Slashdot Mirror

Let me preface this by saying, I don't play Madden and I don't intend to buy Madden 06. However, I had some concerns about the way the post was written.

The poster cites 2 sources for review scores. Have you heard of Metacritic? They look at reviews across the web and create a score based on all possible reviews. If you look at Madden there you'll see:

XBox: 88% - Based on 20 reviews
PS2: 89% - Based on 18 reviews
PC: 81% - Based on 5 reviews

While these still may not be an ideal sampling, it's a much better guage of how reviewers are judging this game.

Let me preface this by saying, I don't play Madden and I don't intend to buy Madden 06. However, I had some concerns about the way the post was written.

The poster cites 2 sources for review scores. Have you heard of Metacritic? They look at reviews across the web and create a score based on all possible reviews. If you look at Madden there you'll see:

XBox: 88% - Based on 20 reviews
PS2: 89% - Based on 18 reviews
PC: 81% - Based on 5 reviews

While these still may not be an ideal sampling, it's a much better guage of how reviewers are judging this game.

Let me preface this by saying, I don't play Madden and I don't intend to buy Madden 06. However, I had some concerns about the way the post was written.

The poster cites 2 sources for review scores. Have you heard of Metacritic? They look at reviews across the web and create a score based on all possible reviews. If you look at Madden there you'll see:

XBox: 88% - Based on 20 reviews
PS2: 89% - Based on 18 reviews
PC: 81% - Based on 5 reviews

While these still may not be an ideal sampling, it's a much better guage of how reviewers are judging this game.

Almost all video game conversions of movies (and TV shows) fucking suck, just like all movie versions of video games fucking suck.

Looking at the Metacritic list of PS2 games in score order, the best movie game ever is Lord of the Rings: Return of the King, at 85%--but that puts it at #183 on the chart. So basically, there are hundreds of games better than the very best video game ever based on a movie.

Now look at the bottom of the chart. By my count, 15 of the 40 worst PS2 games ever are movie/TV games.

Personally, I find it amazing that people are still willing to throw money at developing video game tie-ins for movies and TV, and even more amazing that suckers are willing to buy them.

looking at these results, you are right, Nintendo is (barely) in third. However, judging by the fact that Nintendo makes money on the sale of their hardware, and when you count in their other game systems that they make like GBA and Nintendo DS, they have quite a large customer base. Needless to say, Playstation is blowing them both out of the water, which comes as quite a surprise to me. Since most people i know own an XBox, or Gamecube, and not a PS2. http://forums.metacritic.com/groupee/forums/a/tpc/ f/367108/m/9780082913/r/6700013913

I'm happy with my Lumines

I'm happy that you're happy. I'm working on a project that will make even people who haven't upgraded from the GBA happy.

These are lists of all available games for both platforms

All? You forgot this list of DS compatible titles. Sony, on the other hand, neglected to put back-compatibility with PS1 games in its handheld, even through a USB version of its Walkman CD player.

But for crying out loud please stop the stupid anti-PSP FUD

Anti-PSP? At the end of my DS vs. PSP article, I identify several groups of players who would be happy with a PSP.

(the page you link to in your sig is so one sided Microsoft would be proud of it).

I'd be happy to make it more accurate, and I like to read constructive rebuttals. Could you please refute some of the specific points that my article makes? Take it private if you wish.

Says the DS fanboy. It's easy to pick bad examples of games on any system (Splinter Cell on the DS is AWFUL). On the other hand, it's also easy to pick great games for any system (except the NGage!). You can have your Nintendogs and Feel the Magic, I'm happy with my Lumines (one of the best puzzle games ever), Wipeout, Ridge Racer, Twisted Metal and Hot Shots Golf - all of which are excellent games.

In fact, take a look at these lists:

DS
PSP

These are lists of all available games for both platforms, sorted by their average review scores from a number of different sources.

You'll notice almost the same number of games available for both platforms (actually the DS has a few more). You'll also notice that the top (green) section for the PSP has 13 titles (44% of total), but for the DS has only 9 (27% of total). That seems to suggest the PSP has more good games that the DS, both as a total number and as a percentage of all available.

