Sony drops price of PS2 to $149.99

[Sun Tzu]

<b>From IGN.com</b>

May 11, 2004 - Sony held its E3 2004 press conference today, and we're proud to present the conference in its full, uncut and uncensored form. That what the ladies like, so we hear.

Clocking in at over an hour, Sony had plenty to show off. Firstly was price drop announcement, confirming that the PS2 is now available for $149. After that, it was all about Sony's online presence and general pimpage of such things. The highlight of this was the 8 player Ratchet and Clank: Up Your Arsenal multiplayer demo. It looked quite nice, indeed.

But then there was the PSP. Full, updated specs were given and video was shown of quite a few games in action. EA had its own trailer to show with PSP content, featuring NFL Street, Tiger Woods, Need for Speed Underground and more. You won't want to miss all those.

To close things up, talk of the Cell processor was made. You'll just have to watch that part for yourself to figure out what exactly is in store for gamers.

-------------------

w00t! I just got back from Best Buy where I got $50 back, seeing as how I just purchased a PS2 about a week and a half ago. :)

[Pumpy Tudors]

Gee, it's about time the PS2 price dropped. It's been out for how many years now? ;)

[Sun Tzu]

Actualy if I remember correctly, it was $299.99 when it was first released. so :p

[Pumpy Tudors]

So only 3.5 years (?) to get to half price? Yowza. It's old technology now! :)

[Chubby]

By the way, there is a bundle with a game (i forget which one), a PS2, AND a ethernet adapter for the same $149.99 that will be out soon too.

[Sun Tzu]

By the way, there is a bundle with a game (i forget which one), a PS2, AND a ethernet adapter for the same $149.99 that will be out soon too.

The game is ATV Off-Road Fury 2. Not exactly the greatest game in the world, but mildly fun. That is the bundle I got, and it's @ Best Buy now for $149. That $50 I just got back is going to pay for my year subscription to X-box live when I get it in a few months. Most likely when ESPN Football hits the shelves.

[stevew]

I dont think Im buying Sony this generation. First they go all freaking rediculous with the lack of quantity at launch, then the price drops have all been underwhelming. Im also not too fond of spending all that cash on the accesories that they make you buy.

[kingnebwsu]

What do you mean? (multitap, memory card for starters...ah just an extra $60)

[Chubby]

What do you mean? (multitap, memory card for starters...ah just an extra $60)
which you would also have to spend if you go with MS.

[Sun Tzu]

I think this drop puts the two about even as far as $$$ goes. There is about an equal amount of accessories to purchase for each system if you were to get one now.

PS2 - Multitap (if you're into more than 2 players), Memory card/s
Xbox - Xbox Live, a game, DVD remote

[Chubby]

I think this drop puts the two about even as far as $$$ goes. There is about an equal amount of accessories to purchase for each system if you were to get one now.

PS2 - Multitap (if you're into more than 2 players), Memory card/s
Xbox - Xbox Live, a game, DVD remote


Well not if you get the bundle (and why wouldn't you) since that gets you online for free where you have to pay with XBox. Multitap isn't that big of a deal anyways, even less so with the bundle now. You need a $30 memory card (I don't know if XBox needs them)

[SackAttack]

which you would also have to spend if you go with MS.

Not true. Four controllers are built in, and so is a hard drive. There may be extra expenditures involved with Xbox, but to say that you'd spend the same amount getting the PS2 to the point where it does everything Xbox does as you would on buying an Xbox is patently untrue.

[Chubby]

Not true. Four controllers are built in, and so is a hard drive. There may be extra expenditures involved with Xbox, but to say that you'd spend the same amount getting the PS2 to the point where it does everything Xbox does as you would on buying an Xbox is patently untrue.
With the bundle you are wrong.

$149 buys you - Sony system, online play, dvd playback, one controller
$149 buys you - MS system, NO online play, NO dvd playback, one controller

to be equal

Sony - purchase multitap, memory card, 3 controllers
MS - purchase XBox live, dvd controller, 3 controllers

Looks like it is patently true!

[Sun Tzu]

Don't forget Xbox does not come with a game when you buy the $149 system.

*edit* Heh, well scratch that. Looks like the Xbox now comes with some game called "amped" ??? I'm guessing it's the equivalent to ATV 2.

[SackAttack]

With the bundle you are wrong.

$149 buys you - Sony system, online play, dvd playback, one controller
$149 buys you - MS system, NO online play, NO dvd playback, one controller

to be equal

Sony - purchase multitap, memory card, 3 controllers
MS - purchase XBox live, dvd controller, 3 controllers

Looks like it is patently true!

I lost a long-winded post trying to backspace over a typo (my browser apparently thought I was trying to go back), so I won't re-type it (mostly because I don't have time).

In the immortal words of Inigo Montoya: "No, no, that is too much; let me sum up."

I'm going to type the costs of each system in order to have them be on equal footing, technologically. One note: the hard drive does still require a memory card for PS2, because the updated DVD drivers that ship with it require a memory card, and older games won't support the hard drive at all. I consider it a necessary expense for PS2 because of the ability to cache files for faster loading times (Resident Evil: Outbreak is a bitch to play otherwise), and the future ability for downloadable content.

PS2 system: $150
memory card: $25
hard drive: $100
four player support: $35
network adapter: $40 ($20 if you bought it in the bundle instead of buying a progressive scan PS2)
online communication: $20 (keyboard) or $30 (headset)
DVD playback: included, but you have to use the game controller. If you want a DVD remote, that's $20

Total cost: $350-400 (depending on how you purchase the items, and if you get the remote)

For Xbox:

Xbox system: $150
memory card: not required
hard drive: included
four player support: included
network adapter: included, but Live play is $70
DVD playback: $30
online communication: included in the $70 cost of the Live starter kit.

Total cost: $250

That's, at minimum, $100 cheaper. Even with the $50/yearly cost of Xbox Live, you'd have to be a Live subscriber for 3 years before the Xbox was even *equal* in cost to a PS2. Even if you buy 3 extra controllers for each system, that's still only knocking $15 off the differential for PS2 (PS2 controllers are $25, Xbox are $30).

Not really sure where you're getting the idea that the PS2 memory card somehow makes the system equal to Xbox, because all it really does is give you the ability to save game progress, and some PS2 games require a significant portion of that memory card. EA's football games, for example, routinely require 3-4 MB. Xbox, on the other hand, can absorb that without even breaking a sweat. I've got three memory cards for my PS2 games, and only one for my Xbox - and THAT was so that I could snag files off of the hard drive when my first Xbox went kaput (I'm on my second unit for both consoles).

It's a nice try, Chubby, but your argument is misleading and, unfortunately for PS2 owners, flat out wrong.

We've got some lovely parting gifts for you, though! :D

[Chubby]

I lost a long-winded post trying to backspace over a typo (my browser apparently thought I was trying to go back), so I won't re-type it (mostly because I don't have time).

In the immortal words of Inigo Montoya: "No, no, that is too much; let me sum up."

I'm going to type the costs of each system in order to have them be on equal footing, technologically. One note: the hard drive does still require a memory card for PS2, because the updated DVD drivers that ship with it require a memory card, and older games won't support the hard drive at all. I consider it a necessary expense for PS2 because of the ability to cache files for faster loading times (Resident Evil: Outbreak is a bitch to play otherwise), and the future ability for downloadable content.

PS2 system: $150
memory card: $25
hard drive: not required, it's used for 1 game and you have a mem card
four player support: $35
network adapter: FREE with bundle
online communication: FREE, use your PC USB keyboard (keyboard) or $30 (headset)
DVD playback: included, but you have to use the game controller. If you want a DVD remote, that's $20 controller works fine

Total cost: $210-260 (depending on how you purchase the items, and if you get the remote)

For Xbox:

Xbox system: $150
memory card: not required
hard drive: included
four player support: included
network adapter: included, but Live play is $70
DVD playback: $30
online communication: included in the $70 cost of the Live starter kit.
Funny, you forgot to add in the keyboard and headset here
Total cost: $250ish (I think LIve comes with a headset?)

That's, at minimum, $100 cheaper. Even with the $50/yearly cost of Xbox Live, you'd have to be a Live subscriber for 3 years before the Xbox was even *equal* in cost to a PS2. Even if you buy 3 extra controllers for each system, that's still only knocking $15 off the differential for PS2 (PS2 controllers are $25, Xbox are $30).

Not really sure where you're getting the idea that the PS2 memory card somehow makes the system equal to Xbox, because all it really does is give you the ability to save game progress, and some PS2 games require a significant portion of that memory card. EA's football games, for example, routinely require 3-4 MB. Xbox, on the other hand, can absorb that without even breaking a sweat. I've got three memory cards for my PS2 games, and only one for my Xbox - and THAT was so that I could snag files off of the hard drive when my first Xbox went kaput (I'm on my second unit for both consoles).

