THe M$ price drop is here

[fingersman]

They drop it in US, Japan and Canada.


http://www.msnbc.com/news/752359.asp?0bl=-0#BODY

There you go..now rejoice.
Looks like gamespot was right DH.

[Gambit_X]

Well, I suppose I have to fulfill my promise to a few Xbox fans this summer... I promised I'd buy one when they came down to $200. Maybe it's a good thing, i dunno. I've been getting interested in buying one for a while... oh well, I guess I'll find out around August...

[Perfect Stu]

Mwa hahaha...Xbox will be mine!

[Professor S]

This is nice, but shouldn't MS be worrying a little more about the Japanese price drop? Its already seeling well in NA. While its nice, I think they need to drop it in Japan too.

[TheGame]

The two price cuts this week mean that all three major consoles are now priced at $199. Nintendo Co. Ltd.’s GameCube came out in the U.S. at $199 last November.
Analysts expect Nintendo, which had positioned itself as the low-cost competitor, to cut the price of its GameCube machine to maintain its hold on the market for children’s games.

*raises eyebrow*

[Perfect Stu]

Analysts expect Nintendo, which had positioned itself as the low-cost competitor, to cut the price of its GameCube machine to maintain its hold on the market for children’s games

[Revival]

Time to buy an Xbox as well

[DeathsHand]

Originally posted by The Strangler
This is nice, but shouldn't MS be worrying a little more about the Japanese price drop? Its already seeling well in NA. While its nice, I think they need to drop it in Japan too.

They dropped the price in Japan too... to about 200 USD...

And now that PS2 had dropped it's price and Xbox's sales were slowing (which I heard they were) a little... Yes they should have started worrying about the price... Take action before something bad might happen and they get too far behind

[fingersman]

Originally posted by DeathsHand


They dropped the price in Japan too... to about 200 USD...

And now that PS2 had dropped it's price and Xbox's sales were slowing (which I heard they were) a little... Yes they should have started worrying about the price... Take action before something bad might happen and they get too far behind

They are already far behind.

Nintendo may be ahead of them in terms of worldwide sales...but Sony has them all beat and it doesn't look like they will catch up anytime soon unless some spectacular games come out for both systems. ..and I mean mind blowing games that would redefine gaming or else I think Sony has them beat this time ( again)

[Professor S]

Hmmmm...Project Ego anyone?

[Bond]

Well, this price drop really isn't a huge surprise. But now with the Playstation 2 + HDD + Modem will cost $320, correct me if I'm wrong. And the GameCube costing $200 also. This is a great price point for the Xbox.

[gekko]

But then considering not many people play online, and even fewer will want the HD for that price, it really makes no difference.

For the majority of PS2 owners, they really won't give a damn. PS2 is going online slowly, but surely. Xbox isn't going any faster and that was basically built around online play.

Funny, I guess nintendo was the only one who actually saw a Dreamcast. Dreamcast came out and it had the best graphics anyone had ever seen, sweet ass games, and it allowed everyone to go online from Day 1. It's not the developers needed time cause they just got the online info. they had it right from the start, the network was up and running the second i brought it home. Well guess what? Slowly games started taking advantage of it, but not many. Even the ones that did never really got that great of a turnout. Aside from PSO, which had it's following for months, the other games never really did so well, and there never were too many games that actually took advantage of the online features.

Now Sony is going online, and you can see it's improving, but it doesn't look good. It's looking too costly, and I don't see FFXI being the next Ultima Online. Then there's Xbox which had been built around going online, and all they have is plans. they think what's going to help them again? Unreal Championship? Come on! Unreal is a PC game, and with Unreal 2 and Unreal Tournament 2003 coming out on PC this year, where online gaming is much more accepted, that's not going to mean a thing.

Online console gaming is a new thing, but frankly, I don't think it's ready for this generation. It looks like it will follow DC's path, just get going and then it's over. We need games built specifically for online that are going to get players to hook up their console online. Games like PSO do that, but it's kinda come and gone, and I don't think the ports will bring it back to life. FFXI has that potential, but I doubt anyone's going to pay. They should've waited until FFXII, and if people loved the first one, then charge. Basically all they're doing now is limiting the number of players.

I don't see online gaming making it anywhere until we get more games that are character developing games. Games like PSO are perfect, but look at the PC and they have so many more. Consoles need games where players can keep coming back, connecting, and building a better character, without getting sick of the game. Without that, throwing in Madden and Unreal is great, but it won't get anywhere.