Now I have no problem with the DS, I don't own one but I can see why it appeals to a lot of people - particularly with it's low cost. But for crying out loud please stop the stupid anti-PSP FUD (the page you link to in your sig is so one sided Microsoft would be proud of it).

Says the DS fanboy. It's easy to pick bad examples of games on any system (Splinter Cell on the DS is AWFUL). On the other hand, it's also easy to pick great games for any system (except the NGage!). You can have your Nintendogs and Feel the Magic, I'm happy with my Lumines (one of the best puzzle games ever), Wipeout, Ridge Racer, Twisted Metal and Hot Shots Golf - all of which are excellent games.

In fact, take a look at these lists:

DS
PSP

These are lists of all available games for both platforms, sorted by their average review scores from a number of different sources.

You'll notice almost the same number of games available for both platforms (actually the DS has a few more). You'll also notice that the top (green) section for the PSP has 13 titles (44% of total), but for the DS has only 9 (27% of total). That seems to suggest the PSP has more good games that the DS, both as a total number and as a percentage of all available.

Now I have no problem with the DS, I don't own one but I can see why it appeals to a lot of people - particularly with it's low cost. But for crying out loud please stop the stupid anti-PSP FUD (the page you link to in your sig is so one sided Microsoft would be proud of it).

Even though a self-described "boring" game, it still ended up on most websites' top 10 lists, and was chosen game of the year by others. That guy has the highest of standards.
Don't believe me? Read the reviews from Metacritic.

Manhunt received generally good reviews (75% on Metacritic, 77% on GameRankings) and was widely considered to be a solid, well-executed stealth-action game. If anything, the over-the-top gore worked against it terms of reviews and sales, though it boosted its rental performance.

Personally, I enjoyed Manhunt quite a bit.

The best review aggregator that I've run across (for video games, at least): www.metacritic.com

Google, schmoogle.

Metacritic is much better at this sort of thing IMO because it's compiled by humans, not computers and covers print media as well as net stuff.

http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/starwarsiii

The film gets a double thumbs down from me for what its worth.

Uh... no? I said PS1, not PS2.

Rotten Tomatoes is one of the best examples of this.

Looks like it's on par with Jedi in the opinion of most critics.

There is also the fact that many of the reviews for Episodes IV-VI are not contemporary, so that's likely to push the comparison a little bit toward apples-and-oranges territory.

I've largely turned to Metacritic for movie reviews these days. They convert the rating systems of various sources into a standard 0-100 rating, then give you the composite ratings of "experts" as well as visitors to the sites.

It really lets you get a feel for the general sentiments surrounding the movie (or video game, or cd/dvd... etc) while allowing you to disregard the handful of skewed reviews.

Actually, rottentomatoes is not an average score, but a percentage of the total that are positive. In other words, if EVERYONE gives a movie the exact same score, 60%, then the movie will get 100% on RT since they were ALL positive. Metacritic actually gives an average score.

Yes.
And thanks.

In case people were looking, Harmonix's home page. Of course there is a lot more going on that we can't talk about...

Gamecube outsold Xbox in worldwide totals

Uh... source? No, it didn't.

Well, let's take a little look at Google and find out, shall we?

According to console sales statistics for 2003, worldwide sales for the three consoles looked a bit like this:

Now, those numbers are pretty old, so let's try to find something more recent, like sales statistics for 2004. Now the playing field looks a bit like this:

So you're correct in saying that the Gamecube didn't outsell the Xbox as of the end of 2004, but that's relatively recent, and the Gamecube is certainly much closer to the Xbox in terms of sales than either of them are to the Playstation 2. You can draw your own conclusions at this point--I don't have a preference either way--but I think it would be somewhat unfair and short-sighted to say that the Gamecube was a failure.

As an aside, I suppose that "Nintendo makes money on Gamecube sales" is a somewhat salient point because, after all, if they're still making money, they'll most likely keep on making consoles.

First of all, let me tell you, I think you should let game reviews for other web pages, personally I like Metacritic a lot.

