS2 had, that's it.

Either way, the future still seems in doubt to me. Say Sony does eventually win out with the PS3 and Bluray. How long will they have to smell the roses? If they do succeed it will be closer to year 5 than year 1! Given that we already know MS is working on the successor the 360! We already know MS is gonna work Zune, and Zune has a better chance to compete against IPOD than anything Sony is doing now. We already know MS is gonna rake in more $$$ with Vista. In the long-run this is a deep-pockets fight, and MS is simply NOT going to give up. They will keep improving and keep improving.

With Bluray even if it succeeds there is no way it will ever do as well as DVDs. If bluray or hd-dvd wins, whatever the next format ends up being, it won't last as long as DVD did. Before you know it, we won't have media, or it won't have the presence it has now. We will get more and more of our content from a fiber or right out of thin air. Making whatever possible win Sony achieves with Bluray very temporary. Sony is really looking at this backwards. This is war for the living room, not a war for a media format. Who ever can provide the best services, prices, and convenience will succeed here. This is a foregone conclusion, not MS winning, but the fact the media really doesn't matter anymore. Just look at music, look at IPOD, the same thing is gonna happen with games, movies, and TV content. In the end, with everybody snackin' on the ass in the consumer electronics department, Sony is gonna get out-thunk and out-spent by MS on the software side.
You seem to be happy about the fact that XBox360 will be another short lived console.

Go read about Vista, some critics are saying how it's a unsafe program with a expensive price tag. Most of people do not have problem with XP. Also, I think DirectX10 is Vista only so game makers have to make games compatible both DirectX9 and DirectX10. Vista will probably do worse than Xbox360.

[ThaMaskedGamer]

You seem to be happy about the fact that XBox360 will be another short lived console.

Glocky had already covered some of this in his thread, I didn't even read it until a minute ago.

Anyway, Folken you fail to understand business. The reason MS bailed on XBOX early was because XBOX wasn't theirs and they were still losing money on it. Nvidia was the one making pure profit from each XBX sold, while MS was losing money on each one sold. On top of that, XBOX succeeded in its mission. To establish a foot-print in this business. I tell you what, MS is praying Zune can get the kinda footprint in digital audio that XBX got in videogames. XBOX proved to MS they can sell software and get other companies to sell software on XBX, this is something Nintendo has failed to do. Plus they proved they can make inroads to the homes of people around the world with LIVE. Giving them in a way, yet another platform to sell software and other content. The problem with XBOX was the fact they were only licensee's to much of the XBOX's guts, and were losing money on it. Plus they saw a window of opportunity to launch ahead of a slow Sony. Remember Sony originally wanted to wait until XMAS 2007 for PS3!

So now with the move to the 360, they actually solved their only problem. 360 loses money per console, but that will quickly be turned around. MS is the only licensee on the majority of the 360 components, including the GPU! Once the 360 starts turning a profit, combined with the continued phenomenal software sales MS will not quickly replace the 360, there will be no need to. Even if in year 4 or 5, which will be 3 or 4 for Sony and Wii, but even if the systems starts showing its age by then, so what! They will still be making a profit from it! Just like Sony was with PS1 and still is with PS2! So I think we will get 5 years from 360, but when 720 launches it will be year 4 for Sony. Sony is stuck behind MS and simply cannot afford to get onto MS' timetable, Sony simply must recoup the debt from this hardware and PS3 has to go through its full lifecycle. Depending on all the factors outside of gaming we have been discussing, it could be the end of Sony in videogames or the end of Sony as we knew it. Something has to give, they can't continue to compete in all of these areas all at once.

[folken001]

Glocky had already covered some of this in his thread, I didn't even read it until a minute ago.

Anyway, Folken you fail to understand business. The reason MS bailed on XBOX early was because XBOX wasn't theirs and they were still losing money on it. Nvidia was the one making pure profit from each XBX sold, while MS was losing money on each one sold. On top of that, XBOX succeeded in its mission. To establish a foot-print in this business. I tell you what, MS is praying Zune can get the kinda footprint in digital audio that XBX got in videogames. XBOX proved to MS they can sell software and get other companies to sell software on XBX, this is something Nintendo has failed to do. Plus they proved they can make inroads to the homes of people around the world with LIVE. Giving them in a way, yet another platform to sell software and other content. The problem with XBOX was the fact they were only licensee's to much of the XBOX's guts, and were losing money on it. Plus they saw a window of opportunity to launch ahead of a slow Sony. Remember Sony originally wanted to wait until XMAS 2007 for PS3!

So now with the move to the 360, they actually solved their only problem. 360 loses money per console, but that will quickly be turned around. MS is the only licensee on the majority of the 360 components, including the GPU! Once the 360 starts turning a profit, combined with the continued phenomenal software sales MS will not quickly replace the 360, there will be no need to. Even if in year 4 or 5, which will be 3 or 4 for Sony and Wii, but even if the systems starts showing its age by then, so what! They will still be making a profit from it! Just like Sony was with PS1 and still is with PS2! So I think we will get 5 years from 360, but when 720 launches it will be year 4 for Sony. Sony is stuck behind MS and simply cannot afford to get onto MS' timetable, Sony simply must recoup the debt from this hardware and PS3 has to go through its full lifecycle. Depending on all the factors outside of gaming we have been discussing, it could be the end of Sony in videogames or the end of Sony as we knew it. Something has to give, they can't continue to compete in all of these areas all at once.
I think I understand perfectly what M$ is doing. It's turning this console war from focusing on the quality of software into whose console is technologically superior. In due process, M$ is hoping to drain its competitors financially. That is why Xbox was given up in 3 years. You would have a point if Xbox360 didn't lose even more money for M$. But, it did.

The matter of fact is no company can stick with MS' timetable is it is pushing out a new console every 3 years. Like I stated in my earlier post, MS is the sole reason why game development costs so much these days. And that leads to the eventually lower innovation and quality in games. From my point of view, M$ is like what Moody was to this board, a cancer.

[Fivespot]

I believe Sony's decision regarding Ken K and their future plans doesn't neceassarily spell doom and gloom. It does hint at the fact however that Sony themselves understand the serious nature of the PS3 decision and how their business will suffer greatly if it doesn't do well. Furthermore, Sony not only needs the PS3 to sell well, but they also need Blu-ray to catch on especially considering it's tied in to the PS3 and considering all the money Sony is staking on both. Literally their future is tied to these two technologies and if one or both don't do well - uh oh.

That is why KK was demoted in my opinion. All this talk about future consoles and junk, meaningless. It's only an attempt to focus where they need to - on making sure PS3 and Blu-ray. Heck, if they don't do well PS4 won't matter anyway. And Ken's arrogant approach wasn't helping. Let's just assume it will work and watch it all unfold. Not a good idea.

I'm surprised he lasted this long.

[ThaMaskedGamer]

You seem to be happy about the fact that XBox360 will be another short lived console.

Go read about Vista, some critics are saying how it's a unsafe program with a expensive price tag. Most of people do not have problem with XP. Also, I think DirectX10 is Vista only so game makers have to make games compatible both DirectX9 and DirectX10. Vista will probably do worse than Xbox360.

But, I guarantee this, MS won't have my money on Vista. I am finished with MS' OS'. You say XP doesn't have problems, brotha consider yourself one of the lucky. Or perhaps all the routine crap people go through to keep XP running is just so common now that people don't reallly realize any more how much of an inconvenience it it. Two things I won't be buying. Zune or Windows Vista! I am sticking with IPODs and my next computer will be a MAC!

But, guess what. Vista is gonna sell like hotcakes. Vista will be the system you and every MS XBOX 360 hater on this whole site will be using in less than 2 years. You all will be using Vista. Mochan and all the other guys in the PC forum are more slaves to MS than us XBOTS! Along with the 90% of the world's computer enabled households along with businesses! So it, unfortunately, doesn't matter how crappy Vista is, people get tied to one thing and refuse to change. Just like you with Sony.

But the 360 is actually a good product. It is a great gaming machine and a great platform for developers to bring great projects to the market, to me that is all the 360 represents. To me the 360 platform is poised to bring better gaming products to the market than Wii or PS3. At one point, I wasn't sure because it really looked like Sony had a winner with the PS3, but all that glitters ain't gold! And Sony's PS3 is just a mess of a machine.

But you guys think I love MS. Wrong, I love good products. Windows is not a good product, Vista might be, but i'm not gonna give MS the benefit of the doubt again. I'm not gonna be a sucker. Let them release Vista, I'll roll with a Mac very soon, and once I switch I will roll with Mac until MS or somebody else releases a better product. IPOD is a great product and ITUNES is a great service, Zune may or may not be great, but as of right now, IPOD is better and hasn't let me down. I don't care about MS, I care about good products. Y'all think it was BS when I said I was interested in PS3. It wasn't me who was BSh%ttin' it was Sony, if PS3 was everything they had promised, i'd be playing right now with a smile on my face. And if they ever turn this mess around and deliver on those promises, the very same day I will go plop down my $600 for a PS3. But that day is looking more and more unlikely to ever come.

[Fivespot]

You would have a point if Xbox360 didn't lose even more money for M$. But, it did.

Well then, apparently they have a point.

Rule #1 in owning or running a business - you need to spend money to make money. And by the way, MS is making money on 360's these days according to analysts.

So they lost money initially with the 360 (remember rule #1 above) but are now making money due to decreasing material costs.

How stupid of them ;)

[Horngreen]

I believe MS is already at the point where they now no longer lose money on the 360. I have no link but it is/was out there a wekk or so ago. I can't believe anyone is actually trying to blame MS for Sonys downfall (if that is even what happens). Sony, simply put, totally blew it this gen with attitude and lies. Sony didn't realize the change the internet has made since the launch of the PS2. People can track your lies while sitting in the comfort of their own home and post them for all the world to see. The only reason I would enjoy seeing Sony tank is to rub it in the faces of all the Xbox haters on this dump site.

[folken001]

But, I guarantee this, MS won't have my money on Vista. I am finished with MS' OS'. You say XP doesn't have problems, brotha consider yourself one of the lucky. Or perhaps all the routine crap people go through to keep XP running is just so common now that people don't reallly realize any more how much of an inconvenience it it. Two things I won't be buying. Zune or Windows Vista! I am sticking with IPODs and my next computer will be a MAC!

But, guess what. Vista is gonna sell like hotcakes. Vista will be the system you and every MS XBOX 360 hater on this whole site will be using in less than 2 years. You all will be using Vista. Mochan and all the other guys in the PC forum are more slaves to MS than us XBOTS! Along with the 90% of the world's computer enabled households along with businesses! So it, unfortunately, doesn't matter how crappy Vista is, people get tied to one thing and refuse to change. Just like you with Sony.