It's a nice try, Chubby, but your argument is misleading and, unfortunately for PS2 owners, flat out wrong.

We've got some lovely parting gifts for you, though! :D
<sigh> no I have to correct you.

PS2 adapater with the new bundle = FREE
You don't "need" the HDD, that's why you bought a memory card. Buying both is redundant if buying the system for the 1st time.

I made my changes to reflect how it really is in your reply. Do you even play on a PS2? This isn't the PS1 memory cards where a franchise takes up your whole card. There is plenty of room on each cards for multiple franchises AND multiple game saves.

[SackAttack]

<sigh> no I have to correct you.

PS2 adapater with the new bundle = FREE

Really? I haven't seen anything to that effect in the press releases Sony SENDS ME ON A DAILY BASIS, but perhaps I just didn't read them carefully enough. Even IF true, that's, at max, a $20 difference. Still doesn't close the gap.

You don't "need" the HDD, that's why you bought a memory card. Buying both is redundant if buying the system for the 1st time.

Bzzt! Wrong! Thanks for playing. The memory card doesn't remotely do what the hard drive will for the PS2, and after all, we ARE talking about putting the two systems on equal footing, aren't we? All the memory card will do is save your game progress. That's it. It won't cache files for faster loading times (as the hard drive will), it won't be capable of handling downloadable game content - or, if it will, the content will be so small as to be effectively irrelevant, and there are at least two games that are either near-unplayable, or unplayable without the hard drive. Moving forward, there are going to be features in games that you cannot use without the hard drive. Remember the Madden 2005 preview, with the whole thing about weekly highlights? That's right, you can't do that with a memory card. And that doesn't even get into other things you can do with the Xbox hard drive (that you'll soon be able to, but can't yet do, with the PS2 drive).

So, yeah, if all you want to do is save your game progress, fine, get yourself a memory card, but don't delude yourself into thinking that the memory card is putting the PS2 on the exact same footing as the Xbox, because it ain't.

I made my changes to reflect how it really is in your reply. Do you even play on a PS2? This isn't the PS1 memory cards where a franchise takes up your whole card. There is plenty of room on each cards for multiple franchises AND multiple game saves.

Did I say one franchise takes up your whole card? No. I said the football franchises average about 3-4 MB each (which, if you were doing math, you'd know isn't the whole card). I said that if you have a Madden and an NCAA save on the card, right there you've got, minimum, 75% of that card spoken for. If you look at GTA, another popular title, that's a game that eats up 500k with each game save.

Funny, that 8 megs sure disappeared fast, didn't it?

As far as your "changes," only one game currently requires the HDD - FFXI - but another, Resident Evil: Outbreak, is nearly unplayable thanks to the loading times, if you don't have the HDD. As I mentioned earlier, there will be features in upcoming games that make use of the hard drive, and the downloadable content for games like SOCOM II will pretty much require the HDD, because you're unlikely to fit new maps and such onto a memory card. And, once again, we're talking about putting the systems ON. EQUAL. FOOTING. If you honestly think the PS2 memory card puts the system on equal footing with the Xbox's hard drive, you're an even bigger idiot than I thought.

your FREE comment with online communication assumes that the buyer *has* a USB keyboard. Until I bought one for my PS2, I didn't, and yet, I have two computers.

The network adapter thing you may be right on, but I was operating under the understanding that the online bundle was dropping to $169, while the basic one was down to $149. I can't imagine they'd sell both units for $149, unless they're phasing one or the other out. Why would anybody ever buy the basic one if the online bundle was the same price?

Also: you're a moron. Did you not read where I said the headset was included in the cost of that $70 for Xbox Live? The $70 you're paying gets you a headset, Crimson Skies, and a year of Xbox Live service. Learn to fucking read.

[vex]

Calm down children.

[Chubby]

The network adapter thing you may be right on, but I was operating under the understanding that the online bundle was dropping to $169, while the basic one was down to $149. I can't imagine they'd sell both units for $149, unless they're phasing one or the other out. Why would anybody ever buy the basic one if the online bundle was the same price?

Also: you're a moron. Did you not read where I said the headset was included in the cost of that $70 for Xbox Live? The $70 you're paying gets you a headset, Crimson Skies, and a year of Xbox Live service. Learn to fucking read.


I can't read Sony's mind. I believe however that they are doing the new bundle to boost penetration of the adapter. Sun Tzu bought the ethernet/game bundle so I guess you aren't getting all those press releases now are you? :D

Also: I only edited that like 3 minutes ago. So while you were ranting i already fixed it (on the headset) :p

You are so anti-Sony, anti-EA it's not even funny.

The cost of the HDD to the consumer isn't exactly set in stone. One could argue that it costs $50 and that you are buying FFXI for $50 at the same time. It is still nowhere near NEEDED at this point.

To get the systems to do the same things, play online games, save game files it costs THE SAME OR LESS to have a PS2 vs XBox. The hard drive lets you save games (which a memory card does) and loads things faster. It is NOT needed at this point except for 1 game.

[SackAttack]

Actually, this time of year, I get close to 100 press releases per DAY from various companies. So you'll of course forgive me if something gets overlooked. As far as the bundle goes, if it's true about the pricing, then that's a great move for Sony, and something they should have done six months ago. I'm not arguing whether or not they did, only saying that I'm not willing to concede that point until I can rustle up confirmation one way or the other in my inbox. You understand.

Anti-EA? Yes, absolutely, but what does that have to do with our discussion? I'm not ragging on EA for the size of their save files, or features that will require a hard drive. I'm using them as examples because their games are played by a fairly large percentage of this board. It's an example more people can identify with. But I'm not anti-EA in the context of this argument.

Anti-Sony? To a degree, perhaps. I detest their business practices with regards to the PlayStation brand, but I'm honest enough to realize that Microsoft and Nintendo are no angels either. How I feel about my PS2, my Xbox, and my GameCube is completely independent of how I feel about the companies that manufacture those consoles.

And once again, Chubby, you're distorting the use of the word "same". To give the consoles the *ability* to do the same thing absolutely requires the PS2 hard drive. And, sure, you can justify the cost as saying "Well, it's really only $50, because you're buying a game too," but that doesn't change the fact that when you take that hard drive up to the counter, they're going to say "$100 plus sales tax, please." Regardless of whether you're getting FFXI, or even plan to play it, you're still getting hit with that $100 price tag.

[SackAttack]

Dola,

To further clarify, what it seems to me that you're doing is trying to dumb down the overall capabilities of the Xbox in order to justify "only" having a memory card for PS2. You're ignoring the fact that Xbox can do things with its hard drive beyond simply saving game progress that the PS2 cannot do with simply the memory card.

You can argue that until you're blue in the face, but it's an indisputable fact, and to try and paint the two systems as being equal without giving the PS2 those added capabilities is asinine.

[Chubby]

Dola,

To further clarify, what it seems to me that you're doing is trying to dumb down the overall capabilities of the Xbox in order to justify "only" having a memory card for PS2. You're ignoring the fact that Xbox can do things with its hard drive beyond simply saving game progress that the PS2 cannot do with simply the memory card.

You can argue that until you're blue in the face, but it's an indisputable fact, and to try and paint the two systems as being equal without giving the PS2 those added capabilities is asinine.
Any 2 consoles are never going to be "equal". Each will have it's advantages based on when it was released and it's specs. The XBox SHOULD be technologically superior to the PS2 as it came out afterwards. You're trying to prove that it costs more to get the same performance out of a PS2 compared to a XBox. It should, but to get the same FUNCTIONALITY out of the consoles it costs the same or less to buy a PS2 than an XBox.

And that's fine if you overlooked it, but get off you high horse about "Well I get press releases all the time so I would know blah blah blah" crap when trying to debate a point that you should know.

Well if you buy the dance dance pad and the fishing reel it'll cost even more!!!!!!!! :rolleyes:

How much does it cost each systetm to get online and play games? It costs less for a PS2, end of story.

[ISiddiqui]

To even compare a memory card to the X-Box's hard drive is ridiculous. What happens if you want to play a bunch of different games and have many people in your house that play it all? You'd have to by much more than one memory card. In contrast, there is one hard drive included in the X-Box.

And what if you don't want to play games online? Then the X-Box Live cost doesn't factor in, does it? What if you don't want to watch DVD's from your console? Then the DVD controller doesn't factor in, does it? What if you JUST want to play games? The X-Box offers more bang for the buck.

[Chubby]

To even compare a memory card to the X-Box's hard drive is ridiculous. What happens if you want to play a bunch of different games and have many people in your house that play it all? You'd have to by much more than one memory card. In contrast, there is one hard drive included in the X-Box.