Secondly, although I have not played the game, after reading some user reviews from the above page I found someone who stated:

the no blood thing is terrible for a game like this. This is an Adult game so why no blood?

I can just say come on! why the heck there is no blood??

Also, if the bad guys spawn in predetermined places, as the same reviewer states "kind of like the first Super Mario Bros. [...], you know exactly when and where to move the second time around ( either dying and spawning over or just playing the game a second time all together )"
So, maybe the replayability levelfor this game is low, but anyway I a fan of the Hitman series, lets see if there is a new Hitman sequel and, how is it going.

I discovered ICO via metacritic, it was I believe the best scoring game thay had. Indeed over 30 of the 50 plus web reviews they have listed for this game gave it a score >=90/100 Giving it a score of 9.0 "Universal Acclaim" if that's a mediocre review, I really love to see a bad one. (I like reading bad reviews, sue me :) You can find the listing here and as for ugly and blurry...

I know, I know, "do not feed the troll" :)

Yahoo does this too and if Google just started this, Yahoo has been doing it longer.
And while I haven't tried Google's database thing, Rotten Tomatoes does it as does Metacritic, and Metacritic does music too, so it ain't nothing new, it just has the Google name.

Metacritic has been doing this for a while now, and I think they do it well. They also index game, music and book reviews, assigning them aggregate scores. It's my first source for research prior to video game rentals.

Aggregates reviews for movies/games/dvds/books/etc. and is one of the few sites that isn't blocked by my companies firewall...

Everything is placed on a 0-100 scale so its easy to compare.

Hopefully this turns out to be better than Metacritic. Once google expands to other media such as books and games, metacritic will be in trouble.

However, I found the scores from metacritic did not reflect how I would score it at all. Then again, reviews seldom do.

A way better site is www.metacritic.com. They do games, music, books, films and DVD. They also excerpt portions of each review so you can quickly get an idea of what each reviewer said to substantiate their score. (Gamerankings just shows the scores with no excerpts and movies.com is a bit better than that.) Whenever I look up stuff in metacritic, I usually look at the comments for the top rated scores and the lowest rated scores and you get a very representative picture.

EA has cranked out some crap this year

Has it? Which?

Let's see, taking a look at EA's sports games 2004/2005, we see...hmm...critically acclaimed pretty much across the board. Lots of "green" scoring there...

We all know EA hasn't shown any progression in the Madden games since 2002.

Maybe you do, but don't speak for the rest of us -- the public at large. A quick look at www.metacritic.com yields the following scores (PS2 versions):
2001 - 91
2002 - 94
2003 - 95
2004 - 94
2005 - 91

It helps to do your research before you make sweeping incorrect claims. Score went up, 2003 to 2004.

But what's actually much more impressive is that all the scores are above 90, which is very rare (just check metacritic and look).

We all know EA hasn't shown any progression in the Madden games since 2002.

Maybe you do, but don't speak for the rest of us -- the public at large. A quick look at www.metacritic.com yields the following scores (PS2 versions):
2001 - 91
2002 - 94
2003 - 95
2004 - 94
2005 - 91

It helps to do your research before you make sweeping incorrect claims. Score went up, 2003 to 2004.

But what's actually much more impressive is that all the scores are above 90, which is very rare (just check metacritic and look).

We all know EA hasn't shown any progression in the Madden games since 2002.

Maybe you do, but don't speak for the rest of us -- the public at large. A quick look at www.metacritic.com yields the following scores (PS2 versions):
2001 - 91
2002 - 94
2003 - 95
2004 - 94
2005 - 91

It helps to do your research before you make sweeping incorrect claims. Score went up, 2003 to 2004.

But what's actually much more impressive is that all the scores are above 90, which is very rare (just check metacritic and look).

We all know EA hasn't shown any progression in the Madden games since 2002.

Maybe you do, but don't speak for the rest of us -- the public at large. A quick look at www.metacritic.com yields the following scores (PS2 versions):
2001 - 91
2002 - 94
2003 - 95
2004 - 94
2005 - 91

It helps to do your research before you make sweeping incorrect claims. Score went up, 2003 to 2004.

But what's actually much more impressive is that all the scores are above 90, which is very rare (just check metacritic and look).