One big problem is that PC gamers are on average, older. Console gamers are younger kids who don't have their own PC lying around, cause it's a lot more expensive. PCs are hooked up to the internet, so install your game and go. Consoles aren't, so most people are stuck dragging it over to their phone jack, or router, and then finding a TV and moving it over their too. Trust me, it's not the greatest thing in the world. I go from playing PSO on an HDTV to a little 13" TV. See the problem?

What I hope happens is that MS, Sony, and Nintendo start planning their new systems now. Start making their next systems work for online gaming. In the meantime, start making online games. I'm not talking Halo online and that crap, I mean true online games. Look at Diablo 2, it's how old now? People are still playing it constantly. We need some RPGs like that, where players will continue to find new rare items, and build their character, and have it server based so it can be updated over time.

I agree with Bond, Xbox would be the best console for online gaming. Ok, so he never said that in this thread, but I know it's his opinion on the matter. The HD and built in ethernet support would make it great. But the thing is, it's great games that make the online experience, not hardware. PSO was great on DC with 128kb mem cards. Xbox is really the best because of one thing, it's a PC in a box. But that brings up the question, why not just play on a PC then?

Online console gaming: Move your console to the nearest ethernet port. hook it up. Move your TV and speakers. Find a place to put your keyboard, because you have to chat, and most people have no place for a keyboard by their TV. Then hook up, and play. Not as many possibilities without level builders and mods, however updates are possible.

Online PC gaming: Sit down at your PC, and go. Keyboard is easy to reach, mouse is easy to reach. Already connected to the internet, sound and video in place. Can easy download levels and mods, install expansion packs. Also have level builders, and stuff.

If I was a developer, I would see the most potential profit in the PC world. sure Mario Kart online and stuff would be hella fun, but I don't think we'll ever see the true online gaming experience we have on PC. Not until wireless networking is more common, and you can have a hub for your consoles.

[TheGame]

The way I see it, Ps2's userbase is twice as big as dremcasts, so it would be hard for it's online network to be THAT much smaller than DC's. Especially if they promote online play right.

As for Gamecube, I think it has the worst chance of having a huge online userbase.

Why? Because Nintendo is not promoting it in any way... they are rel;easing a modem, and that's it. After the modem, it's all up to third parties to get the online service started. I think Nintendo should have at least teamed up with an ISP... like Dreamcast did with AT&T... so people who only buy Nintendo games could get more info on online play.

Quote from Gekko:

Xbox is really the best because of one thing, it's a PC in a box. But that brings up the question, why not just play on a PC then?

1) Maybe some Killer Apps will be released exclusively for Xbox that won't be availible for PC

2) Xbox, being a home console, would make multiplayer easier. For example, ou could have 4 players on each system in some games, while on PC it's possible, but it's nasty with the little monitor.

[gekko]

Originally posted by TheGame
The way I see it, Ps2's userbase is twice as big as dremcasts, so it would be hard for it's online network to be THAT much smaller than DC's. Especially if they promote online play right.

As for Gamecube, I think it has the worst chance of having a huge online userbase.

Why? Because Nintendo is not promoting it in any way... they are rel;easing a modem, and that's it. After the modem, it's all up to third parties to get the online service started. I think Nintendo should have at least teamed up with an ISP... like Dreamcast did with AT&T... so people who only buy Nintendo games could get more info on online play.


1) Maybe some Killer Apps will be released exclusively for Xbox that won't be availible for PC

2) Xbox, being a home console, would make multiplayer easier. For example, ou could have 4 players on each system in some games, while on PC it's possible, but it's nasty with the little monitor.

But you need to look at PS2's online plans a little more closely.

1) $40 modem.
2) Monthly charges for certain games
3) Some games will support narrowband, but others require bband
4) Future games may require a $100 HD

I think it was best described as "What a ****in' mess." Let's look back at Dreamcast shall we? For Dreamcast, every single DC owner could go online. And don't start with me that they didn't promote their network right. SegaNet, making games specifically for online play, and they promoted it like crazy. Still, not many people played online. Well guess what? Things won't change for PS2.

The $40 modem will kill it. On DC, you could try a game online and if you didn't like it, big deal. On PS2, it's going to cost you $40 to realize you don't like it. Is it worth it for me to pay $40 just to try it out? $40 is the price of a game, you know? It's gonna hold a lot of people back, and a lot of people here too, cause I hear you guys bitching all the time about "Buying a PS2 and a mem card makes it such a worse buy than getting an Xbox."