And what if you don't want to play games online? Then the X-Box Live cost doesn't factor in, does it? What if you don't want to watch DVD's from your console? Then the DVD controller doesn't factor in, does it? What if you JUST want to play games? The X-Box offers more bang for the buck.

What happens if I only want to play PS2 exclusive games? :rolleyes:

[SackAttack]

Any 2 consoles are never going to be "equal". Each will have it's advantages based on when it was released and it's specs. The XBox SHOULD be technologically superior to the PS2 as it came out afterwards. You're trying to prove that it costs more to get the same performance out of a PS2 compared to a XBox. It should, but to get the same FUNCTIONALITY out of the consoles it costs the same or less to buy a PS2 than an XBox.

But you're trying to ignore that same FUNCTIONALITY. You're saying that only the features that support your argument matter, and if the Xbox does more than the stripped-down PS2 package, then that's okay, because it still supports your assertion that the PS2 is less expensive, and that's patently untrue.

And that's fine if you overlooked it, but get off you high horse about "Well I get press releases all the time so I would know blah blah blah" crap when trying to debate a point that you should know.

I'm not saying that I have overlooked it. I'm saying that I haven't seen any mention of that in the releases they've sent me, but that I'll certainly go back and look, but that EVEN THEN, that's only a MINIMAL impact on the price difference.

Well if you buy the dance dance pad and the fishing reel it'll cost even more!!!!!!!! :rolleyes:

Straw man argument, chubbster. You're really good at those, I've noticed. We're not talking about peripherals for games here. We're talking about things made by the console manufacturers for the express purpose of creating added FUNCTIONALITY for the systems. Hard drives. Memory cards. Network adapters, things of those nature.

No matter how you spin this, Chubby, it either comes down to you can do the same things you can do with Xbox at an added cost, or you can do less than what you can do with Xbox at a reduced cost. There is no middle ground.

Either you're cheaping out and trying to claim that PS2 is cheaper (never mind all the things you're missing), or you go the more expensive route and discover that, yeah, for four player action, for downloadable content (among other things), for game save capabilities, etc, the PS2 is simply a more expensive system.

Don't be a fucking retard, here. This is part of Sony's business model. This is how they WANT it. They WANT to maximize their revenue from the various components of the console. Sure, they could sell a PS2 that has all that stuff built in, and sure, they could sell it for the same price as Xbox, but that impacts their revenue, which impacts their stock. They've already established that their business model works for them, fine, whatever.

Just don't be blind to the fact that the PS2 is more expensive if you want the same FUNCTIONALITY out of it.

[SackAttack]

What happens if I only want to play PS2 exclusive games? :rolleyes:

Not really many of those anymore, are there? Shame, too.

[Chubby]

Not really many of those anymore, are there? Shame, too.

Yeah those pesky GTA games sure do stink.

Getting the game on XBox a year after it gets released on PS2 sure does stink doesn't it?

[SackAttack]

Yep. Must not be much fun getting Rainbow Six 3 six months to a year after Xbox users have had it, or Splinter Cell and Splinter Cell: Pandora Tomorrow within the same window, either. Or, hell, ESPN MLB a month or two late.

But those are only a few titles. The vast majority of multiplatform stuff is a simultaneous release.

[Chubby]

Straw man argument, chubbster. You're really good at those, I've noticed. We're not talking about peripherals for games here. We're talking about things made by the console manufacturers for the express purpose of creating added FUNCTIONALITY for the systems. Hard drives. Memory cards. Network adapters, things of those nature.

No matter how you spin this, Chubby, it either comes down to you can do the same things you can do with Xbox at an added cost, or you can do less than what you can do with Xbox at a reduced cost. There is no middle ground.

Either you're cheaping out and trying to claim that PS2 is cheaper (never mind all the things you're missing), or you go the more expensive route and discover that, yeah, for four player action, for downloadable content (among other things), for game save capabilities, etc, the PS2 is simply a more expensive system.

Don't be a fucking retard, here. This is part of Sony's business model. This is how they WANT it. They WANT to maximize their revenue from the various components of the console. Sure, they could sell a PS2 that has all that stuff built in, and sure, they could sell it for the same price as Xbox, but that impacts their revenue, which impacts their stock. They've already established that their business model works for them, fine, whatever.

Just don't be blind to the fact that the PS2 is more expensive if you want the same FUNCTIONALITY out of it.

hey look the XBox fanboyism comes out again.

Go back and read my edit of your post with prices.

Functionality - play games, play online games, play offline games w/4 players, watch dvds.

What am I missing in that list? The fact that the XBox has in essence, more memory to load faster (the HD) does NOT impact functionality. It is just like any other technological advantage that a console may have when releasing after it's competitor. You're whole argument hinges on the fact that you insist that the HDD is necessary to compare the two systems when it ISN'T.

Functionality is cheaper or the same for a PS2 compared to XBox.

[Chubby]

Yep. Must not be much fun getting Rainbow Six 3 six months to a year after Xbox users have had it, or Splinter Cell and Splinter Cell: Pandora Tomorrow within the same window, either. Or, hell, ESPN MLB a month or two late.

But those are only a few titles. The vast majority of multiplatform stuff is a simultaneous release.

No mention of EA games :rolleyes:

I only bring Ea up because it just further illustrates your fanboyism towards one company (or against one company). I know you're going to praise whatever MS does and I know you're going to bash whatever EA does.

Hell, I'd love to have KOTOR for PS2 but that ain't going to happen. Each system has it's pluses and minues but to say that the PS2 costs more is flat out wrong and is based in your pro-XBox stance.

[SackAttack]

Chubby, it's not just "loading games faster," although I'm glad to see you're starting to acknowledge that. It's also the ability to create custom soundtracks for your games, if you don't like the music it ships with. It's also the ability to download significant game content to extend the life of your play. You've never gotten bored with a game and wished you had something new to do before?

As far as EA, they're irrelevant. Their games aren't exclusive to either platform - online play has been, for PS2, but that's no longer the case, as EA announced yesterday that moving forward, its games will be on Xbox Live. Or had you ignored that?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not an MS sycophant by any means. They do a lot of things I'm not thrilled with, but I'm speaking strictly from the standpoint of hardware functionality, what it does, and what you're paying to get it to do so. My personal feelings towards Microsoft, Sony, or Nintendo haven't entered the equation once, other than the ad hominem attacks you continue to lob up there in an attempt to distract the conversation from the central topic.

EA is irrelevant. Exclusive games are effectively irrelevant, since there are so few of them. My personal feelings towards ANY of these game companies are irrelevant.

Fanboyism? No, sir. I have all the systems, and I play them all. I'm not a fanboy of any one of them. I simply recognize that my Xbox does more than my PS2 does, and does so more cost-effectively.

[JasonC23]

I like my PS2 a lot. I'm sure, if I had an Xbox, I would like it a lot, too.

[Chubby]

Chubby, it's not just "loading games faster," although I'm glad to see you're starting to acknowledge that. It's also the ability to create custom soundtracks for your games, if you don't like the music it ships with. It's also the ability to download significant game content to extend the life of your play. You've never gotten bored with a game and wished you had something new to do before?

As far as EA, they're irrelevant. Their games aren't exclusive to either platform - online play has been, for PS2, but that's no longer the case, as EA announced yesterday that moving forward, its games will be on Xbox Live. Or had you ignored that?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not an MS sycophant by any means. They do a lot of things I'm not thrilled with, but I'm speaking strictly from the standpoint of hardware functionality, what it does, and what you're paying to get it to do so. My personal feelings towards Microsoft, Sony, or Nintendo haven't entered the equation once, other than the ad hominem attacks you continue to lob up there in an attempt to distract the conversation from the central topic.

EA is irrelevant. Exclusive games are effectively irrelevant, since there are so few of them. My personal feelings towards ANY of these game companies are irrelevant.

Fanboyism? No, sir. I have all the systems, and I play them all. I'm not a fanboy of any one of them. I simply recognize that my Xbox does more than my PS2 does, and does so more cost-effectively.

I'm not debating the XBox does more, as i said before it should. By coming out after the PS2 the XBox SHOULD have better specs all the way around.

So the hard drive loads games faster and allows to play your own music? Loading games faster is a technological bonus as I've said before, it's essentially more memory. and play your own music??? it's called a cd player which I'm sure we all have :D

as I pointed out last post; to play games, play online, play offline, watch dvds it costs the same or less on the PS2.

[SackAttack]

You're still ignoring significant downloadable content, Chubby. I can download new maps for my Xbox version of Rainbow Six 3. I can download new missions for my Xbox version of Splinter Cell. Can you do that, absent a hard drive?