But the 360 is actually a good product. It is a great gaming machine and a great platform for developers to bring great projects to the market, to me that is all the 360 represents. To me the 360 platform is poised to bring better gaming products to the market than Wii or PS3. At one point, I wasn't sure because it really looked like Sony had a winner with the PS3, but all that glitters ain't gold! And Sony's PS3 is just a mess of a machine.

But you guys think I love MS. Wrong, I love good products. Windows is not a good product, Vista might be, but i'm not gonna give MS the benefit of the doubt again. I'm not gonna be a sucker. Let them release Vista, I'll roll with a Mac very soon, and once I switch I will roll with Mac until MS or somebody else releases a better product. IPOD is a great product and ITUNES is a great service, Zune may or may not be great, but as of right now, IPOD is better and hasn't let me down. I don't care about MS, I care about good products. Y'all think it was BS when I said I was interested in PS3. It wasn't me who was BSh%ttin' it was Sony, if PS3 was everything they had promised, i'd be playing right now with a smile on my face. And if they ever turn this mess around and deliver on those promises, the very same day I will go plop down my $600 for a PS3. But that day is looking more and more unlikely to ever come.
I doubt it. I am not even willing to pay the 50 bucks upgrade for it. I don't think I will pay 300 for a legit version.

To you, Xbox360 is a great product. To me, it is not. I thought I've made that very clear. Every post I have made thus far screams that fact. Xbox360 is not providing healthy competition and that's what I believe. PS3 is having a better launch than PS2. And most of you thought PS2 was going to turn out bad for Sony. I would hate to repeat what I said during PS2 launch all over again. It's really a waste of time for both you and me.

[folken001]

Well then, apparently they have a point.

Rule #1 in owning or running a business - you need to spend money to make money. And by the way, MS is making money on 360's these days according to analysts.

So they lost money initially with the 360 (remember rule #1 above) but are now making money due to decreasing material costs.

How stupid of them ;)
Yes started making profit after losing bilions over the past 4-5 years is what I call a brilliant plan. Wait... that's what YOU would call a brilliant plan. Every business should model their strategy after MS'. Oh wait, no business has monopoly on a market like MS does. No other Businesses in videogame industry also worth close to 300 billion dollars. It's a stunt only MS can pull it off.

[Glockstar]

I believe MS is already at the point where they now no longer lose money on the 360. I have no link but it is/was out there a wekk or so ago. I can't believe anyone is actually trying to blame MS for Sonys downfall (if that is even what happens). Sony, simply put, totally blew it this gen with attitude and lies. Sony didn't realize the change the internet has made since the launch of the PS2. People can track your lies while sitting in the comfort of their own home and post them for all the world to see. The only reason I would enjoy seeing Sony tank is to rub it in the faces of all the Xbox haters on this dump site.

YEAH!

[Fivespot]

Yes started making profit after losing bilions over the past 4-5 years is what I call a brilliant plan. Wait... that's what YOU would call a brilliant plan. Every business should model their strategy after MS'. Oh wait, no business has monopoly on a market like MS does. No other Businesses in videogame industry also worth close to 300 billion dollars. It's a stunt only MS can pull it off.

Yup, to me it's a great plan. Videogames are here to stay and big money is in this business. Did you know that?

So as a corporation with the means to do so and with a history in software development, why not leverage your business and enter a market that could eventually make them millions if not billions of dollars?

If all businesses had the means to do so, they would certainly consider doing something similar.

And if it's a stunt only MS can pull off, so what? Does that make their plan any more stupid or are you fishing for junk to post even if it doesn't suit your argument?

And your blathering that MS & the XBOX has hurt the console industry. Maybe if you owned Sony. Do you? Are you worried about something? I've certainly benefited as a consumer ever since they entered the market. Sony's PS3 tried one upping the 360 at every turn but apparently MS isn't doing anything right? Any other contradictions this fine afternoon?

I'm snowed in and can't tell which is more blinding- the blizzard out my window or your love for Playstation.

[T.Tashi]

Actually Ken Kutaragi got promoted. No, he's not in charge of the game division (SCEI), but what many are neglecting to report is he moved to chairman and CEO of the whole company. He moved up, not down. Considering the pay increase that came with the position, I'd hardly say it was a demotion.

[Fivespot]

Actually Ken Kutaragi got promoted. No, he's not in charge of the game division (SCEI), but what many are neglecting to report is he moved to chairman and CEO of the whole company. He moved up, not down. Considering the pay increase that came with the position, I'd hardly say it was a demotion.

Bad word choice on my behalf. He was more moved out of the way. Or in other words Sony isn't admitting fault or problems and are saving face by moving him aside rather than an official "demotion".

Interestingly, an American now holds a key position in that area of Sony.

http://www.joystiq.com/2006/11/30/sony-shuffles-top-ps-management/

[NEO-360]

I don't have no problem with cockiness. If he earned it, then why shouldn't he be cocky? But, I honestly was looking foward to how this GTHD is going to work. fail or succeed, I'd like to see them try at least. It is unfortunate.

PS3 is not losing support. Xbox360 is gainning support. Beside the M$ first party games, PS3 will have most if not all of the 3rd party games (good ones of course). It will just have less exclusives for the time being. Right now, game makers aren't sure who they should put their money on yet since PS3 had a shaky start. However, if you look around, PS3 60 gig sells out more than the 20 gig version. That tells you just how supported PS3 truly is despite the higher price tag.

Oh please Folken! :rolleyes: The reason the $599.99 PS3 bundle is outselling the $499.99 bundle is because you arent given much choice.

Does the cheaper bundle come with Wi-Fi included? Nope. Does the cheaper bundle come with the Memory stick/SD/Compact/Flash? Nope.

So between being 40 GB short plus not having these other two important items packed in anybody planning to buy a PS3 doesnt have a choice but to buy the most expensive bundle. Its not about how much support Milk drinkers are showing to the console regardless of the price . Nice try though 001.:hand:

[NEO-360]

I doubt it. I am not even willing to pay the 50 bucks upgrade for it. I don't think I will pay 300 for a legit version.

To you, Xbox360 is a great product. To me, it is not. I thought I've made that very clear. Every post I have made thus far screams that fact. Xbox360 is not providing healthy competition and that's what I believe. PS3 is having a better launch than PS2. And most of you thought PS2 was going to turn out bad for Sony. I would hate to repeat what I said during PS2 launch all over again. It's really a waste of time for both you and me.

You got proof of that Capt. Sony? The Xbox 360 is a better product thus far because game developers can make games for the console without a problem. The same right now cant be said about the PS3.

But going back to the thread. They scraped GTHD probably because they know they cant fool the gamers. GT3 with a fresh coat of paint IMO doesnt justify being put on a next gen console with all that almighty power. Make a new game from scratch and give the people their moneys worth. Nobody is truly going to miss GT right now anyway.:eek:

[joquito]

Here ya go-

"According to a recent survey by electronics-research firm iSuppli, Microsoft is currently turning a $75 profit on each 360 unit, up from a $126-per-unit loss at launch."

Gamespot 11/27/2006

[T.Tashi]

Bad word choice on my behalf. He was more moved out of the way. Or in other words Sony isn't admitting fault or problems and are saving face by moving him aside rather than an official "demotion".

Interestingly, an American now holds a key position in that area of Sony.

http://www.joystiq.com/2006/11/30/sony-shuffles-top-ps-management/

I think Kaz Harai(sp?) is supposed to be the new wonder boy for the gaming division. We'll see how he does. He can't do much worse.

[folken001]

Yup, to me it's a great plan. Videogames are here to stay and big money is in this business. Did you know that?

So as a corporation with the means to do so and with a history in software development, why not leverage your business and enter a market that could eventually make them millions if not billions of dollars?

If all businesses had the means to do so, they would certainly consider doing something similar.

And if it's a stunt only MS can pull off, so what? Does that make their plan any more stupid or are you fishing for junk to post even if it doesn't suit your argument?

And your blathering that MS & the XBOX has hurt the console industry. Maybe if you owned Sony. Do you? Are you worried about something? I've certainly benefited as a consumer ever since they entered the market. Sony's PS3 tried one upping the 360 at every turn but apparently MS isn't doing anything right? Any other contradictions this fine afternoon?

I'm snowed in and can't tell which is more blinding- the blizzard out my window or your love for Playstation.
Like I said, what MS is doing is not making the industry better but destorying it. If, at the end, M$ claims #1, then no other company can take it down. Because every time you try to introduce a great system, it would just pull that what you call great "strategy" by making decent console dirt cheap. Yeah they would just afford losing couple billions then they would once again claim the market. From there, you'd have to take whatever crap they feed you, kinda like in the OS market. Sony is different. Sony is just like Nintendo, SEGA or whatever. It screws up then someone else takes over. Then you still have a health market where #1 is up for everyone to grab. Sony can come back if they make up in the next gen and so on. Sorry, it's not going to be like that once M$ takes over.

You just want M$ to win with lack of justified reasoning what so ever. Yeah, a console which offers nothing but 2 genres is hailed by you to be better than Sony's console. Yet, the games themselves aren't even that evloved other than graphics look better. You sure it's my blindness for Sony you see or you just simply can't see jack dued to your own blindness?

[ThaMaskedGamer]

Yes started making profit after losing bilions over the past 4-5 years is what I call a brilliant plan. Wait... that's what YOU would call a brilliant plan. Every business should model their strategy after MS'. Oh wait, no business has monopoly on a market like MS does. No other Businesses in videogame industry also worth close to 300 billion dollars. It's a stunt only MS can pull it off.

You said earlier MS is to blame for ruining gaming and squashing innovation. Brotha take a good look at your PS3 and RFOM, take a good look at gaming now versus circa 1999 with the PSOne. Look at everything one can do now from gaming consoles. We wouldn't be halfway to where we are now if it wasn't for MS. You don't even acknowledge that Sony are the dumb-azzes who decided to try and outduel MS in the technology department, so what? Does MS now run Sony and make all of their business plans? If you are upset with MS for pushing the cost of gaming up, then how can you NOT be upset with Sony?

You are speaking the truth when you say MS increased the price of gaming. They released the XBOX which was certainly worth a hell of a lot more than $300, and they are still basically giving LIVE away. They pushed the boundaries and we see the results in the games we play, games that, close your eyes PC Gaymers, are actually superior to PC games! So Sony could have stuck to their guns or actually went down a road somewhere in-between Wii and 360, but they decided to push gaming even further and are losing more money per console than MS ever lost! Problem is you can't just throw money at a problem, you need to still make a good product and have a good service, and Sony thus far hasn't done that. They spent all that money and came up with a gaming product that is inferior to the 360, except when you are actually NOT gaming but are watching movies. Sony did what you guys, years ago, were afraid MS was going to do, abuse their dominance. They designed the PS3 to do just that, sell Bluray, sell TVs, get a stranglehold on the post-theatrical run movie business, control digital rights! Sony is still pissed about the Beta-max! And ironically, they may have done Beta all over again with BluRay! Hell Sony was going to try and shut-down the "used" videogame business!! You think they put that crap into the PS3 for sh*ts and giggles? Hell naw, they were serious about stopping people from using 2nd hand games!

