Because they are forcing the good ones on their system (not theirs) to be $60 then undercutting said third party games?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bacon McShig
Printable View
Because they are forcing the good ones on their system (not theirs) to be $60 then undercutting said third party games?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bacon McShig
Those were bad decisions too. I didn't say only Bungie has done this.Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
How, did they raise licensing fees? I don't remember seeing anything about that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Besides, Sony has been doing the same undercutting technique for a long time. 1st party PS1 & PS2 games were almost all $40 vs. 3rd parties' $50. If anything, you should be decrying MS for not undercutting sooner; They don't have to pay any licencing fees on 1st party titles, but never passed those savings on to the consumer as Sony did.
LOL, good call remnant. I really wish id put more time into Quake 3's singleplayer instead of slaving away to make the best DM game ever.Quote:
Originally Posted by avatar
Seriously... cocksuckers, you guys were complaining when the games were $60, now you're bitching EVEN HARDER because of a ten dollar price drop.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bacon McShig
Amazing.
I never said the games were bad. I just said and listen carefully that a game single-player should have just as much work put into as the multi-player.
However exceptions to those rules are games like Quake.It's one of those games that live or die on multi. It's like counter-strike or Mario Party. You don't expect something amazing from single-player. The guys at Id knew that and stripped the single-player.
Halo is not in that category. It appeals to a broad amount of people and therefore both sides should have overhauled, becuase not everyone has xbox live, or plays Halo with thier friends.
There are several publishers that have $40 games on the PS2, not just Sony. Besides all that, Sony has the get-out-of-jail-free card that being the industry leader by three miles gets you. Microsoft is playing this generation like they are the leader, even though they are the industry caboose.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bacon McShig
There are now, yeah, but early-to-midway through the gen, Sony was basically the only one pricing consistently at $40.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
You still need to support your claim that MS is "forcing" 3rd parties to increase their prices.Quote:
Besides all that, Sony has the get-out-of-jail-free card that being the industry leader by three miles gets you. Microsoft is playing this generation like they are the leader, even though they are the industry caboose.
And since when is pricing lower than the competition considered some sort of dirty tactic? If so, dirty tactics are awesome and I wholeheartedly support them.
Focring them is too strong, but the combination of increasing development costs and license fees (not sure if these have changed) is clearly driving it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bacon McShig
If I were a third party it would piss me off. If the 360 third party support is even equal to the Xbox's, it'll be a near worthless system, because it won't have the best of the multiplatform releases anymore. Third party exclusives were all but non-existent on the Xbox compared to the PS2 as it was.Quote:
And since when is pricing lower than the competition considered some sort of dirty tactic? If so, dirty tactics are awesome and I wholeheartedly support them.
Back in the day, 1994 I believe, DKC was a 4 meg cartridge that cost $59.99. Earthworm Jim was a 2 meg cartridge that cost $69.99. The reason was the fees.
Dave Perry was furious because he spends less on materials per cart than Nintendo but still has to charge more SOLELY because of the fees, and Nintendo also got a chance to give DKC all the free publicity on Earth thanks to NP (EWJ got praise in the mag, too, but nothing like DKC).
Its kind of the same thing. Without the spending more per cart, of course.