Yeah. Didn't think so.

[Calis]

Yeah those pesky GTA games sure do stink.

Getting the game on XBox a year after it gets released on PS2 sure does stink doesn't it?

Getting the game looking a helluva lot better and running a whole lot smoother stinks also. ;)

[Chubby]

You're still ignoring significant downloadable content, Chubby. I can download new maps for my Xbox version of Rainbow Six 3. I can download new missions for my Xbox version of Splinter Cell. Can you do that, absent a hard drive?

Yeah. Didn't think so.

Can we both download new Madden rosters? Yup.
Can we both download new ESPN Baseball rosters? Yup.

I don't have any Rainbow 6 games (or SOCOM or similar games) so I have no idea on maps.

[gstelmack]

hey look the XBox fanboyism comes out again.

Go back and read my edit of your post with prices.

Functionality - play games, play online games, play offline games w/4 players, watch dvds.

What am I missing in that list? The fact that the XBox has in essence, more memory to load faster (the HD) does NOT impact functionality. It is just like any other technological advantage that a console may have when releasing after it's competitor. You're whole argument hinges on the fact that you insist that the HDD is necessary to compare the two systems when it ISN'T.

Functionality is cheaper or the same for a PS2 compared to XBox.
The functionality you are missing is "downloadable content", a huge plus for the Xbox Live! online user experience. New maps, characters, vehicles, songs for some of the karaoke games. Heck, even a new map for KOTOR, a single-player game that is enhanced with Xbox Live!. If you want to play online games, you want the harddrive for downloadable content, otherwise you'll miss out on the servers using the additional content.

I agree with SackAttack: you are picking key PS2 features that require Xbox purchases, while ignoring key Xbox features that require PS2 purchases. Sure, you can make a PS2 bundle that costs the same as an Xbox bundle, but the Xbox is ending up with more features for that same price.

[Franklinnoble]

Wow... I didn't realize until reading this thread that there was such a holy war going on between PS2 and Xbox enthusiasts.

I have a PS2, but I rarely get to play it. I'm almost 30 years old, I have a house, a wife, and two kids. There's just not much time for it. I'd love to have an Xbox, too, but the wife would probably put me in the doghouse for a month for buying a console that I'll never play, and that will only serve to rot the minds of our kids instead. And, truthfully, I'd have to agree with her.

[Chubby]

The functionality you are missing is "downloadable content", a huge plus for the Xbox Live! online user experience. New maps, characters, vehicles, songs for some of the karaoke games. Heck, even a new map for KOTOR, a single-player game that is enhanced with Xbox Live!. If you want to play online games, you want the harddrive for downloadable content, otherwise you'll miss out on the servers using the additional content.

I agree with SackAttack: you are picking key PS2 features that require Xbox purchases, while ignoring key Xbox features that require PS2 purchases. Sure, you can make a PS2 bundle that costs the same as an Xbox bundle, but the Xbox is ending up with more features for that same price.
As I said above, PS2 DOES have downloadable content. Especially for the games I play (sports games). I can't comment too much FPS or other games since I don't know if they have DL content or not for PS2 but I don't see why they couldn't if the files are small (I don't know how big map sizes are) since roster files are downloaded onto my memory card all the time.

[SackAttack]

Franlkin, gaming is less of a mind-rotting activity than watching TV is. Watching TV is a passive exercise, while playing games is more active. That doesn't mean they should game to the exclusion of all other activities (such as reading, writing, artistic/athletic endeavors), but it's certainly less harmful than a lot of people would like to think.

Chubby, once again, you're self-selecting. "Well, I don't have such-and-such, so therefore, it's irrelevant to the argument as a whole!" We can both download rosters, but I'd argue that that's not significant downloadable content. Helll, you could update the rosters by hand and save them to a memory card - and people did do that before Madden went online on PS2, as I recall.

I'm talking about things you can't do by hand. New missions, new characters, new maps, new weapons, episodic games (which haven't been released yet by either company, but both MS and Sony have talked about them). Hell, Sony wants to do movies-on-demand via the PS2. Can't do that without a hard drive. Rosters are great, and I wish Sega had some updated rosters already so Milton Bradley would be on the Dodgers, but that's hardly on the same level of significance as some of the other types of downloads I've just mentioned.

[sterlingice]

Calm down children.
I'm just glad to see that it's not me for once having to argue back and forth with SA this time. Tho, I'm sure it will change after this post. Instead of "The XboX rox0rs ovEr gaMeCube" it's "The XboX rox0rs ov3r teH s0nY".

But, remeber, he's not a fanboy. Just "fair and balanced" for the XBox against us horrible unwashed masses who don't worship the black monolith and prefer the features of our preferred systems. But at least he's handling these arguments in a mature fashion and not calling Chubby every name he can think of while :rolleyes:

SI

[Sun Tzu]

If we're comparing HDD's here, why hasn't anybody mentioned the fact that the PS2 HDD is 40GB, and the MS HDD is 8GB? In that sense, you should add in the extra $$$ it would cost to purchase 5 Xbox systems to match the drive space of the PS2. But then you would have to add in the PS2 expenses in purchasing 4 multitaps, and 19 extra controllers to compare with the 5 more Xbox systems, which of course come with 4 controller slots. Then you would have to add in the added PS2 expenses of purchasing 4 more network adapters, in order to match the now 5 network adapters built into the Xbox. However you can't forget about needing the 5 DVD remotes for the 5 Xbox systems, because who wants a DVD player that doesn't play DVD's? Not me, no siree<i>bob</i>. Is everybody doing the math here along with me? Good, now carry the four, and divide everything by pi. What have you got?

[gstelmack]

I'm just glad to see that it's not me for once having to argue back and forth with SA this time. Tho, I'm sure it will change after this post. Instead of "The XboX rox0rs ovEr gaMeCube" it's "The XboX rox0rs ov3r teH
The fun part is none of this is about which is better. Someone just made an assertion that the two are at the same pricepoint once all features are added, and some of us are politely disagreeing.

[ISiddiqui]

What happens if I only want to play PS2 exclusive games?

And what if I only want to play XBox exclusive games? :p

Let us not forget that X-Box is technologically superior either.

[Chubby]

And what if I only want to play XBox exclusive games? :p

Let us not forget that X-Box is technologically superior either.

I've never argued that point, I've stated it many times. It should be since it came out after the PS2.

[Chubby]

Franlkin, gaming is less of a mind-rotting activity than watching TV is. Watching TV is a passive exercise, while playing games is more active. That doesn't mean they should game to the exclusion of all other activities (such as reading, writing, artistic/athletic endeavors), but it's certainly less harmful than a lot of people would like to think.

Chubby, once again, you're self-selecting. "Well, I don't have such-and-such, so therefore, it's irrelevant to the argument as a whole!" We can both download rosters, but I'd argue that that's not significant downloadable content. Helll, you could update the rosters by hand and save them to a memory card - and people did do that before Madden went online on PS2, as I recall.

I'm talking about things you can't do by hand. New missions, new characters, new maps, new weapons, episodic games (which haven't been released yet by either company, but both MS and Sony have talked about them). Hell, Sony wants to do movies-on-demand via the PS2. Can't do that without a hard drive. Rosters are great, and I wish Sega had some updated rosters already so Milton Bradley would be on the Dodgers, but that's hardly on the same level of significance as some of the other types of downloads I've just mentioned.
{cough}.hack{cough} but I know you are talking about downloadable episodic games.

All those things you just mentioned take up how much space??? (I don't know since I don't play any games that use those yet).

And what about the HD size differential? If you want to force the HD on Sony to be "equal" then you have to force on MS an equal size HD now don't you?

[sterlingice]

If we're comparing HDD's here, why hasn't anybody mentioned the fact that the PS2 HDD is 40GB, and the MS HDD is 8GB? In that sense, you should add in the extra $$$ it would cost to purchase 5 Xbox systems to match the drive space of the PS2. But then you would have to add in the PS2 expenses in purchasing 4 multitaps, and 19 extra controllers to compare with the 5 more Xbox systems, which of course come with 4 controller slots. Then you would have to add in the added PS2 expenses of purchasing 4 more network adapters, in order to match the now 5 network adapters built into the Xbox. However you can't forget about needing the 5 DVD remotes for the 5 Xbox systems, because who wants a DVD player that doesn't play DVD's? Not me, no sireebob. Is everybody doing the math here along with me? Good, now carry the four, and divide everything by pi. What have you got? Sun Tzu, when I get back from class, this is going on my QotD thread :D

SI

[SackAttack]

If we're comparing HDD's here, why hasn't anybody mentioned the fact that the PS2 HDD is 40GB, and the MS HDD is 8GB? In that sense, you should add in the extra $$$ it would cost to purchase 5 Xbox systems to match the drive space of the PS2. But then you would have to add in the PS2 expenses in purchasing 4 multitaps, and 19 extra controllers to compare with the 5 more Xbox systems, which of course come with 4 controller slots. Then you would have to add in the added PS2 expenses of purchasing 4 more network adapters, in order to match the now 5 network adapters built into the Xbox. However you can't forget about needing the 5 DVD remotes for the 5 Xbox systems, because who wants a DVD player that doesn't play DVD's? Not me, no siree<i>bob</i>. Is everybody doing the math here along with me? Good, now carry the four, and divide everything by pi. What have you got?