Instead of saying "thank you" to gamers for making them number 1, for displaying loyalty above and beyond anything they deserved, Sony said "'eff you gamers!" They thought they had gaming by the neck and were arrogant about it. Claiming they didn't care about the competition, gamers will want to sell their soul for the PS3, they know they will be number 1. Look at 'em now, groveling, shuffling their executive team, bringing in the back-up quarterback. I tell you what, y'all Sony fanboys better hope this new boy doesn't bring a big old axe to the PS3 and PSP department, he might just say this is to big of a mess, we have tons of sunk costs! But naw, you don't have to worry about that. Sony cannot afford to do anything but ride this out, and continue to hope and pray, there are still a lot of people like you out there. And the sad thing is there probably are.

[Fivespot]

Like I said, what MS is doing is not making the industry better but destorying it. If, at the end, M$ claims #1, then no other company can take it down. Because every time you try to introduce a great system, it would just pull that what you call great "strategy" by making decent console dirt cheap. Yeah they would just afford losing couple billions then they would once again claim the market. From there, you'd have to take whatever crap they feed you, kinda like in the OS market.

MS has done some good things for this industry and are not that different from Sony when it comes to wanting your money and wanting to win a larger market share. I won't list the things MS did on XBOX & XBOX 360 that evolved gaming to the point that Sony is now doing the same if not similar things with the PS3 as we all know what those are.

Sony is different. Sony is just like Nintendo, SEGA or whatever. It screws up then someone else takes over.

Huh?

You just want M$ to win with lack of justified reasoning what so ever. Yeah, a console which offers nothing but 2 genres is hailed by you to be better than Sony's console. Yet, the games themselves aren't even that evloved other than graphics look better. You sure it's my blindness for Sony you see or you just simply can't see jack dued to your own blindness?

I don't necessarily want MS to win but rather are supporting/defending a console that I'm currently enjoying tremendously. Maybe I shouldn't like the 360 because it's MS and they already own too much or because Bill Gates has too much money. Phooey! I'll play whatever provides me with a great gaming experience. It does feel good however to support the only American next-gen console maker :)

And I own all three last gen consoles and will do the same again this gen and are not blinded by MS as you are Sony. I look forward to owning a PS3 yet aren't afraid to call out Sony's goof ups or weaknesses. You on the other hand spew constant pro Sony propoganda whilst ripping on the 360 in the process never once stopping to acknowledge any positives on the other console (even some of your fellow Sony fans aren't afraid to do that). Maybe you're just one of those glass is half empty guys. Do you complain to everyone about everything all of the time?

[Cuddly Knife]

And I own all three last gen consoles and will do the same again this gen and are not blinded by MS as you are Sony. I look forward to owning a PS3 yet aren't afraid to call out Sony's goof ups or weaknesses. You on the other hand spew constant pro Sony propoganda whilst ripping on the 360 in the process never once stopping to acknowledge any positives on the other console (even some of your fellow Sony fans aren't afraid to do that).
That's exactly what I was talking about in some other thread where I said that XBOTs were more open-minded. We talk up the 360, but at least 4 XBOX fans here have said that they will get a PS3 eventually. Then godZILLA called me a hypocrite. I think they're just bitter because now they realize next-gen started with the 360 all along. The only Playstation fan that acknowledges the 360 as a good system is Ocelot, and he's the only one here who actually owns a PS3.

Then we have slade. Who knows WTF he's thinking.

[PapaSmurf]

This is a very interesting thread. As I've said before I'm waiting at least a year before I do anything. The reason I passed up on the xbox last gen was because witha PS2/GC/PC combo I had 99% of the gaming greatness an xbox would have gotten me plus the great console games that I couldn't get for PC. In a year or two when I finally decided to get one of these next gen consoles, we'll know for certain which ones will provided the gaming I can't find on my PC. If the 360 turns out to be the console that provides the gaming I can't get on my PC and the gaming I can get on my PC then it will have one me over. I'm probably going to end up with a Wii at some point just because nintendo consoles are just great second consoles to have.

With that in mind I'm still leaning toward a PS3 in my future. Alot of you are awfully pessimistic about the future of Sony and the PS3. Again I think you all are underestimating the masses. As much as you guys clown on the general public, you xbots above all else should know they'd be too stupid see something good right in front of them. Yes Sony has been screwing up, but it's not doom gloom situation you guys make it out to be, not yet. This launch is just that, a launch. Some go smooth, some go rough. They only have 500k systems out right now. I have this feeling PS3 won't be a bust by any means. It may not have the same impact of PS2 (which would be hard to accomplish), but lets get real guys, the overwhelming public is still in the Sony camp and usually they'll deal with glitches and what not. 360 isn't doing bad, but things aren't stellar either.

On these fronts only time will tell, but ya'll are talking about a doom gloom scenario for Sony as if it's guranteed. I recall some talk about this with the Gamecube, and look where Nintendo is now; in the front F****** seat last month. Speculating is fun as I said before, but let's all comeback to reality and realize that everyone isn't hardcore gamers and they like to stick with whats familiar, that's why I don't see any doom for the PS3, despite all the stumblings. Even some of you xbots have said it before, Sony could put out a pile of *** price it out 600$ and the masses wouldn't give a ****. I love my PS2 and PSP though so Sony don't fail me.

Also, back on topic. Am I the only one who didn't think the first Killzone was a bad game? Overhyped, yes. Bad, not by any means. I liked the graphicals style to the game: gritty. I guess I'm a sucker for that. The story was good too imo. I have no reason to believe Killlzone 2 won't be better. I prefer Killzone over Halo, but I think it's more the fact that I like squad based realism more than one man rambo affairs, probably why I never finished Half-Life or HL2, though I loved the multiplayer mods. I just can't get into Halo. I've had it on my PC for a while and I just don't understand what's so great about it and god knows I've played it enough times, while not enjoying it, just to find out why it was so great. Again, like Killzone, I don't think Halo is bad, I just don't think it's great. However i've made that point many a time, and ya'll have argued it many a time so I suppose it's a mute point now.

[NEO-360]

Here ya go-

"According to a recent survey by electronics-research firm iSuppli, Microsoft is currently turning a $75 profit on each 360 unit, up from a $126-per-unit loss at launch."

Gamespot 11/27/2006

Make sure you post the same numbers for Sony and the PS3 okay joquito? Cool.:cool:

[NEO-360]

I think I understand perfectly what M$ is doing. It's turning this console war from focusing on the quality of software into whose console is technologically superior. In due process, M$ is hoping to drain its competitors financially. That is why Xbox was given up in 3 years. You would have a point if Xbox360 didn't lose even more money for M$. But, it did.

The matter of fact is no company can stick with MS' timetable is it is pushing out a new console every 3 years. Like I stated in my earlier post, MS is the sole reason why game development costs so much these days. And that leads to the eventually lower innovation and quality in games. From my point of view, M$ is like what Moody was to this board, a cancer.

And everything you just said about M$ can very well be said about Sony as well Folken. Plain and simple. Dont you think its a case of shooting yourself in the foot to create a console thats not easy for game developers to make games for? Upping the ante with this chip inside the PS3 isnt going to make life any easier for them down the stretch.

So you consider me at one time to be a Cancer huh? LOL!! I guess you would think that way considering that 85-90% of the time I was kicking your ass when it came to debating on actual threads instead of flat out flaming. But I'm only telling you what you already know. Its nice to know you're still feeling the effects of those whippings after all these years.:14:

[Mochan]

But, I guarantee this, MS won't have my money on Vista. I am finished with MS' OS'. You say XP doesn't have problems, brotha consider yourself one of the lucky. Or perhaps all the routine crap people go through to keep XP running is just so common now that people don't reallly realize any more how much of an inconvenience it it. Two things I won't be buying. Zune or Windows Vista! I am sticking with IPODs and my next computer will be a MAC!


I'm not an MS Hater as you seem to be implying. There are things about MS I don't like, but there are things about Sony I don't like either. I'm not just a slave to Windows on my PC; my celphone runs on Windows Mobile for crying out loud, and I have no intention of moving to the Symbian or Palm platform.

I have to say though, condolences on your choice to stick to crappy overrpiced iPods. iPods suck. They are a crappy system. You're better off with MuVos or better yet, Win Mobile phones with lots of memory.

It's true though that Win is bug-ridden and troublesome and you might even say bloated, but it's a price I will pay to get the added functionality I crave, and access to software I want. Fortunately I don't have to pay that price with the Xbox or the 360 (so far), as I have no need of it at the moment.


Along with the 90% of the world's computer enabled households along with businesses! So it, unfortunately, doesn't matter how crappy Vista is, people get tied to one thing and refuse to change. Just like you with Sony.

What the, are you just an ass or what? I'm not tied to Sony, I never was. Look into the archives and you will see this is true. Well at least you don't try to claim you have Q Continuum memory (though that would truly be a joke of epic proportions!)

Just because you made the bold statement to leap to the Mac doesn't make you anymore "immune" to platform jumping or following along with 90% of the world. You sticking to the XBox 360 while making bold claims like that just makes me puke.

I change when I need to change; move from IE to Mozilla to Opera, move from Nokia to iPaq and WinMobile, move from Nintendo to Sony, and if Sony falls I will gladly move from Sony to wherever. I've STATED THIS CATEGORICALLY ON THIS FORUM in the past, several times even, but you didn't know that, did you?

But the 360 is actually a good product. It is a great gaming machine and a great platform for developers to bring great projects to the market, to me that is all the 360 represents. To me the 360 platform is poised to bring better gaming products to the market than Wii or PS3.



But you guys think I love MS. Wrong, I love good products. Windows is not a good product, Vista might be, but i'm not gonna give MS the benefit of the doubt again. I'm not gonna be a sucker. Let them release Vista, I'll roll with a Mac very soon, and once I switch I will roll with Mac until MS or somebody else releases a better product. IPOD is a great product and ITUNES is a great service, Zune may or may not be great, but as of right now, IPOD is better and hasn't let me down.

Ipods suck, internal user-irreplaceable battery with crap for life, inability to intrinsically move files from the iPod, can't get them on without junk like iTunes, scratch easily and make you buy ridiculously expensive and overpriced peripherals.

I'll give you that you're not necessarily an MS lover, just an Xbox nut hugger. I.e. Xbot. We all knew that, but thanks anyway.

BTW -- I am actually *far* more interested in the Zune than another crappy iPod. WiFi alone makes it a hell of a lot more convenient, and apparently you can transfer things to and from it like you would normally do in Windows, and that's one hell of a big plus. Bigger, better screen, comparable if not better battery life (particularly for video playback), FM Radio, and it looks pretty classy like an iPod unlike all the other competition (like Creative Zen's Vision, which just looks like turd).