Monthly charges for games is somthing that will drive users away like crazy. PSO was a killer game, and had tons of people playing it. But there were quite a few who weren't willing to pay $15 every 3 months to play PSOv2. Some die hard fans just didn't want to pay it. And I don't care if FFXI is released in Japan and named the greatest game ever made, your userbase will still be greatly limited.

And lastly, very, very few people will waste their money on a PS2 HD for online gaming. It's not worth it. If I can play a game like PSO happily for over 200 hours and only save to a portion of a 128kb memory card, I can be just fine playing a game and saving on a 8MB one. If it comes with a HD, use it. But if it doesn't, make the game work with what the gamers already have, it's not that hard.

And right now, the way I see it, Nintendo has the only chance for great online play, but I still don't hold out much hope. But after looking at Xbox and PS2, it doesn't look good for either of them. Nintendo isn't ready to go online, and like I said, it looks like they're the only company who learned from Dreamcast. Nintendo basically said they won't really do anything with online play until they, as a software maker, are ready to release a game that supports it. But if the meantime, if a 3rd party like Sega wants to use their own servers, they'll release the modem without any problem. We won't be hearing much of Nintendo's online plans until they have a game ready to launch the network with. Remember they've already tried this stuff with 64DD and GB Mobile unit, and they've seen DC do it, there's not much money to be made my putting your games online.

Now for your other points:

1) Most hit online games are FPS or RPGs, both can work out much better on a PC. Look at it from the developer's standpoint. You're making a hit new game that you want people to play online. Where's the money going to be made? PC, easily. Has a much larger userbase, and more people play it online. You can also release an expansion pack and bring in more cash. There's a ton of new games coming up that will be huge online games, Neverwinter Nights, Shadowbane, WarCraft 3, World of Warcraft, Unreal Tournament 2003, Doom 3, Quake 4, Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell, just to name a few. Notice they all have one thing in commom? Yep, PC games. It's where there's money to be made. FPS don't do nearly as well on consoles due to the controls, and it's harder to add new stuff and really control the server. RPGs like that are just much easier to play on PC, and really need a mouse.

2) Xbox makes multiplayer easier? No it doesn't. Xbox is ethernet-only, and how many people have Xbox near an ethernet jack? Most people, like myself, will need to move it near their PC to hook it up, and good luck hauling around your HDTV with it. But let's say you had one in your room. You want a 32 player game. What's easier? 4 players and 8 Xboxes hooked together? Cause if this is every man for himself remember, you can see what your friends are doing. Plus you got a much smaller area to deal with. Also, if there's 2 spots open in a game, and you got 4, you can't join. Oh ya, good luck chatting with that keyboard that doesn't exist.

Now on a PC, you got your keyboard and mouse right in front of you. A monitor all to yourself, and you're good to go. 32 people join a game, and you're all good to go. On PC you don't share your screen with everyone, you all just join a game seperatly. Ever play a FPS with a controller? Ya, it sucks. But then sharing your screen with 3 other people? Give me my PC any day.

Let's not forget, it will probably suffer more lag. Online PCs are set up as dedicated servers from a T3 line. If an Xbox hosts a 32 player game, that little 700mhz processor is supposed to be able to handle all that? I doubt it. Some of these new games are hard on your system, you can't host it well via Xbox. PCs are much more advanced from a hardware standpoint, and will be able to handle the next generation of FPS much better than Xbox will.

[TheGame]

Holy Shyt :eek:

Originally posted by gekko


But you need to look at PS2's online plans a little more closely.

1) $40 modem.
2) Monthly charges for certain games
3) Some games will support narrowband, but others require bband
4) Future games may require a $100 HD

I think it was best described as "What a ****in' mess." Let's look back at Dreamcast shall we? For Dreamcast, every single DC owner could go online. And don't start with me that they didn't promote their network right. SegaNet, making games specifically for online play, and they promoted it like crazy. Still, not many people played online. Well guess what? Things won't change for PS2.

The $40 modem will kill it. On DC, you could try a game online and if you didn't like it, big deal. On PS2, it's going to cost you $40 to realize you don't like it. Is it worth it for me to pay $40 just to try it out? $40 is the price of a game, you know? It's gonna hold a lot of people back, and a lot of people here too, cause I hear you guys bitching all the time about "Buying a PS2 and a mem card makes it such a worse buy than getting an Xbox."

Monthly charges for games is somthing that will drive users away like crazy. PSO was a killer game, and had tons of people playing it. But there were quite a few who weren't willing to pay $15 every 3 months to play PSOv2. Some die hard fans just didn't want to pay it. And I don't care if FFXI is released in Japan and named the greatest game ever made, your userbase will still be greatly limited.