You're getting ridiculous here, Sun. Yes, the PS2 has a larger hard drive. It almost has to, if Sony is serious about video-on-demand through the PS2. My argument here with Chubby is simply that he's trying to leave out a fairly hefty chunk of the PS2's cost and still say that both systems do the same thing. Which hard drive is larger is irrelevant, because 8 GB and 40 GB is still way more than you're likely to use during the normal life span of a console. By the time you come close to filling up either drive, a new console will be out. But just because it's more than most gamers will need doesn't mean that the feature set incumbent with a hard drive can be ignored.

[Chubby]

You're getting ridiculous here, Sun. Yes, the PS2 has a larger hard drive. It almost has to, if Sony is serious about video-on-demand through the PS2. My argument here with Chubby is simply that he's trying to leave out a fairly hefty chunk of the PS2's cost and still say that both systems do the same thing. Which hard drive is larger is irrelevant, because 8 GB and 40 GB is still way more than you're likely to use during the normal life span of a console. By the time you come close to filling up either drive, a new console will be out. But just because it's more than most gamers will need doesn't mean that the feature set incumbent with a hard drive can be ignored.

So let me get this straight. A PS2 HD being bigger than an XBox HD doesn't matter yet a memorr card (which you didn't add into your XBox figures so now it's even higher) compared to the XBox HD for storage does matter?

"See, if it works in favor of XBox then it's good otherwise it doesn't matter" :rolleyes:

[JasonC23]

What are either of you trying to prove?

[Chubby]

Chubby, once again, you're self-selecting. "Well, I don't have such-and-such, so therefore, it's irrelevant to the argument as a whole!"


Which hard drive is larger is irrelevant, because 8 GB and 40 GB is still way more than you're likely to use during the normal life span of a console.

Who's doing what now?

[SackAttack]

I'm just glad to see that it's not me for once having to argue back and forth with SA this time. Tho, I'm sure it will change after this post. Instead of "The XboX rox0rs ovEr gaMeCube" it's "The XboX rox0rs ov3r teH s0nY".

But, remeber, he's not a fanboy. Just "fair and balanced" for the XBox against us horrible unwashed masses who don't worship the black monolith and prefer the features of our preferred systems. But at least he's handling these arguments in a mature fashion and not calling Chubby every name he can think of while :rolleyes:

SI

Are you trying to pick a fight with me, SI? I haven't, or at least I hope I haven't, implied in this thread that one system is inherently better than any of the others simply because of its technological specs. I love my GameCube, I love my Xbox, and I love my PS2. I have them all, and I use them all for different things. I use my Xbox for my online play, my PS2 for my RPGs and platformers, and my GameCube for Nintendo titles and a few third-party games that aren't (or haven't been) on the other systems.

I've never suggested that the PS2 and the GameCube aren't worth owning simply because they don't do what the Xbox does. The only argument you'll EVER see me make regarding inferiority or superiority is when somebody tries to do what Chubby's done here, and say that the PS2 is oodles cheaper than the Xbox and yet does the same things. It's a false, misleading argument, and I've always done my best to try to expose that.

But if somebody wants just a PS2, a memory card, and a network adapter, that's fine. What do I care? The system serves its purpose for them, they play their games, and they enjoy them. I'm not going to tell somebody what they should or shouldn't play.

All I've said, and all I'm saying, is that if you want to use cost as a benefit or disadvantage towards owning any of these systems, you absolutely have to be honest about what the ultimate costs really are. For the PS2 to do everything Xbox does, as Chubby claims, it's a more expensive proposition.

But that's not the same thing as just buying a basic PS2 system, I realize that. All I'm saying is that for somebody who wants an equivalent piece of hardware, or as close as we can get to one...PS2 is more expensive.

[dawgfan]

A few points:

- Chubby is never wrong, so it's pointless to argue with him.

- Anyone pointing at someone else and calling them a fanboy of a particular game system is more than likely themselves a fanboy of a different system, with their own bias clouding their view.

- Sony is dropping to the $149.99 price point for this reason: Since the Xbox dropped to $149.99, it's been the top-selling game console.

[Chubby]

What are either of you trying to prove?

I can piss farther.

[Chubby]

A few points:

- Chubby is never wrong, so it's pointless to argue with him.

- Anyone pointing at someone else and calling them a fanboy of a particular game system is more than likely themselves a fanboy of a different system, with their own bias clouding their view.

- Sony is dropping to the $149.99 price point for this reason: Since the Xbox dropped to $149.99, it's been the top-selling game console.
this coming from Mr Objectivity that works on MS games :rolleyes:

Go grab the #'s on install base for the consoles. I know you must have lots of time to find them with this year's sports titles getting canned to bow to EA.

[SackAttack]

Chubby, as you said, .hack isn't downloadable episodic. Again, irrelevant. Nice series, but irrelevant.

As far as the hard drive goes, the size of the drive is immaterial. It's what the drive allows you to do. Would I prefer a 40 gig in my Xbox? Hell yeah, I would. But I don't have that option, because it comes preinstalled, and shy of voiding my warranty, I don't have the option to upgrade.

But as I point out, the difference between 8 gigs and 8 megs is relevant, because it goes to the heart of what a system can do. 40 gigs and 8 gigs? Now you're getting to the point of diminishing returns. The larger drive MAY enable the PS2 to do more than the Xbox in the long run, assuming Sony follows through with their video/music-on-demand initiatives that they've been talking about.

But for the purposes of significant content download, loading times, and custom soundtracks, it's really not relevant. Microsoft went with 8 gigs to keep costs down. Sony doesn't have to worry about that, since it's an attachment sold separately, which makes 40 gigs more viable for them.

[Chubby]

honest[/i] about what the ultimate costs really are. For the PS2 to do everything Xbox does, as Chubby claims, it's a more expensive proposition.

But that's not the same thing as just buying a basic PS2 system, I realize that. All I'm saying is that for somebody who wants an equivalent piece of hardware, or as close as we can get to one...PS2 is more expensive.


It's NOT and you refuse to see that. Equivalent? Show my your 40GB HD. Oh wait, when it's convienent for you we don't have to be equivalent...

[Chubby]

Chubby, as you said, .hack isn't downloadable episodic. Again, irrelevant. Nice series, but irrelevant.

As far as the hard drive goes, the size of the drive is immaterial. It's what the drive allows you to do. Would I prefer a 40 gig in my Xbox? Hell yeah, I would. But I don't have that option, because it comes preinstalled, and shy of voiding my warranty, I don't have the option to upgrade.

But as I point out, the difference between 8 gigs and 8 megs is relevant, because it goes to the heart of what a system can do. 40 gigs and 8 gigs? Now you're getting to the point of diminishing returns. The larger drive MAY enable the PS2 to do more than the Xbox in the long run, assuming Sony follows through with their video/music-on-demand initiatives that they've been talking about.

But for the purposes of significant content download, loading times, and custom soundtracks, it's really not relevant. Microsoft went with 8 gigs to keep costs down. Sony doesn't have to worry about that, since it's an attachment sold separately, which makes 40 gigs more viable for them.
you want to preach about DL content yet you can still download content on to PS2 memory cards, you've yet to say how big maps, new characters, etc are. They can't be THAT big, they're not Madden save files for cryin out loud.

Again becuase you are deaf, the loading times is an advantage of coming out AFTER the PS2. If you are laying your whole argument on custome soundtracks, whewwwwwwwwwwwww. It's called a stereo w/a cd player.

[Sun Tzu]

Sun Tzu, when I get back from class, this is going on my QotD thread :D
woohoo! :D I'm actualy in the college library as we speak. I just finished taking the last final of this semester, so now waiting for a friend to finish up with her own final so we can grab a bite to eat.


You're getting ridiculous here, Sun. Yes, the PS2 has a larger hard drive. It almost has to, if Sony is serious about video-on-demand through the PS2. My argument here with Chubby is simply that he's trying to leave out a fairly hefty chunk of the PS2's cost and still say that both systems do the same thing. Which hard drive is larger is irrelevant, because 8 GB and 40 GB is still way more than you're likely to use during the normal life span of a console. By the time you come close to filling up either drive, a new console will be out. But just because it's more than most gamers will need doesn't mean that the feature set incumbent with a hard drive can be ignored.