That said, I am not likely to get a Zune until we get a "Zune Nano"
or some such. I am going for convergence with my mobile devices and don't feel like getting another thing as big as my PDA/Celphone/MP3player aka the iPaq.

It would be funny to see me defect to the 360, but if the 360 gets the games the PS2 used to have, then I'm more than willing.

Sony is stuck behind MS and simply cannot afford to get onto MS' timetable, Sony simply must recoup the debt from this hardware and PS3 has to go through its full lifecycle.

Forget Sony, let's talk about the gamers. The gamers have to recoup from the debt they incurred buying these expensive next-gen consoles and skyrocketing costs of development THANKS to these more expensive next-gen consoles. And who do we have to thank for that? Yes, that's right.

I can't believe anyone is actually trying to blame MS for Sonys downfall (if that is even what happens). Sony, simply put, totally blew it this gen with attitude and lies.

No, I would still pin it on MS if it ever happened. MS forced Sony to play its hand, which is what resulted in the attitude and lies. MS forced Sony to play its game, because with such deep pockets anything is possible.


Yup, to me it's a great plan. Videogames are here to stay and big money is in this business. Did you know that?

It's a great plan. And one that only MS can pull off. Big money IS in this business, but what you are missing is that this tech race is making things more expensive for you and me, way before it has to be more expensive.


I've certainly benefited as a consumer ever since they entered the market. Sony's PS3 tried one upping the 360 at every turn but apparently MS isn't doing anything right? Any other contradictions this fine afternoon?

Like paying for a new $300-$400 console every 4 years, paying $50 a year to play online, paying $60 per game, yeah you sure reaped the benefits!

And believe me, if MS ever gets a monopoly on the games business by driving Nintendo and Sony bankrupt with its deep pockets, it's only going to get worse as you can only take the crap they give you, at the prices they demand.

But look at me! Once 360 wins I'll soon have a 360 game console, a Win Mobile phone, a Zune mp3 player, and a Windows PC, and I will be on XBox Live and surfing on IE10.00 and whee omgfbbqwtf I have been monopolized!


They released the XBOX which was certainly worth a hell of a lot more than $300, and they are still basically giving LIVE away.

"Live" is free on PCs, gundamnit! And you can see this as "getting more than what I paid for" now but if the monopoly ever sinks in you're going to be screaming a different tune, the one that sounds like "Windows sucks I'm buying a Mac".

They pushed the boundaries and we see the results in the games we play, games that, close your eyes PC Gaymers, are actually superior to PC games!

How so? The only thing I see are games that are more expensive than PC games.

Problem is you can't just throw money at a problem, you need to still make a good product and have a good service, and Sony thus far hasn't done that.

The irony, but that's what Xbox was last gen. I can accept that the 360 isn't quite fully entrenched down that road just yet, but it hasn't quite won yet.


Sony did what you guys, years ago, were afraid MS was going to do, abuse their dominance.

MS has already done what you are saying right now. :rolls eyes:

So between being 40 GB short plus not having these other two important items packed in anybody planning to buy a PS3 doesnt have a choice but to buy the most expensive bundle. Its not about how much support Milk drinkers are showing to the console regardless of the price . Nice try though 001.

You know what's ironic? Last year it was the Xbots saying that, and the milkdrinnkers nay-saying it. With these exact same arguments!

[NEO-360]

You know what's ironic? Last year it was the Xbots saying that, and the milkdrinnkers nay-saying it. With these exact same arguments!

Payback is a B isnt it? :thumbsup:

But the things I brought up are indeed facts though. Shoot holes through that Mochan.:cool:

[ilnadmy]

You guys are so happy that MS made you buy a 360 three years after they released the Xbox? You must really hate your money if you like nothing more than to part with it, huh? The PS2 was released a year before the Xbox, and still has AAA titles coming out (FFXII, GOW2). MS pretty much made you buy the Xbox, then took a huge dump on you and forced the 360 out. You praise it for being a smart business decision? Is that what consumers are looking for? You think people were happy at what Enron did because it was a business decision they had to make? Consumers look at how the company is treating them, and when a company throws your console out the window in the span of 3 or 4 years, when the normal lifespan is 5 years, then some people are going to be pissed. I'm still getting some playtime on my Xbox, but if you think I'm buying the 360 then you're mistaken. Unless it completely destroys the PS3 and Wii (which I highly doubt), then I can't trust MS to support it for long. Hell, Nintendo supported the GameCube for longer than MS did with the Xbox, and it was in third place last gen.

All MS cares about is cash, cash, and more cash. While Sony and Nintendo care about the same thing to a degree, MS is willing to pursue this at the expense of its consumers.

And before you call me an MS hater, take this into consideration: I love Windows. That's right, I actually like Windows. I love Office, and I think that MS can continue to have a monopoly over the OS market as long as they keep giving me software that's great. You can even see this in the 360's front-end and usability, which is miles ahead of the PS3 and Wii (from what I hear...I haven't used either). But when it comes to the Xbox, like I've said before, MS will and does advance Windows at the expense of the Xbox. After all, you think they made $50 billion last year from Xbox sales? They're a shrewd company, and as far as they're concerned, if porting Xbox games to Windows will cause people to buy more copies of Windows, then so be it.

Sony has made some blunders on the way, but nothing that is going to destroy the PS3. People were saying Nintendo would not be in the next console race after GC, but look at them now, stronger than ever. Sony has a lot of firepower in terms of first- and second-party games, not to mention rock-solid third-party support. They're not going anywhere.

[Gadfly2317]

PS3 is not losing support. Xbox360 is gainning support.

I'm not so sure; the 360 had a year all to itself and it sold worse than the Xbox did when Xbox was competing against a a brand new GC and a Ps2 with a year's worth of titles.

Perhaps both companies have taken gaming to a price point that just isn't that mass-market.

[Cuddly Knife]

You guys are so happy that MS made you buy a 360 three years after they released the Xbox? You must really hate your money if you like nothing more than to part with it, huh?

You praise it for being a smart business decision? Is that what consumers are looking for? You think people were happy at what Enron did because it was a business decision they had to make? Consumers look at how the company is treating them, and when a company throws your console out the window in the span of 3 or 4 years, when the normal lifespan is 5 years, then some people are going to be pissed. I'm still getting some playtime on my Xbox, but if you think I'm buying the 360 then you're mistaken. Unless it completely destroys the PS3 and Wii (which I highly doubt), then I can't trust MS to support it for long. Hell, Nintendo supported the GameCube for longer than MS did with the Xbox, and it was in third place last gen.
1, The 360 came out 4 years later, not three.
2. What defines a normal life-span? Does anyone remember what Sega did? They released the Genesis(1991), plus the 32X, then the Sega CD add-on, then the Saturn(1994), and then the Dream Cast(1998).
3. PS1 release - Sep. 1995 PS2 release OCt. 2000 Technically, it's less than five years, if I was a stickler. Don't act like MS is the only one.

[trebor]

I have to say though, condolences on your choice to stick to crappy overrpiced iPods. iPods suck. They are a crappy system. You're better off with MuVos or better yet, Win Mobile phones with lots of memory.

...

Ipods suck, internal user-irreplaceable battery with crap for life, inability to intrinsically move files from the iPod, can't get them on without junk like iTunes, scratch easily and make you buy ridiculously expensive and overpriced peripherals.


Sorry to break it to you, but iPods are hardly "overpriced" - when compared to other MP3 players on the market, that is. Especially considering iTunes is free software and is what makes iPods great. The music industry has embraced iTunes, and as such, made it the only truly viable online digital music distributor.

Just because iPods make it slightly more difficult to pirate media doesn't make them "suck" either, matey. And that's what you really care about, isn't? Free software, free music, free everything. I hate to break it to you, but MS isn't the reason why software prices have continually been driven up - it's people like you, the mother****ing software pirates.

Oh, and I don't believe anybody forces consumers to buy "ridiculously expensive and overpriced peripherals" for the iPod. At least consumers have the option of buying peripherals at all, unlike 90% of the MP3 players out there.

[Glockstar]

The 360 came out 4 years later, not three.

Haw! Don't you love it! I was waiting for folken to do that. Then sure enough, that chump ilnadmy bought into it. (Gadfly too, probably. :rolleyes:) Give 'em another week, it'll be down to one year!

Forget it CK, these people aren't about getting facts straight, it's about hating on MS and their Xboxes, pure and simple.

[ilnadmy]

Are you guys so blind that you can't realize that the GC and PS2 both lasted longer than the Xbox did? And you're actually gloating about this? Talk about retarded.

[Cuddly Knife]

No one's gloating, just pointing out what really happened, which you seem to be avoiding. I don't deny that the Cube and PS2 lasted longer, but the XBOX didn't come out in 3 years, and Sega whipped out 3 systems in 8 years including your beloved Dreamcast plus 2 system "expansions", and there is no hate there. Hmmm.

[Mochan]

That's exactly it, ilnadmy. MS made "smart" (and that's a very loaded term) business decisions for itself, but not for its customers. Like I said, MS has single-handedly raised the price for games, consoles, and even online play all by itself, forced Sony to follow suite, and we are all reaping the "benefits" right now. As Gaddie mentioned, the mass market doesn't seem to be adapting to this change like they did in the previous gen.

As for the XBox being a business decision for shrewd company, yes MS is a shrewd company. But MS pouring cash into the toilet with the XBox isn't just a move to get a hold onto your living room, it's a move to *block* possible competition: Sony has been eyeing the living room and preventing Sony from making inroads into the living room (which would take marketshare from PC sales -- and thus Windows sales) is probably the most imporant goal MS has here. Their bread and butter is their OS business, so anything that could harm that business must be stamped out with maximum intolerance.

Take this whole Zune business. What do you think MS is trying to do here? Make life hard for Apple (another OS competitor) and take a huge shot at the very lucrative iPod trade. This would put more strain on Apple, probably end up in a kind of MP3 Player tech race in the long run, and hopefully make Apple keel over or at least make life harder for them, to the point that the effect will be felt in their Mac business -- and give PCs even more of the lead.


2. What defines a normal life-span? Does anyone remember what Sega did? They released the Genesis(1991), plus the 32X, then the Sega CD add-on, then the Saturn(1994), and then the Dream Cast(1998).

And look at where they are now.



Sorry to break it to you, but iPods are hardly "overpriced" - when compared to other MP3 players on the market, that is. Especially considering iTunes is free software and is what makes iPods great. The music industry has embraced iTunes, and as such, made it the only truly viable online digital music distributor.

And a quick search at Pricegrabber gives these results:
http://www.pricegrabber.com/search_attrib.php/page_id=161

iPod nano 2GB costs $125 (or 189 if you want the 2G one)
A Sandisk 2GB player WITH SD Flashcard support is $110.