And lastly, very, very few people will waste their money on a PS2 HD for online gaming. It's not worth it. If I can play a game like PSO happily for over 200 hours and only save to a portion of a 128kb memory card, I can be just fine playing a game and saving on a 8MB one. If it comes with a HD, use it. But if it doesn't, make the game work with what the gamers already have, it's not that hard.

it's all about promotion... If Ps2 has the right games put online, the online network will be a decnt size, if Ps2 has the wrong games go online, the online network will fail. Price has nothing to do with it when there are online killer aps left and right for Ps2. Plus if Sony advertizes it right, or they get it where online gaming will be cheap (monthly) things will work out just fine.

And right now, the way I see it, Nintendo has the only chance for great online play, but I still don't hold out much hope. But after looking at Xbox and PS2, it doesn't look good for either of them. Nintendo isn't ready to go online, and like I said, it looks like they're the only company who learned from Dreamcast. Nintendo basically said they won't really do anything with online play until they, as a software maker, are ready to release a game that supports it. But if the meantime, if a 3rd party like Sega wants to use their own servers, they'll release the modem without any problem. We won't be hearing much of Nintendo's online plans until they have a game ready to launch the network with. Remember they've already tried this stuff with 64DD and GB Mobile unit, and they've seen DC do it, there's not much money to be made my putting your games online.

But what exactly gives Nintendo the best chance of having great online service? PLEASE answer this.

Dreamcast had a decnt amount of Online users because Sega promoted the online gaming themselves. Remember the free 50 hour deal? There were a LOT more people online in those days, then when it dropped the ommunity (on NFL 2k1 and NBA 2k1 at least) seems to be cut into 1/3 of what it was.

But that's not the point, Sega promoted online gaming well... Nintendo will not promote it at all. I doubt there will be any online games by Nintendo for GCN in it's lifespan... if there is a day when one comes out, that's when the network should start picking up slack. But until Nintendo starts doing some promotion of thier own, GCN online network is doomed to fail.

Also, I want to point out the fact that you keep mentioning Ps2's $40 modem... GCN's is $35... not much of a difference there... plus I think you need to read more about the HDD before you go and say it will be $100.

Now for your other points:

1) Most hit online games are FPS or RPGs, both can work out much better on a PC. Look at it from the developer's standpoint. You're making a hit new game that you want people to play online. Where's the money going to be made? PC, easily. Has a much larger userbase, and more people play it online. You can also release an expansion pack and bring in more cash. There's a ton of new games coming up that will be huge online games, Neverwinter Nights, Shadowbane, WarCraft 3, World of Warcraft, Unreal Tournament 2003, Doom 3, Quake 4, Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell, just to name a few. Notice they all have one thing in commom? Yep, PC games. It's where there's money to be made. FPS don't do nearly as well on consoles due to the controls, and it's harder to add new stuff and really control the server. RPGs like that are just much easier to play on PC, and really need a mouse.

As a developer, I'd rather it be on PC... BUT having a game on PC brings big risks... If M$ paid enough for a game to be on Xbox, I'd rather have it on X-Box. Why? Less risk of being hacked, and less risk of people copying games. Plus Xbox games cost more, so there is more money to be made... and as a developer, I would't have to hold back on visuals because not everybody has the latest graphics card.

2) Xbox makes multiplayer easier? No it doesn't. Xbox is ethernet-only, and how many people have Xbox near an ethernet jack? Most people, like myself, will need to move it near their PC to hook it up, and good luck hauling around your HDTV with it. But let's say you had one in your room. You want a 32 player game. What's easier? 4 players and 8 Xboxes hooked together? Cause if this is every man for himself remember, you can see what your friends are doing. Plus you got a much smaller area to deal with. Also, if there's 2 spots open in a game, and you got 4, you can't join. Oh ya, good luck chatting with that keyboard that doesn't exist.

Um... have you played NFL 2k2 online? Apparently not.

That's what type of Multi-play I'm talking about

Now on a PC, you got your keyboard and mouse right in front of you. A monitor all to yourself, and you're good to go. 32 people join a game, and you're all good to go. On PC you don't share your screen with everyone, you all just join a game seperatly. Ever play a FPS with a controller? Ya, it sucks. But then sharing your screen with 3 other people? Give me my PC any day

On Xbox, you could do the same thing... And I would take a controller over a keyboard and mouse any day. With X-Box all that is needed is a keyboard... one X-Box and a TV...

Now if you want to talk about PC Multi Play with friends in the same house, we can talk about paying near $6,000 just to set up the PCs.