I was trying my hand at desperate/sarcastic humor. I meant no offense, nor was I in any way being serious.

[JasonC23]

I can piss farther.
OK. But I don't think it's a fair contest without Moises Alou or Jorge Posada. ;)

[Chubby]

OK. But I don't think it's a fair contest without Moises Alou or Jorge Posada. ;)
I read that article on Page 2. eww

[SackAttack]

you want to preach about DL content yet you can still download content on to PS2 memory cards, you've yet to say how big maps, new characters, etc are. They can't be THAT big, they're not Madden save files for cryin out loud.

On average? A Rainbow Six 3 map takes up about 24 MB. Surprised? You're looking at about the same ballpark, maybe a little larger, for Splinter Cell missions and the golf courses available for Links 2004.

You're right. They're definitely not Madden rosters.

Again because you are deaf, the loading times is an advantage of coming out AFTER the PS2. If you are laying your whole argument on custome soundtracks, whewwwwwwwwwwwww. It's called a stereo w/a cd player.

I am deaf, actually. No hearing in the right ear. But again, I'm not laying my argument on any ONE of the features, as you appear willing to do. I'm talking about ALL of the features a hard drive brings to the table.

[dawgfan]

this coming from Mr Objectivity that works on MS games :rolleyes:

Doesn't mean I'm not right. Sack has made it clear where he stands (favoring all consoles), but the fact that he doesn't bow to your preference of all things Sony and is looking at this objectively means he must be an MS fanboy.

Go grab the #'s on install base for the consoles. I know you must have lots of time to find them with this year's sports titles getting canned to bow to EA.

First off, what the fuck is your point on install base of consoles? What I said was, and make sure you read this carefully, is that since MS dropped the price of the Xbox to $149.99, it's been the highest selling game console. What I did not say is that the Xbox has sold more units overall than the PS2 - they haven't, and it's not even close. But the Xbox has outsold the PS2 and Gamecube since the MS price drop to $149.99. Are we clear?

Secondly, perhaps you didn't read the press releases, but the fact we're not releasing games this year isn't because we're all taking a vacation and bowing to EA - we're using the extra time to re-do the games and bring them up to the quality standard we expect. Perhaps you think EA is to blame for Sony's 989 Studios not releasing games this year as well :rolleyes:

[SackAttack]

It's NOT and you refuse to see that. Equivalent? Show my your 40GB HD. Oh wait, when it's convienent for you we don't have to be equivalent...

I have the PS2 hard drive, actually. What's your point?

[SackAttack]

Dola,

Ah, wait, I see what you meant there. Shrug, there's only so much you can do when setting the two sides against each other. In every way that it's possible, I've done so. No, I can't calculate the cost of a 40 gig HDD for an Xbox. That in no way negates the fact that unless you buy the hard drive for the PS2, there's stuff it can't do that Xbox can. Size is irrelevant to WHAT the PS2 can do. Will it be able to do more due to the larger HDD size down the road? Perhaps. But the simple fact is, 40 GB vs 8 GB is irrelevant when we're talking about WHAT, not necessarily HOW MUCH.

[Kodos]

I think it is fairly well documented that SackAttack prefers the Xbox. Why does everyone need to get into a long argument over this crap? I have both the Xbox and the PS2. I tend to use the PS2 a lot more because I like the games I have for it better. Both systems have pluses. Both have minuses. Xbox is superior technology-wise, and should be because it's newer. PS2 has a larger, higher-quality library, which it should because it has been around longer. Why all the petty bickering? Why do people have to prove one console is better than the other, and look down their nose at people who like a different one? I like EA Sports games, but I don't spend time trashing Sega games to justify my purchase. I've posted info about Madden, NCAA, and the upcoming ESPN titles here because I am interested in all of the upcoming football games.

Seriously, folks, get a life! Don't think that just because you work in the industry that your opinion is matters more than the opinion of people who don't work in the industry.

Can't we all just get along?

[Calis]

I think it's time we all put our differences aside, held hands, sing campfire songs, and admit that the Dreamcast is the pinnacle of consoledom.

[Chubby]

Doesn't mean I'm not right. Sack has made it clear where he stands (favoring all consoles), but the fact that he doesn't bow to your preference of all things Sony and is looking at this objectively means he must be an MS fanboy.



First off, what the fuck is your point on install base of consoles? What I said was, and make sure you read this carefully, is that since MS dropped the price of the Xbox to $149.99, it's been the highest selling game console. What I did not say is that the Xbox has sold more units overall than the PS2 - they haven't, and it's not even close. But the Xbox has outsold the PS2 and Gamecube since the MS price drop to $149.99. Are we clear?

Secondly, perhaps you didn't read the press releases, but the fact we're not releasing games this year isn't because we're all taking a vacation and bowing to EA - we're using the extra time to re-do the games and bring them up to the quality standard we expect. Perhaps you think EA is to blame for Sony's 989 Studios not releasing games this year as well :rolleyes:
One can say a great many things but as others agree, he does favor XBox.

Boy, somebody is a little testy now aren't they? And the fact that the XBox has sold more consoles at $149 vs a higher price point has nothing to do with Sony's price drop. You wish it did but it doesn't. They were still selling PS2's at the higher price so why would they drop it? They see the opportunity to make MORE money at the lower price point now (whereas before it made more$ to keep it higher), it's NOT a reaction to XBox. In fact, Xbox had to drop their price point to get ANYONE to buy it.

And now to my favorite part of the post. Do you really believe for a second that any press release by ANY company would EVER say "We're not going to release our games because we want another company to make their games playable online."??? Of course not, that doesn't change the fact that recently you guys announce a hiatus and then VOILA!!!!! EA is going to be on XBox live. I don't believe for one second they aren't related. Hell, Sony basically killed their own line of sports games to sleep with EA (and I'm not talking this year, I'm talking beginning of PS2 life).

989 games SUCK. I don't think there was any doubt about that. MS brand sports games were good, they didn't suck. They weren't great, but they didn't suck. I think the main purpose behind it was a concession to EA and that a secondary benefit was that you guys could improve the games and make them even better in the future.

[Chubby]

I think it's time we all put our differences aside, held hands, sing campfire songs, and admit that the Dreamcast is the pinnacle of consoledom.
SNES!!! :D

[Sun Tzu]

Watch out for the infamous campfire killer, Dean Houston! Hide the children!

[Chubby]

I think it is fairly well documented that SackAttack prefers the Xbox. Why does everyone need to get into a long argument over this crap? I have both the Xbox and the PS2. I tend to use the PS2 a lot more because I like the games I have for it better. Both systems have pluses. Both have minuses. Xbox is superior technology-wise, and should be because it's newer. PS2 has a larger, higher-quality library, which it should because it has been around longer. Why all the petty bickering? Why do people have to prove one console is better than the other, and look down their nose at people who like a different one? I like EA Sports games, but I don't spend time trashing Sega games to justify my purchase. I've posted info about Madden, NCAA, and the upcoming ESPN titles here because I am interested in all of the upcoming football games.

Seriously, folks, get a life! Don't think that just because you work in the industry that your opinion is matters more than the opinion of people who don't work in the industry.

Can't we all just get along?


Nooooooo :p I do too so I'm one to talk hehe.

[SackAttack]

One can say a great many things but as others agree, he does favor XBox.

I have no problem with this characterization, so long as you understand that I'm not "looking down my nose," as Kodos insinuated, at those who have other platforms. For the love all that's holy, as I've said several times now, I have all three, and I enjoy all three. I like what the Xbox does for me more than what the other two do, certainly, but I still enjoy them all (and could be happy with any of them). I wouldn't have a PS2 if I didn't enjoy it, or a GameCube if I didn't enjoy it - or, hell, even an Xbox, if I didn't enjoy it. I'm a platform agnostic in the sense that I believe they all have their benefits, but, yeah, I'm a little spoiled by the Xbox hard drive, four controller ports, and built in network port. I admit that. But that's why this...

989 games SUCK. I don't think there was any doubt about that. MS brand sports games were good, they didn't suck. They weren't great, but they didn't suck.

...is ironic. I've actually gotten more playtime out of 989's recent offerings than out of Microsoft's. I've been playing quite a bit of World Tour Soccer 2005 lately, I've been enjoying MLB 2005, and even 989's "lesser" 2005 titles haven't inspired the same level of vitriol in me that they have in years past.