An iPods nano 4GB costs $149. A Zen Micro 4GB costs $99. A Sandisk 4GB is $142.

The 8GB Nano is $237 while the Sandisk 8GB is $192

A 5G Ipod Video is $222.
The Zune is $228.

Ipod Shuffle 2G 1GB is $74, Ipod 1GB Nano is $99, while a Zen Nano Plus is $60.

Notice a trend? This is just from one site, but I can assure you the pricing is similar on other sites, and in retail stores over the counter. It's actually worse over the counter, at least here where I live.

And yet all iPods gives you is a the ability to playback MP3s and view pictures and iTunes (which itself is more expensive), while a MuVo plays back MP3s, has FM Radio, and has user-replaceable batteries so 5 years down the road you won't have to pay for an "Ipod care plan" to fix it! Many Sandisk players support SD cards, so you can expand the available memory of the player, turning your 2GB player into a 4GB or 6GB player with hot-swap capability if needed. The Zune is slightly more expensive on that site, though you do get a lot more, and if you compare it to the "enhanced Ipod 5G" the Zune is cheaper.

Let's look at iTunes itself. Downloading a track from Itunes costs around 1$, but you can avail of the same service at the same price from other vendors like Napster.
Then we have services like eMusic, which can offer like $10 a month for music that comes out at like 30cents per track, or allofmp3.com where a track costs a few cents (depends on the format, about 3-10cents per track), comes out far cheaper than iTunes. Or you can get the $15 a month for 1000 tracks per month. And if you still love CDs, how about YourMusic.com which sells entire CDs for $6 a pop.

No, iPods are more expensive than any other MP3 player in general (except probably the Zune, which is on par in price, although granted the Zune gives you more bang for your buck -- and you know down the road MS is gonna lower the price and make its MP3 player more competitively priced even if they have to subsidize it)

Did you even do any kind of research or did you blindly bite into the brainwashing that Apple has done on the mass market?

I'll give Apple kudos for their innovation in bringing downloading to the mainstream (though as a pirate I have mixed feelings about that) and making MP3 Players "cool" (whereas in the past it was geeky, though as a nerd I again have mixed feelings on that) but I'm not praising them for bang-for-your-buck.

Just because iPods make it slightly more difficult to pirate media doesn't make them "suck" either, matey.

Getting music back from iPods to pirate isn't the goal here. It's getting it back from the iPod to back it up, or get it back to your PC/Mac in case you had a harddrive crash. I know quite a few people who got into a pickle after buying tons of stuff from ITunes, transfer to their Ipod, then had their harddrives crash on them. (I was able to help them out fortunately using some 3rd party Ipod utilities -- many of which were far better than ITunes). It's also a hell of a lot easier to move the stuff around if you have multiple mp3 players -- I have a MuVo, an iPod and an iPaq, and the device that has the biggest trouble communicating to the other devices (or to the PC itself) is the iPod. This is especially bothersome as the iPod could easily have been your "music repository" -- it has the biggest capacity out of all my devices and could have been my backup vault, but since it's such a hassle to transfer stuff to and from it, that plan just didn't work to my chagrin.

I don't pirate by copying from iPods, that's just silly. You use something like Limewire or WinMX.

Not only that, but the MP3 player business is quickly heading into a crazy DRM realm that is just nuts, where you can legitimately buy music and it only works on an iPod (though the reverse is also true) and that is just nuts. I own a ton of CDs by the way and even if I don't look it, I do have quite a bit of legitimate music on my PC/iPaq, this iTunes downloading junk is just ludicrous.

As for pirates or MS making the software more expensive, if that were the only thing that mattered, PC games would be more expensive than PS2 or XBox games. Piracy in the PC world is very rampant, moreso than it is for the 360 or for the Xbox, and any Nintendo console. Probably not for the PS2 though -- but PS2 game prices haven't skyrocketed either.

The price for console games is the way it is because of developer costs going up thanks to the next gen hardware, far more than it is due to piracy, which has been around since the 8-bit era. I'm no saint but I think I have it right in this particular issue.


As for peripherals, no one's forcing you to buy peripherals but most people end up buying wall chargers and those cost an arm and a leg when they should be included as standard. What about those ludicrous bases which are like $40 (IIRC I just remember it's a dumb price to pay just to stand your iPod up) a pop just so you can stand your iPod up while you plug it in to your PC/Mac? OMG whereas buying an iPaq includes the charger and stand! Though granted an iPaq is a totally different class of gadget altogether.

[ThaMaskedGamer]

<b>

I have to say though, condolences on your choice to stick to crappy overrpiced iPods. iPods suck. They are a crappy system. You're better off with MuVos or better yet, Win Mobile phones with lots of memory. </b> Oh, I'll take that under consideration...okay..thought about, nope! I'll stick with IPOD, I've had my IPOD for years now, its one of the old plain jain white joints about 30GB, no photo, no video, it has served me well. At first I use to keep it in a leather case, for fear of scratching the silver back, then I tired of that, who the hell cares about the scratches. Are people walking around checking the back of people's IPODs for scratches? No. Anyway, yes my battery doesn't last as long as it use to, but the only time I use the battery is when at work and it gets me through the day. So when I upgrade it will be another IPOD. Far as ITUNES it is the best music software EVARRRR! Maybe guys like you, who rip, burn, cheat, and illegally obtain all of your media hate MS, but I don't mind payin' for my sh*t. Support your artist, or don't complain when all you get is top 40.

<b>
It's true though that Win is bug-ridden and troublesome and you might even say bloated, but it's a price I will pay to get the added functionality I crave, and access to software I want. Fortunately I don't have to pay that price with the Xbox or the 360 (so far), as I have no need of it at the moment. </b> yeah that makes sense, stick with the buggy problematic product, Windows, and then sh*t all over the great product, the 360.



<b>
Just because you made the bold statement to leap to the Mac doesn't make you anymore "immune" to platform jumping or following along with 90% of the world. You sticking to the XBox 360 while making bold claims like that just makes me puke. </b> Why wouldn't I stick with 360, I just bought it last year, and its the best thing in gaming at the moment.

<b>
I change when I need to change; move from IE to Mozilla to Opera, move from Nokia to iPaq and WinMobile, move from Nintendo to Sony, and if Sony falls I will gladly move from Sony to wherever. I've STATED THIS CATEGORICALLY ON THIS FORUM in the past, several times even, but you didn't know that, did you?</b> You just said you aren't a slave to Sony? Now you talk as though you already have a PS3. If anything, you should be neutral. But you love the PS3, even though you don't have it and critics are hammering it, but you hate 360 even though u don't have it and critics are raving about it? Sniff sniff, smells like a hater.


<b>
Forget Sony, let's talk about the gamers. The gamers have to recoup from the debt they incurred buying these expensive next-gen consoles and skyrocketing costs of development THANKS to these more expensive next-gen consoles. And who do we have to thank for that? Yes, that's right. </b> WTF? Recoup the debt? Oh you must be talking about the investment it takes to start PC Gaming. I feel you bro' that's why you need to get a 360!
<b>
No, I would still pin it on MS if it ever happened. MS forced Sony to play its hand, which is what resulted in the attitude and lies. MS forced Sony to play its game, because with such deep pockets anything is possible. </b> Dude you are talking crazy right now, lol. MS forced Sony to play its hand, lol. MS forced Sony to play its game. Maybe Sony are just some scary beyatches! Scared of being knocked off their perch, instead of executing like the industry leaders they were suppose to be. Hell each company had their own vision, except Sony. Nintendo did their thing, MS did their thing, and Sony sat around spying on each company and trying to copy off of them both. That's why this powerful console is just a mess and you know it!
<b>
It's a great plan. And one that only MS can pull off. Big money IS in this business, but what you are missing is that this tech race is making things more expensive for you and me, way before it has to be more expensive. </b> Whats the matter Mochan, upset consoles are encroaching on your PC territory. Upset the 360 is stealing PC developers and who are actually making better games than they ever did on the PC?


<b>
Like paying for a new $300-$400 console every 4 years, paying $50 a year to play online, paying $60 per game, yeah you sure reaped the benefits!</b> Yeah like that's a huge cost compared to PC gaming. Boy ain't that the pot calling the kettle black. Sony and Nintendo are the rip-off artist! $250 for a stupid PSP! Nintendo DS' and then a Nintendo DS Lite!! Multiple versions of Nintendogs, that are the same game with locked dogs! Stylus' that work on DS Lite but won't work on DS. Sony with Bluray, HDDs that are good for nothing on the PS2. Redesigned PS2 that people are buying like suckers. I'll tell you what, XBOX when it all boils down is the very best bang for you buck. I had an original XBOX and kept it until I got the 360 and turned around and sold it at the end for about $100. Meanwhile you got individual's who had to buy several PS2s due to faulty crappy units. I'm sure my 360 will last 5+ years. And people who are saying the XBOX is dead, umm excuse me, it is the GC that is dead. There are STILL good games being released on XBOX!


Anyway, look around buddy. GT HD, Ninja Gaiden Black, RR7, Bluray shoved down your throat! $600 overheatin' units! Free Online service, but isn't even worth it to use, most gaming companies don't even know how to support the crap, Sony should pay people to use that crappy service! A stupid dashboard that sucks compared to the 360 dash, no forcefeed back in controllers because Sony doesn't want to pay Immersion, so gamers suffer. I mean that takes the cake. Sony can afford to shove Bluray down your throat, but they can't give you Rumble!! Anyway, I hope you get a PS3, you deserve it buddy!

[ThaMaskedGamer]

Sorry to break it to you, but iPods are hardly "overpriced" - when compared to other MP3 players on the market, that is. Especially considering iTunes is free software and is what makes iPods great. The music industry has embraced iTunes, and as such, made it the only truly viable online digital music distributor.

Just because iPods make it slightly more difficult to pirate media doesn't make them "suck" either, matey. And that's what you really care about, isn't? Free software, free music, free everything. I hate to break it to you, but MS isn't the reason why software prices have continually been driven up - it's people like you, the mother****ing software pirates.

Oh, and I don't believe anybody forces consumers to buy "ridiculously expensive and overpriced peripherals" for the iPod. At least consumers have the option of buying peripherals at all, unlike 90% of the MP3 players out there.

Software pirates suck-azz! What's so funny is he complains about the IPOD not being able to rip music, but he doesn't seem to realize Sony don't like that sh*T either. Mochan remember when Sony tried to encrypt their CDs, remember Sony has put some type of DRM into the PS3 that could enable them to SHUT DOWN using used games on the PS3. And oh boy do we need to even talk about Sony selling out to Hollywood, oh, they are part of Hollywood. Thanks to companies like Sony we have to go through all of the HDCP crap, HDMI crap, non-compatiable TVs. Life would be so simple in terms of 1080P if we could all just get a FULLHD signal over component cables. Component cables are fully capable of supporting 1080P, but thanks to pirates, we get HDCP and HDMI! Hell HDMI has changed once again, now its on version1.3, any suckers who bought the early Toshiba HD-DVD players and Bluray Players, congratulations your sh&t is outdated! Eff Bluray and HD-DVD, and all that crap, i'll stay away from this junk for as long as I can. Oh and thanks Mochan, you and cheap-asses like you. Nothin' personal bro' but I won't shed a tear if somebody dropped a dime on you, lol!

[Mochan]

Far as ITUNES it is the best music software EVARRRR! Maybe guys like you, who rip, burn, cheat, and illegally obtain all of your media hate MS, but I don't mind payin' for my sh*t. Support your artist, or don't complain when all you get is top 40.

What the hell, what does MS and MS Hating have to do with ITunes? MS doesn't even make iTunes, hell iTunes is one of MS's major rivals.

And the last comment about Top 40, it's all about ego for you isn't it? Whether it's XBox Live Leaderboards, GameRankings or Pop Chart Hits, it's all about your stuff making the Top of the charts. What the hell. Think for yourself man and don't use other people's opinions to rule your life.

yeah that makes sense, stick with the buggy problematic product, Windows, and then sh*t all over the great product, the 360.

You're the one sticking to the problematic iPods, I'm the one using MuVos.

Why wouldn't I stick with 360, I just bought it last year, and its the best thing in gaming at the moment

No, that's the PC.

But you love the PS3, even though you don't have it and critics are hammering it, but you hate 360 even though u don't have it and critics are raving about it?

I don't even have a PS3, how can I love it? I'm cerainly not sticking my dick into it like you XBots are with Halo. I'm saying I'm likely to get a PS3 over a 360 at this moment in time, and I've even repeatedly said I won't be getting one or the other for a long while yet. I defend the PS3 because the PS3 gets all sorts of bad mouthing here (some of which is undeserved), and I lambast the 360 because it gets too much praise (some of which is undeserved). That makes me more neutral than nuthugging. Though admittedly I am in the Sony camp right now... from my expectations from last gen. It was the same story during the Snes->N64 transition, I was in the Nintendo camp until Sony proved the PS1 was the platform to beat.


Nintendo did their thing, MS did their thing, and Sony sat around spying on each company and trying to copy off of them both.

MS is the one doing the copying, and their vision is "outmoney the competition out of the ground." MS copied DOS from IBM, MS copied the PS2's "launch first" with the 360, MS copied Live from the PC's online systems, MS copied PC architecture with the Xbox, MS copied/took the PC's games and put them on the XBox, MS copied the basic design of the Dualshock, heck MS even copied the iPod with Zune!

Yes Sony's done its fair share of copying but MS isn't immune to any of that, brotha. Ms is just as much a "Me Too" as Sony.

MS is the type of company that sees a lucrative product/business/market, then copies the industry leader and adds extras to gain marketshare. Smart business indeed, and a move only MS can do in many areas, yes they succeed, yes I use MS products, no I am not a slave to any of them and I will jump ship easily if the stuff I need is no longer on those products.

Whats the matter Mochan, upset consoles are encroaching on your PC territory. Upset the 360 is stealing PC developers and who are actually making better games than they ever did on the PC?

Better games? Like what? I see no upstanding Diablo-esque RPGs on the 360, I see no great strategy games, any exclusive RPGs you have are not better than PC RPGs, and what FPS you have on the 360 isn't up to pat with the PC shooters, or are PC multiplats.

The *only* game you have that isn't comparable to anything on the PC at the moment is Gears of War, which is likely to make its way to the PC eventually, and if not we will have Unreal Tournament 2007 anyway which will have the same graphics, which is pretty much all your riding on with GOW anyway.

What are these vaporous "better games" you are talking about?

Yeah like that's a huge cost compared to PC gaming.

Oh? PC games are $30-$40 a pop, we get huge savings. That said I already game on *both* PCs and Consoles, and I've mentioned that what I loved about the previous console gens was that I could afford to game on the PC and a console to get the best of both worlds. If anything what MS is doing is going to drive me to become a PC-Exclusive gamer by driving the cost of console gaming up.

Don't cloud the issue, the cost of PC gaming isn't the issue here, it's the cost of console gaming. It's true that MS' move is driving up the costs of console gaming, and this makes it harder for me to get my feet wet with consoles.

Can MS merge console and PC gaming together and give me massive savings? Well if they could it would be nice, but MS isn't quite there yet. If they ever manage to pull it off I'm there, but while they aren't I'm still very against the philosophy of their move.

And they have to make the resulting merger worthy. Xbox was bang for your buck? You like to say how the Xbox gave you both PS2 multiplats and PC multiplats, but the truth is the PC multiplats you got were turd and a disgrace to their PC brethren, and you missed out on a lot of great PS2 titles. How can it be bang for your buck when you're not getting the complete experience?

Right now the 360 is doing a great job, if it keeps it up then who knows I might pull a Slade and get one myself. I don't mind if I do, as long as everything falls in place there. But right now it's not quite there yet.


Software pirates suck-azz! What's so funny is he complains about the IPOD not being able to rip music, but he doesn't seem to realize Sony don't like that sh*T either.

WTF? I was one of the first people on this board to whine about Sony's DRM. We had a thread before about not being able to play PS3 games on more than one PS3, I was all over getting medieval on the PS3's ass for it. I was totally chiding Sony for their rootkits.

You seem to have some weird notions about who I am and what I enjoy, well with your selective memory I'm not surprised.

Am I ****ting on you for being a pirate? Maybe, I don't know. But if I am, I have no intention of apologizing. There's a lot of things in this world that aren't fair, I'm not going to get into those as that goes far beyond the scopy of this forum, and would invite a lot of hate between 1st World and 3rd World countries. If you want to we can discuss them but that's opening a hell of a can of worms. You live the way you want, I'll live how I want, if you want to take it up though I'm perfectly game.

[Cuddly Knife]

Like I said, MS has single-handedly raised the price for games, consoles, and even online play all by itself, forced Sony to follow suite, and we are all reaping the "benefits" right now.
Now that doesn't make sense. There are more than a couple of systems that were above the price point that the 360 is. Just because MS sold it for 400.00usd doesn't mean that Sony had to sell the PS3 for 600.00usd. MS charges 50.00usd for first-party games.

[Cuddly Knife]

And to quote TMG: What the hell are you talking about lol. You can get the 360 for $300. The same price as the PS2 and XBOX when they launched. MS has not raised the price of gaming. You can play the 360 without a HDD, just like you can play all the other consoles previously that didn't have a HDD! If you want the HDD and Wireless controller, pay an extra $100. But MS isn't FORCING you. But along came Sony with a $600 console! They are raising the price of gaming. You cannot get a PS3 for $300, you cannot get a PS3 for $400. This has nothing to do with MS, this is all on Sony and them forcing Bluray and HDMI down your throat. So let us recap, for $300 you can buy a 360 with no HDD, and it is way more powerful than XBOX and PS2!! For $250 you can buy a Wii!! MS and Nintendo did NOT increase the price of gaming!

[ilnadmy]

No one's gloating, just pointing out what really happened, which you seem to be avoiding. I don't deny that the Cube and PS2 lasted longer, but the XBOX didn't come out in 3 years, and Sega whipped out 3 systems in 8 years including your beloved Dreamcast plus 2 system "expansions", and there is no hate there. Hmmm.
My "beloved" Dreamcast? I never bought a Dreamcast, what the hell are you smoking?

And seriously, you guys are like, "HAH! It DIDN'T come out in three years, it came out in FOUR!! YES!! OWNED!!" when the PS2 lasted six and the GC lasted five. That's like if you were in a race of 100 people, and you're like, "HAH! I DIDN'T come in last, I came in 97TH!! YES!! OWNED!!"

Guess what? You still sucked.

[folken001]

And to quote TMG:

Yeah. Yet, you can't get extra game content without Xbox Live. Even with Xbox Live, you can't save the extra content without a HDD. So, you are forced to get these extra things indirectly. Sure, M$ isn't saying here you gotta buy this and that. At the same time, Sony isn't pointing the gun at anyone's head to force them to buy a PS3 either.

[folken001]

MS has done some good things for this industry and are not that different from Sony when it comes to wanting your money and wanting to win a larger market share. I won't list the things MS did on XBOX & XBOX 360 that evolved gaming to the point that Sony is now doing the same if not similar things with the PS3 as we all know what those are.

Like? Make a mini PC and charge you for something you would not normally have to pay for if it is on PC? YI guess you meant M$ has done some good things for themselves? That I would have to agree. Other than that, I do not see anything M$ did that benefit the industry more than what Sony has done.

In more simple words, M$ has done nothing other than hasting the industry faster than it should be. I am sure paying 60 dollars per game is what we all have been looking for.


I don't necessarily want MS to win but rather are supporting/defending a console that I'm currently enjoying tremendously. Maybe I shouldn't like the 360 because it's MS and they already own too much or because Bill Gates has too much money. Phooey! I'll play whatever provides me with a great gaming experience. It does feel good however to support the only American next-gen console maker :)

And I own all three last gen consoles and will do the same again this gen and are not blinded by MS as you are Sony. I look forward to owning a PS3 yet aren't afraid to call out Sony's goof ups or weaknesses. You on the other hand spew constant pro Sony propoganda whilst ripping on the 360 in the process never once stopping to acknowledge any positives on the other console (even some of your fellow Sony fans aren't afraid to do that). Maybe you're just one of those glass is half empty guys. Do you complain to everyone about everything all of the time?

I support 2 out of 3 consoles in every gen. M$ is the only brand I refuse to support. Also, I do not feel that I need to buy everything to prove a nonpoint. What's the point of buying all consoles? To show that you have a lot of money to burn? Did you buy all the games? So what if you did? It's not like you have the time to play all of them. I would love to see you to link me to a thread that is started by me singing about how great Sony is. Or a negative thread about M$ and to promote just how much better PS3 is over 360. If you can, then you have a point. Then, yes, I am a Sony whore who does nothing but spreading pro Sony propoganda. Simply, I have better usage for my time. I defend Sony here and there when I feel like it. I don't go out and actively attack another console like glock and his not so straight boyfriends.

I approve things, just not any M$ console. Get used to it.

[folken001]

That's exactly what I was talking about in some other thread where I said that XBOTs were more open-minded. We talk up the 360, but at least 4 XBOX fans here have said that they will get a PS3 eventually. Then godZILLA called me a hypocrite. I think they're just bitter because now they realize next-gen started with the 360 all along. The only Playstation fan that acknowledges the 360 as a good system is Ocelot, and he's the only one here who actually owns a PS3.

Then we have slade. Who knows WTF he's thinking.
Because it's pointless. I can very well say that I bought a Xbox360. 1. Can you verify it? 2 Does that give my negative comments toward Xbox more validity?