XSN? I dig Links 2005, I'm ambivalent towards Amped 2 (not really a snowboarder, but I guess it's a cool game). I hated Fever after the very first rendition, Inside Pitch was a piece of trash (although not technically XSN, I guess). NBA Inside Drive was alright, but nothing special. RalliSport I'm looking forward to, though. I liked Top Spin, but didn't really stick with it for long.

But if you added up the hours of playtime, I've gotten more out of MLB 2005 and World Tour Soccer 2005 than Links (which is scary, as much as I've played Links) and Top Spin. Funny, innit?

[SackAttack]

SNES!!! :D

Something we can agree on? Dammit, Chubby, choose, like...Turbo-Grafx 16, or something. That's just too disturbing.

[Chubby]

Yeah, I would NEVER pick up a 989 game but I certainly be willing to give MS sports games a spin.

Be prepared for a big trade in IHOF to be posted soon...

[Chubby]

Something we can agree on? Dammit, Chubby, choose, like...Turbo-Grafx 16, or something. That's just too disturbing.

No way. I liked my Genesis but SNES just ruled with all the kickass games it had. I always preferred TSB on SNES too.

[SackAttack]

I had a Genesis for 10 years, and loved every minute of it, but I also dug gettin' to go to my cousin's house to play games like F-Zero and Super Mario World. I bought an SNES of my own a few years ago, and now between Earthbound, Chrono Trigger, and then some of the more common classics (like F-Zero, Super Mario World, and one of my favorite strategy games, Aerobiz), I think I play it more than I do my Genesis these days.

[Calis]

Heh, Aerobiz rocked. It was one the Genesis also though wasn't?

I never owned an SNES unfortunately, only the Genesis...and loved it.

Bill Walsh '95 has received more play time than other game I've ever owned, we'd have several hours worth a games every day afte football practice in Junior High. Those were the days.

Also, the Genesis had a much superior version of Shadowrun. ;)

And Shining Force...oh how I loved those.

[Chubby]

yeah i like the Genesis version of Shadowrun too.

[Kodos]

I thought the Dreamcast sucked. I couldn't find even one game on it that I ever liked. Bought it for the pretty graphics in NFL2K (back when Madden was only on PS1), but didn't enjoy the game and went back to playing the much-crappier looking Madden on the PS1. Then I started buying other Dreamcast games to help justify my impulse purchase, only to find out that I didn't enjoy those games either. The Dreamcast is without a doubt the worst purchase I ever made.

Which is not to say that it wasn't a fine console - just not a good one for me.

[stevew]

I've gotten a ton of play out of my gamecube. With little kiddies running around the house, I dont buy hardly any M rated games anyways. I bought True Crime, but it was too big of a pain in the ass to play it after the kids went to bed. Nintendo makes good games. The only thing I wish is that their Sports titles would be online. I may pick up an Xbox this fall for Madden, tho I hear its too 133t to play.

[Franklinnoble]

I thought the Dreamcast sucked. I couldn't find even one game on it that I ever liked. Bought it for the pretty graphics in NFL2K (back when Madden was only on PS1), but didn't enjoy the game and went back to playing the much-crappier looking Madden on the PS1. Then I started buying other Dreamcast games to help justify my impulse purchase, only to find out that I didn't enjoy those games either. The Dreamcast is without a doubt the worst purchase I ever made.

Which is not to say that it wasn't a fine console - just not a good one for me.
I have to agree... N64 was the better console of that generation. The only Dreamcast game I really liked was Ready 2 Rumble boxing... and that got old after a very short while.

[kingnebwsu]

I own all three systems. The X-box is the most forward thinking system to me, because of the included hard drive and ethernet port. The fact that the PS2 now has a network bundle doesn't help me (since I already own it). I don't own a PS2 network adapter, and I probably won't ever buy one.

I play X-box Live all the time. It's what I've been wanting from gaming well...for a long time. The hard drive included is also fantastic, that means I can save as much as I want. (Shrug) I can't say much that hasn't already been said, but I'll let my playing time speak for itself. Since I bought all of the consoles (way early in the cycle) the playing time has been about 80% Xbox, 10% PS2, and 10% Cube (that's only cuz of Smash Brothers ;)). These days the percentage is more like 98% Xbox, and 1% of the others. Rainbow Six is a blast and Halo 2 will be so so sweet.

Not saying the Xbox is better for everyone, but for what I want in a gaming console, it's the best choice for me.

[stevew]

I have to agree... N64 was the better console of that generation. The only Dreamcast game I really liked was Ready 2 Rumble boxing... and that got old after a very short while.

I picked up a used dreamcast a few months ago for $15 and Ive had a blast with it. A lot of the games Ive gotten have been less than 5 bucks. I am, however, so glad I never paid full price for it. Would have been brutal.

[Calis]

Soul Calibur
Armada
Shenmue
Seaman
Chu Chu Rocket
Crazy Taxi
Skies of Arcadia
Virtua Tennis
Space Channel 5
Samba de Amigo
Powerstone
UFC

So many more...the DC really had some quirky games that kicked ass on it.

Far and away my favorite system, but I know I'm in the minority there, as the sales proved. :(

[stevew]

What does everyone make of the decision for Sega to go exclusive to Xbox. Totally interesting development. Their work on the Cube has been good this generation, even if its a lot of ports. Thus far I have Monkey Ball, Sonic Mega Collection, Skies of Arcadia.

[Calis]

Oh I forgot to add Super Monkey Ball to my list of DC games, good call.

I hadn't heard about them going X-Box only...if it's good for the company then go for it I guess. As long as they're making games for something I'll keep buying it.

So are they cutting everything for PS2 as well? Seems like it would sting a lot to cut out the sports game there...MS must be offering something nice to make up for all the lost sales then.

[Chubby]

What does everyone make of the decision for Sega to go exclusive to Xbox. Totally interesting development. Their work on the Cube has been good this generation, even if its a lot of ports. Thus far I have Monkey Ball, Sonic Mega Collection, Skies of Arcadia.I hadn't heard that but if true {shrug} doesn't really affect me.

[dawgfan]

One can say a great many things but as others agree, he does favor XBox.

That may be, but as he's shown he doesn't dislike the other 2. He's done a pretty objective job of showing the pluses and minuses for each system.

Boy, somebody is a little testy now aren't they? And the fact that the XBox has sold more consoles at $149 vs a higher price point has nothing to do with Sony's price drop. You wish it did but it doesn't. They were still selling PS2's at the higher price so why would they drop it? They see the opportunity to make MORE money at the lower price point now (whereas before it made more$ to keep it higher), it's NOT a reaction to XBox. In fact, Xbox had to drop their price point to get ANYONE to buy it.

Wrong. Up until this latest price drop Sony had always matched the Xbox price drops. They gambled this time that they could stay at $199 and still outsell the Xbox - didn't happen. You're naive if you think it doesn't matter to Sony that they remain the sales leaders for whatever measure you can think of. Going into the next generation of consoles, Sony doesn't want any momentum on behalf of the Xbox brand.

You are correct that Sony is dropping the price to make more money, but that's because they weren't selling enough at the $199 price point any more - there's little doubt that what drove the Xbox sales above PS2 was the lower price point. What that means is that Sony was losing potential sales to MS.

And now to my favorite part of the post. Do you really believe for a second that any press release by ANY company would EVER say "We're not going to release our games because we want another company to make their games playable online."??? Of course not, that doesn't change the fact that recently you guys announce a hiatus and then VOILA!!!!! EA is going to be on XBox live. I don't believe for one second they aren't related. Hell, Sony basically killed their own line of sports games to sleep with EA (and I'm not talking this year, I'm talking beginning of PS2 life).

989 games SUCK. I don't think there was any doubt about that. MS brand sports games were good, they didn't suck. They weren't great, but they didn't suck. I think the main purpose behind it was a concession to EA and that a secondary benefit was that you guys could improve the games and make them even better in the future.

Believe in conspiracies all you want, but the concessions MS made to EA had to do with server control, pricing and royalties. XSN has our own reasons for not releasing games this year, which should become more clear down the road.

[dawgfan]

I thought the Dreamcast sucked. I couldn't find even one game on it that I ever liked. Bought it for the pretty graphics in NFL2K (back when Madden was only on PS1), but didn't enjoy the game and went back to playing the much-crappier looking Madden on the PS1. Then I started buying other Dreamcast games to help justify my impulse purchase, only to find out that I didn't enjoy those games either. The Dreamcast is without a doubt the worst purchase I ever made.

Which is not to say that it wasn't a fine console - just not a good one for me.

Wow. I loved the Dreamcast - Soul Calibur, Ready 2 Rumble, Virtua Tennis, Crazy Taxi, NBA 2K, and Resident Evil Code: Veronica were all games I spent a lot of time playing. I still pull out Virtua Tennis and Ready 2 Rumble every once in a while for a blast from the past.