I've played it and I think it sucks. That's all you need to say to make a comment on something. People'll know whether you are BSing or not from the substance of your comments. Bother to tell peopel taht you "eventually" will get a console is just a way to get a license to bash even more. Whoever buys that crap is either naive or stupid.

[Zilla Man]

The analyst from iSuppli that "estimated" MS is making a profit on the 360 is wrong. Case in point:

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6160561.html

360 sales narrow Microsoft game losses

Next-gen console breaks 6 million-unit barrier--but Entertainment and Devices division still takes $96 million Q1 hit.

By Tor Thorsen, GameSpot

Posted Oct 26, 2006 2:19 pm PT

First, the good news. As part of its earnings announcement today, Microsoft boasted that high Xbox 360 sales have boosted quarterly revenue for its Entertainment and Devices division by 70 percent. "Demand for Xbox 360 consoles, software, peripherals, and Xbox Live" increased the department's July-September revenue to $1.03 billion, up from $606 million during the same period the year prior.

"The Xbox 360 has sold 6 million consoles worldwide...to date and achieved record cumulative attach rates for software and peripherals in the United States, while Xbox Live passed the 4 million member mark during the quarter," the company said in a statement.

Now, the not-so-good news--just because the 360 is popular doesn't mean it's profitable. For the quarter, the Entertainment and Devices Division lost $96 million, versus the $173 million that it lost during July-September 2005. The Xbox 360 did not launch until November 22, 2005, so it was not on sale during the same quarter last year.

The Xbox 360 is currently the only next-gen console on the market, but it will face competition when Nintendo's Wii and Sony's PlayStation 3 launch next month. It comes in two models: The $299 hard drive-less core unit and the $399 wireless-controller-equipped premium package.

Overall, Microsoft took in $10.81 billion during the July-September quarter, the first of its fiscal year. That was an 11 percent year-on-year increase--the same percentage bump its quarterly operating income enjoyed, going from $4.05 billion during the same period in 2005 to $4.47 billion in this year's July-September quarter. Net quarterly income was $3.48 billion, which came out to $0.35 per share."
Okay, so MS went from losing $96 million in July-September of 2006 to turning a profit with the 360 just one month later? All this without an increase in console sales?

Please, someone explain to me how that works. :rolleyes: And then there's this article from MS itself:

http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3963&Itemid=2

Since Microsoft entered the console market in 2001, the Xbox strategy has been one of heavy investment, leading to significant losses in its home and entertainment division.

The losses are clear in recent financial reports. For fiscal year 2005, Microsoft’s game division posted a $485 million net loss. In fiscal 2006, ended June 30, 2006, the division lost $1.26 billion.

Although financial losses have been part of the Xbox’s tradition since its launch, Microsoft entertainment and devices president Robbie Bach said earlier this year that he expects that to change in the next couple of years. During the 2006 Microsoft Financial Analyst Meeting, he said that fiscal 2007 would again show losses for the company’s games business, but in fiscal 2008, he said that gaming would turn a profit, which would be a first for a full fiscal year.

More importantly, if MS was making a profit on the 360 so soon, don't you think that Bill Gates, Peter Moore, or Robbie Bach would be crowing about it? What better way to put your competitors in their place? When PS2 made profits Sony announced it and introduced the PSP and then the PS2 redesign. They also cut the price.

Believe me, if MS was making that much per console this soon, they'd be announcing it. Also, Ms is still posting losses on the original Xbox. The 360 is selling less than the Xbox was this time in its cycle; since it's a lot more expensive to make, how could it possibly be turning a profit so soon?:rolleyes: Can someone please answer me that?

The only companies making a profit from console sales are Nintendo with the Wii and Sony with the PS2 and PSP.

So please, Masked, NEO, and Glockstar, where are the numbers and empirical evidence to show that MS, unlike any other console manufacturer sans Nintendo, has turned a profit so soon on such an expensive product? Also tell me, if the analyst's estimate is true, how come MS hasn't released a statement about it? Why wouldn't they?

Oh and as for Sony not doing a PS4, I know you Xbots are short on common sense so here's a link for ya:

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=70579

[NEO-360]

The analyst from iSuppli that "estimated" MS is making a profit on the 360 is wrong. Case in point:

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6160561.html

360 sales narrow Microsoft game losses

Next-gen console breaks 6 million-unit barrier--but Entertainment and Devices division still takes $96 million Q1 hit.

By Tor Thorsen, GameSpot

Posted Oct 26, 2006 2:19 pm PT

First, the good news. As part of its earnings announcement today, Microsoft boasted that high Xbox 360 sales have boosted quarterly revenue for its Entertainment and Devices division by 70 percent. "Demand for Xbox 360 consoles, software, peripherals, and Xbox Live" increased the department's July-September revenue to $1.03 billion, up from $606 million during the same period the year prior.

"The Xbox 360 has sold 6 million consoles worldwide...to date and achieved record cumulative attach rates for software and peripherals in the United States, while Xbox Live passed the 4 million member mark during the quarter," the company said in a statement.

Now, the not-so-good news--just because the 360 is popular doesn't mean it's profitable. For the quarter, the Entertainment and Devices Division lost $96 million, versus the $173 million that it lost during July-September 2005. The Xbox 360 did not launch until November 22, 2005, so it was not on sale during the same quarter last year.

The Xbox 360 is currently the only next-gen console on the market, but it will face competition when Nintendo's Wii and Sony's PlayStation 3 launch next month. It comes in two models: The $299 hard drive-less core unit and the $399 wireless-controller-equipped premium package.

Overall, Microsoft took in $10.81 billion during the July-September quarter, the first of its fiscal year. That was an 11 percent year-on-year increase--the same percentage bump its quarterly operating income enjoyed, going from $4.05 billion during the same period in 2005 to $4.47 billion in this year's July-September quarter. Net quarterly income was $3.48 billion, which came out to $0.35 per share."
Okay, so MS went from losing $96 million in July-September of 2006 to turning a profit with the 360 just one month later? All this without an increase in console sales?

Please, someone explain to me how that works. :rolleyes: And then there's this article from MS itself:

http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3963&Itemid=2

Since Microsoft entered the console market in 2001, the Xbox strategy has been one of heavy investment, leading to significant losses in its home and entertainment division.

The losses are clear in recent financial reports. For fiscal year 2005, Microsoft’s game division posted a $485 million net loss. In fiscal 2006, ended June 30, 2006, the division lost $1.26 billion.

Although financial losses have been part of the Xbox’s tradition since its launch, Microsoft entertainment and devices president Robbie Bach said earlier this year that he expects that to change in the next couple of years. During the 2006 Microsoft Financial Analyst Meeting, he said that fiscal 2007 would again show losses for the company’s games business, but in fiscal 2008, he said that gaming would turn a profit, which would be a first for a full fiscal year.

More importantly, if MS was making a profit on the 360 so soon, don't you think that Bill Gates, Peter Moore, or Robbie Bach would be crowing about it? What better way to put your competitors in their place? When PS2 made profits Sony announced it and introduced the PSP and then the PS2 redesign. They also cut the price.

Believe me, if MS was making that much per console this soon, they'd be announcing it. Also, Ms is still posting losses on the original Xbox. The 360 is selling less than the Xbox was this time in its cycle; since it's a lot more expensive to make, how could it possibly be turning a profit so soon?:rolleyes: Can someone please answer me that?

The only companies making a profit from console sales are Nintendo with the Wii and Sony with the PS2 and PSP.

So please, Masked, NEO, and Glockstar, where are the numbers and empirical evidence to show that MS, unlike any other console manufacturer sans Nintendo, has turned a profit so soon on such an expensive product? Also tell me, if the analyst's estimate is true, how come MS hasn't released a statement about it? Why wouldn't they?

Oh and as for Sony not doing a PS4, I know you Xbots are short on common sense so here's a link for ya:

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=70579

Make sure to show those too. Hardware sales and software sales for the PS3. So far I havent seen anyone do that yet. But yet over 600,000 Wii consoles has been sold. Anybody knows how many PS3's have been sold? Any milk drinker out there got numbers to go along with all that unbiased journalism? :10:

[Cuddly Knife]

Yeah. Yet, you can't get extra game content without Xbox Live.
Yes you can, you can go to stores where they have demos and DL content, or you can get it from OXM, and you don't have to pay for a lot of it anyways, because with a Silver account, all Marketplace content(free or not) is avaliable to any one who has a 360 and a high-speed connection.

[ilnadmy]

Yeah, except if you get the 'tard pack you can't even download anything to your hard disk.

[trebor]

And a quick search at Pricegrabber gives these results:
http://www.pricegrabber.com/search_attrib.php/page_id=161

iPod nano 2GB costs $125 (or 189 if you want the 2G one)
A Sandisk 2GB player WITH SD Flashcard support is $110.

An iPods nano 4GB costs $149. A Zen Micro 4GB costs $99. A Sandisk 4GB is $142.

The 8GB Nano is $237 while the Sandisk 8GB is $192

A 5G Ipod Video is $222.
The Zune is $228.

Ipod Shuffle 2G 1GB is $74, Ipod 1GB Nano is $99, while a Zen Nano Plus is $60.

Notice a trend? This is just from one site, but I can assure you the pricing is similar on other sites, and in retail stores over the counter. It's actually worse over the counter, at least here where I live.

Um, hello, apples and oranges. Do Sandisks have color LCD screen? No. Are Sandisks or Zens compatible with Macs? No. Do Sandisks or Zens come with software that makes organizing song libraries and file transferal a breeze? No.





And yet all iPods gives you is a the ability to playback MP3s and view pictures and iTunes (which itself is more expensive), while a MuVo plays back MP3s, has FM Radio, and has user-replaceable batteries so 5 years down the road you won't have to pay for an "Ipod care plan" to fix it! Many Sandisk players support SD cards, so you can expand the available memory of the player, turning your 2GB player into a 4GB or 6GB player with hot-swap capability if needed. The Zune is slightly more expensive on that site, though you do get a lot more, and if you compare it to the "enhanced Ipod 5G" the Zune is cheaper.

iTunes is free, ya chump, and iPods also give you the ability to watch video. Can you do that on a Sandisk? Um, no. Do most people replace their MP3 player batteries after 5 years or the MP3 player itself? That's a toughy.


Let's look at iTunes itself. Downloading a track from Itunes costs around 1$, but you can avail of the same service at the same price from other vendors like Napster.
Then we have services like eMusic, which can offer like $10 a month for music that comes out at like 30cents per track, or allofmp3.com where a track costs a few cents (depends on the format, about 3-10cents per track), comes out far cheaper than iTunes. Or you can get the $15 a month for 1000 tracks per month. And if you still love CDs, how about YourMusic.com which sells entire CDs for $6 a pop.