[Chubby]

That may be, but as he's shown he doesn't dislike the other 2. He's done a pretty objective job of showing the pluses and minuses for each system.



Wrong. Up until this latest price drop Sony had always matched the Xbox price drops. They gambled this time that they could stay at $199 and still outsell the Xbox - didn't happen. You're naive if you think it doesn't matter to Sony that they remain the sales leaders for whatever measure you can think of. Going into the next generation of consoles, Sony doesn't want any momentum on behalf of the Xbox brand.

You are correct that Sony is dropping the price to make more money, but that's because they weren't selling enough at the $199 price point any more - there's little doubt that what drove the Xbox sales above PS2 was the lower price point. What that means is that Sony was losing potential sales to MS.



Believe in conspiracies all you want, but the concessions MS made to EA had to do with server control, pricing and royalties. XSN has our own reasons for not releasing games this year, which should become more clear down the road.
As far as price drops go, Sony is always going to be "following" MS because MS HAS to drop the XBox price to try and catch up. Then, when it is economically feasible Sony does the same.

I know the big hurdle for EA was the pricing of the network (the MS was making money off of it and EA wasn't so EA said "F off" to online play on XBox).

I understand the "we're taking a year off" strategy BUT wouldn't it have been wiser to create another team to make the 2006 games and start earlier than they normally would have while still having a 2005 team make this years games? Yes, the costs are more but right now there willl be 0 cash flow in with no sales. You're also going ot be losing customers as people try/buy the EA games and end up sticking with them. Everyone whores themselves out to EA, it's just the way it is.

[dawgfan]

As far as price drops go, Sony is always going to be "following" MS because MS HAS to drop the XBox price to try and catch up. Then, when it is economically feasible Sony does the same.

Of course MS has to drop the price point to catch up. That's not in dispute. In the past, Sony has always immediately dropped the price point when Xbox did, so as to undermine the efforts of the Xbox to catch up in sales. Sony didn't this time, and it bit them in the butt. It's hardly a big deal to Sony financially, but it stings their pride and shows that it is possible for the Xbox to outsell the PS2. Sony doesn't want any momentum like that for MS going into the next generation of consoles, when it is doubtful that there will be the same major difference in release dates.

I understand the "we're taking a year off" strategy BUT wouldn't it have been wiser to create another team to make the 2006 games and start earlier than they normally would have while still having a 2005 team make this years games? Yes, the costs are more but right now there willl be 0 cash flow in with no sales. You're also going ot be losing customers as people try/buy the EA games and end up sticking with them. Everyone whores themselves out to EA, it's just the way it is.

The economics simply don't allow us to build up staffing in that way. We're locked into one platform for sales, while EA can sell to 4 platforms with a much bigger potential audience. Sega tried staffing up to EA levels with NFL2K4, got great reviews and still got their asses handed to them in sales, and they were selling on 3 platforms. EA is the king of the hill, and it's going to take more than just producing a better game to knock them off...

[Chubby]

Of course MS has to drop the price point to catch up. That's not in dispute. In the past, Sony has always immediately dropped the price point when Xbox did, so as to undermine the efforts of the Xbox to catch up in sales. Sony didn't this time, and it bit them in the butt. It's hardly a big deal to Sony financially, but it stings their pride and shows that it is possible for the Xbox to outsell the PS2. Sony doesn't want any momentum like that for MS going into the next generation of consoles, when it is doubtful that there will be the same major difference in release dates.



The economics simply don't allow us to build up staffing in that way. We're locked into one platform for sales, while EA can sell to 4 platforms with a much bigger potential audience. Sega tried staffing up to EA levels with NFL2K4, got great reviews and still got their asses handed to them in sales, and they were selling on 3 platforms. EA is the king of the hill, and it's going to take more than just producing a better game to knock them off...
Well I think the main problem for companies going against EA's sports franchises is branding. A shitload of people will just grab the latest EA title because it's EA while it would take a game above and beyond EA's level to try the other company's game.

Shit for years Triple Play blew donky balls and it still outsold the others. Old school Madden vs TSB? TSB all day and on Sunday's IMO but I think Madden still killed TSB in sales. By taking a year off a company is only making it harder from them. There's going to be less loyalty to Brand x vs EA and they still have to produce a game way better than EA's to get the casual gamer. I never said the 2 team thing was feasible, just best case scenario.

I think the economics you spoke off doomed 989 as well.

[dawgfan]

Well I think the main problem for companies going against EA's sports franchises is branding. A shitload of people will just grab the latest EA title because it's EA while it would take a game above and beyond EA's level to try the other company's game.

Shit for years Triple Play blew donky balls and it still outsold the others. Old school Madden vs TSB? TSB all day and on Sunday's IMO but I think Madden still killed TSB in sales. By taking a year off a company is only making it harder from them. There's going to be less loyalty to Brand x vs EA and they still have to produce a game way better than EA's to get the casual gamer. I never said the 2 team thing was feasible, just best case scenario.

I think the economics you spoke off doomed 989 as well.

Trust me, this was a difficult decision, but given our options we felt it was the best one. Besides, as sales of Fever were showing, we didn't have that much brand loyalty going.

I'd love to talk strategies and all that in greater detail, but I can't - talk to me again in a year or so when more is officially revealed about what we're doing.

[Chubby]

Trust me, this was a difficult decision, but given our options we felt it was the best one. Besides, as sales of Fever were showing, we didn't have that much brand loyalty going.

I'd love to talk strategies and all that in greater detail, but I can't - talk to me again in a year or so when more is officially revealed about what we're doing.
Ok, but at that point it will be to announce that you've really been working on XBox 2 games during the hiatus :D

[sterlingice]

OK. But I don't think it's a fair contest without Moises Alou or Jorge Posada. ;)
All we know is that they can pee as far as their hands. That's not very far ;)

I think it's time we all put our differences aside, held hands, sing campfire songs, and admit that the Dreamcast is the pinnacle of consoledom.
No way! It's all about the Neo Geo. Or, Virtual Boy. (NGage is getting ready to join this list of all time console failures).

Doesn't mean I'm not right. Sack has made it clear where he stands (favoring all consoles), but the fact that he doesn't bow to your preference of all things Sony and is looking at this objectively means he must be an MS fanboy.
I'm not going to say any more to SA (or you) about this disagreement in the forums (tho, you're welcome to take this to PM) but no matter what you claim, if a lot of different people who have different beliefs about a topic (ie Kodos is an unabashed EA whore, I'm a Nintendo fanboy, Chubby prefers Sony) all agree that you're a spade, you're probably a spade. Anyone can claim to favor something but you have to put your money where your mouth is to prove it. I mean, if everyone everything claimed was true, I'd have Social Security, wonderful medical care, no taxes, no crime, world peace, eighteen high paying jobs where I have to do no work, and rhinos that crap rainbows at the zoo* every election year.

SI

*not an actual election day claim, that I know of, but who knows: maybe Bush or Kerry is looking for votes from the zoological rainbow excrement coalition

[Kodos]

I'd vote for Rhinos to crap rainbows. Sounds really nice.

I'd like to point out as an EA whore that I don't spend much if any time bashing competing products .... except maybe for exceptionally crappy ones like something from 989 sports.

[sterlingice]

I'd vote for Rhinos to crap rainbows. Sounds really nice.
If you live in one of those battleground states, you could probably secure a promise or two to do that. :D

It's weird- I hear a lot of friends out of state talking about all the election ads but here in Kansas we get nothing because it's already determined this state will be for Bush.

SI

[Kodos]

I think Illinois is pretty much a sure thing for whoever the Democrat is in a given Presidential election.

[dawgfan]

I'm not going to say any more to SA (or you) about this disagreement in the forums (tho, you're welcome to take this to PM) but no matter what you claim, if a lot of different people who have different beliefs about a topic (ie Kodos is an unabashed EA whore, I'm a Nintendo fanboy, Chubby prefers Sony) all agree that you're a spade, you're probably a spade. Anyone can claim to favor something but you have to put your money where your mouth is to prove it. I mean, if everyone everything claimed was true, I'd have Social Security, wonderful medical care, no taxes, no crime, world peace, eighteen high paying jobs where I have to do no work, and rhinos that crap rainbows at the zoo* every election year.

A person buys all 3 consoles, uses all of them and enjoys all of them in their own way but determines that 1 of those 3 is superior to the rest in certain ways and that automatically makes him a fanboy of that particular console? Whatever...

[stevew]

I hadn't heard that but if true {shrug} doesn't really affect me.

Okay, I dont think it is true. Nevermind.

[Neuqua]

I think Illinois is pretty much a sure thing for whoever the Democrat is in a given Presidential election.

Yup.