You're forgetting the best thing about iTunes - CD ripping and library organization. Does Napster allow you to share your music across a network like iTunes? Um, no. In fact, do ANY of the digital music sources you mentioned, other than iTunes, allow you to do that? Um, no.


No, iPods are more expensive than any other MP3 player in general (except probably the Zune, which is on par in price, although granted the Zune gives you more bang for your buck -- and you know down the road MS is gonna lower the price and make its MP3 player more competitively priced even if they have to subsidize it)

It all depends on what you are willing to pay for and comparing MP3s that have different features means Jack sh!t - and Jack left town.


Did you even do any kind of research or did you blindly bite into the brainwashing that Apple has done on the mass market?

Look who's talking - you don't know anything about iTunes, yet you are trying to argue that it is the "worst" MP3 software on the market. You don't have a friggen clue.


Getting music back from iPods to pirate isn't the goal here. It's getting it back from the iPod to back it up, or get it back to your PC/Mac in case you had a harddrive crash. I know quite a few people who got into a pickle after buying tons of stuff from ITunes, transfer to their Ipod, then had their harddrives crash on them. (I was able to help them out fortunately using some 3rd party Ipod utilities -- many of which were far better than ITunes). It's also a hell of a lot easier to move the stuff around if you have multiple mp3 players -- I have a MuVo, an iPod and an iPaq, and the device that has the biggest trouble communicating to the other devices (or to the PC itself) is the iPod. This is especially bothersome as the iPod could easily have been your "music repository" -- it has the biggest capacity out of all my devices and could have been my backup vault, but since it's such a hassle to transfer stuff to and from it, that plan just didn't work to my chagrin.

Sorry, but you have ZERO argument here. Anyone who doesn't back up their music with a hard copy (i.e. the CD you ripped it from, or burning a CD of the music you purchased) is an idiot, pure and simple.

[Cuddly Knife]

Yeah, except if you get the 'tard pack you can't even download anything to your hard disk.
LOL True that. But fvck, don't be a tard. Get the best. I think the same way about the PS3, don't get the 20 gig minus when you can get the 60+ for only one more bill.

[Gadfly2317]

Wow. Well, that ends that. Trebor really really loves the ipod! I'm not even going into that again. . . I love my open format MP3 player, easy, plays everything from WMV and MP3 to obscure formats like OGG, displays jpeg and word docs, is dirt cheap, doesn't make me look like a barbie doll modelling the hip new fashion accessory. Yeah. I will never understand Ipod love, but I don't think we should legislate against manpod-ipod civil unions. :wink:

[Cuddly Knife]

LOL, manpod!

[trebor]

Wow. Well, that ends that. Trebor really really loves the ipod! I'm not even going into that again. . . I love my open format MP3 player, easy, plays everything from WMV and MP3 to obscure formats like OGG, displays jpeg and word docs, is dirt cheap, doesn't make me look like a barbie doll modelling the hip new fashion accessory. Yeah. I will never understand Ipod love, but I don't think we should legislate against manpod-ipod civil unions. :wink:

Correction - I love iTunes. Ipods are merely a byproduct of that love. In fact, I don't even use my iPod anymore.

Plus, it would be kinda stupid of Apple to support WMV files, wouldn't it? Why support their biggest competitor's proprietary media format? Other than that, iTunes can work with MP3, AAC, AIFF (probably the most important format mentioned here), and WAV media formats. Plus Quicktime, which is head and shoulders superior to WMV.

[joquito]

I just have a problem with the itunes store. I refuse to pay full price for songs of very low quality and restricted use. If you don't dig the itunes store, you have no real reason to buy an ipod over any other device.

Allofmp3.com offered the best model but was shaky from a legal standpoint.

[ilnadmy]

LOL True that. But fvck, don't be a tard. Get the best. I think the same way about the PS3, don't get the 20 gig minus when you can get the 60+ for only one more bill.
I agree. If I were to buy a 360, I'd get the $400 system. I would get the 20 gig PS3, if only it had wireless. However, I probably would eventually want to upgrade the HDD, and it would probably run me more than $100, so sticking with the $600 model would probably be the safer bet.

[NEO-360]

Um, hello, apples and oranges. Do Sandisks have color LCD screen? No. Are Sandisks or Zens compatible with Macs? No. Do Sandisks or Zens come with software that makes organizing song libraries and file transferal a breeze? No.






iTunes is free, ya chump, and iPods also give you the ability to watch video. Can you do that on a Sandisk? Um, no. Do most people replace their MP3 player batteries after 5 years or the MP3 player itself? That's a toughy.



You're forgetting the best thing about iTunes - CD ripping and library organization. Does Napster allow you to share your music across a network like iTunes? Um, no. In fact, do ANY of the digital music sources you mentioned, other than iTunes, allow you to do that? Um, no.



It all depends on what you are willing to pay for and comparing MP3s that have different features means Jack sh!t - and Jack left town.



Look who's talking - you don't know anything about iTunes, yet you are trying to argue that it is the "worst" MP3 software on the market. You don't have a friggen clue.



Sorry, but you have ZERO argument here. Anyone who doesn't back up their music with a hard copy (i.e. the CD you ripped it from, or burning a CD of the music you purchased) is an idiot, pure and simple.

Btw, I love my Nano iPod. Mochan been sniffing to many lines. I dunno whats his beef with hating on those wonderful toys we love so much. He needs to stick to the PC game forum. Because in System Wars hes out of his league here.:incazzato:

Good post trebor!!! :cool:

[DrunkenThumbmaster]

Also, back on topic. Am I the only one who didn't think the first Killzone was a bad game? Overhyped, yes. Bad, not by any means. I liked the graphicals style to the game: gritty. I guess I'm a sucker for that. The story was good too imo. I have no reason to believe Killlzone 2 won't be better. I prefer Killzone over Halo, but I think it's more the fact that I like squad based realism more than one man rambo affairs, probably why I never finished Half-Life or HL2, though I loved the multiplayer mods. I just can't get into Halo. I've had it on my PC for a while and I just don't understand what's so great about it and god knows I've played it enough times, while not enjoying it, just to find out why it was so great. Again, like Killzone, I don't think Halo is bad, I just don't think it's great. However i've made that point many a time, and ya'll have argued it many a time so I suppose it's a mute point now.

I actually thought Killzone was pretty good online. To me it was sony's best online game better than Socom & Ratchet. It wasn't as good as Halo 2 online but very playable.

[DrunkenThumbmaster]

Are you guys so blind that you can't realize that the GC and PS2 both lasted longer than the Xbox did? And you're actually gloating about this? Talk about retarded.

Look at the release of Xbox games this year and look at the release of GC games this year. Now tell me which system has been around longer.

Besides the buisness side is different with the 360 MS is making a profit on the system already. To this day they are still losing money on the Xbox.

[DrunkenThumbmaster]

Because it's pointless. I can very well say that I bought a Xbox360. 1. Can you verify it?


actually it's easy to verify. Give out your gamer tag and put your 360 online. You don't even need to pay for Xbox live use the free silver account.

[folken001]

actually it's easy to verify. Give out your gamer tag and put your 360 online. You don't even need to pay for Xbox live use the free silver account.

That is if it's me trying to prove that I have a Xbox360. I never said that I would eventually own a Xbox360. If one of the xbots say he has a PS3, how are you going to verify that?

More so, I could simply just use my friend's gamer tag.

[folken001]

Um, hello, apples and oranges. Do Sandisks have color LCD screen? No. Are Sandisks or Zens compatible with Macs? No. Do Sandisks or Zens come with software that makes organizing song libraries and file transferal a breeze? No.

Dude, you sound like a guy who never had a Ipod. itune is one of the ****test programs I've ever used. That is completely why I use Yam. I have never used Scandisks before so I don't know much about it. However, Zens can play wmv format and ipod can't.

iTunes is free, ya chump, and iPods also give you the ability to watch video. Can you do that on a Sandisk? Um, no. Do most people replace their MP3 player batteries after 5 years or the MP3 player itself? That's a toughy.

Not all ipods allow you to watch video.

Out of 3 ipod nanos I had, they all broke down within a year. My video ipod has been working great though. However, the problem with video ipod is its battery can barely last through a full movie. On top of that, you would have to convert avi to mp4. Do you have any idea how long that takes?

You're forgetting the best thing about iTunes - CD ripping and library organization. Does Napster allow you to share your music across a network like iTunes? Um, no. In fact, do ANY of the digital music sources you mentioned, other than iTunes, allow you to do that? Um, no.

itune doesn't give you that much freedom either. You have no way of extract mp3s that are saved on ipod to anywhere through itune. Yea, the ones you paid for. That's why, again, I use YAM.

Look who's talking - you don't know anything about iTunes, yet you are trying to argue that it is the "worst" MP3 software on the market. You don't have a friggen clue.

I don't know if it's the worst. I don't need comparison to know it is garbage though.



Sorry, but you have ZERO argument here. Anyone who doesn't back up their music with a hard copy (i.e. the CD you ripped it from, or burning a CD of the music you purchased) is an idiot, pure and simple.

I don't. I backup stuff on hdds or external hdds. God knows how many gigs of mp3s i have. my room would be filled with CDs (even dvds) if I back them all up.

[ilnadmy]

Look at the release of Xbox games this year and look at the release of GC games this year. Now tell me which system has been around longer.

Besides the buisness side is different with the 360 MS is making a profit on the system already. To this day they are still losing money on the Xbox.
Now I don't know who to believe. On the one hand, I read an article where an analyst said that MS is making profit on the 360. On the other hand, Zilla made a valid point in another thread that MS's gaming division is still posting massive losses, even though it should technically be making profits on its games.

I do know one thing though. If MS is going to screw me over just because it wants to make a "smart business decision", then it's losing my business. I mean hell, when Apple releases a new iPod, they don't stop supporting the older ones. When Sony released the PS3, and the PS2 before that, it didn't stop supporting the previous console until a good year into the life of the new one. Hell, even Nintendo is releasing Twilight Princess on the GC. MS is the only company to actually ask its customers to bend over because they're losing too much money.

[Mochan]

Um, hello, apples and oranges. Do Sandisks have color LCD screen? No. Are Sandisks or Zens compatible with Macs? No. Do Sandisks or Zens come with software that makes organizing song libraries and file transferal a breeze? No.


The Sandisk I gave does not have a color screen. But... does an iPod Shuffle have a color screen? There are Sandisk models that are in the price range as the Shuffle AND have Flashcard support. I have a Pensonic (LOL yeah I know) 1GB Gigabox which I bought for $58 (almost half the price of a 2G iPod Shuffle 1GB) and it has a color screen, whereas all your dinky iPod Shuffle does is act as a lapel accessory. My Pensonic can also play AMVs, read ebooks (not really recommended, its too small I use my iPaq instead), a ton of audio formats, has FM radio, can record voice (or the FM radio feed), and even ha