We all know EA hasn't shown any progression in the Madden games since 2002.

Maybe you do, but don't speak for the rest of us -- the public at large. A quick look at www.metacritic.com yields the following scores (PS2 versions):
2001 - 91
2002 - 94
2003 - 95
2004 - 94
2005 - 91

It helps to do your research before you make sweeping incorrect claims. Score went up, 2003 to 2004.

But what's actually much more impressive is that all the scores are above 90, which is very rare (just check metacritic and look).

Metacritic does the same games, movies, music, and books.

Nintendo is the undisputed king of first party games, I fully believe that. However, after you get through that, what do you have?

Under the circumstances, I'd have to say Resident Evil 4

How does EA's competitive business practice make their games worse?

Mainly because their main business model is cashing in on sequels to hit titles. Take a look at the reviews of the original hit titles (review in the 90's), then look at the sequels and their average reviews (80's, then 70's, then 60's...) For examples, see:
NHL 2005 - http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/xbox/nhl 2005/
Goldeneye 2 - http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/xbox/gol deneyerogueagent/
Urbz (aka The Sims 2.5) - http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/ps2/urbz /
Fifa 2005 - http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/gamecube /fifasoccer2005/

And so on. Madden review scores are all over the roadmap, but now that they have the exclusive NFL license, do you seriously expect the quality to go up? Granted, there are some exceptions and there are excellent sequels, such as SSX3, but they are generally in the minority. An average rating in the 70's still isn't too shabby, but it's not fantastic either.

If there's one thing you can count on from EA, it's sequels. Lots of them. Which brings up the next point... innovation.

Unless a sequel radically changes the gameplay mechanics (and they usually don't), it cannot be considered innovative to cash in on an existing brand name. Not that there's anything wrong with that since they do have to please their shareholders. However, sequels dilute brand names and make them worthless over time (how excited can you get about another Sims game now?)

As for original hit titles, there are very very few original hit titles that EA actually created themselves (only SSX springs to mind in recent history). They generally acquire companies who have already made the initial risk in putting out a proven hit title, then generate endless sequels, as long as it remains profitable. This is their business practice. They play it safe, don't innovate (much), and focus on making as much money as possible.

Meanwhile through all the acquisitions, we end up having fewer and fewer companies likely to put out original titles, which could've been hits or not. And now we'll never know.

That is why EA is generally reviled - we love creativity and innovation, and we hate to see potientials being lost (regardless of whether it actually makes money or not). Rez and Beyond Good and Evil are excellent titles that never got the attention they deserved and were money losers, yet there are some of us who loved these titles and want to see more. EA isn't a likely source of such titles.

How does EA's competitive business practice make their games worse?

Mainly because their main business model is cashing in on sequels to hit titles. Take a look at the reviews of the original hit titles (review in the 90's), then look at the sequels and their average reviews (80's, then 70's, then 60's...) For examples, see:
NHL 2005 - http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/xbox/nhl 2005/
Goldeneye 2 - http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/xbox/gol deneyerogueagent/
Urbz (aka The Sims 2.5) - http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/ps2/urbz /
Fifa 2005 - http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/gamecube /fifasoccer2005/

And so on. Madden review scores are all over the roadmap, but now that they have the exclusive NFL license, do you seriously expect the quality to go up? Granted, there are some exceptions and there are excellent sequels, such as SSX3, but they are generally in the minority. An average rating in the 70's still isn't too shabby, but it's not fantastic either.

If there's one thing you can count on from EA, it's sequels. Lots of them. Which brings up the next point... innovation.

Unless a sequel radically changes the gameplay mechanics (and they usually don't), it cannot be considered innovative to cash in on an existing brand name. Not that there's anything wrong with that since they do have to please their shareholders. However, sequels dilute brand names and make them worthless over time (how excited can you get about another Sims game now?)

As for original hit titles, there are very very few original hit titles that EA actually created themselves (only SSX springs to mind in recent history). They generally acquire companies who have already made the initial risk in putting out a proven hit title, then generate endless sequels, as long as it remains profitable. This is their business practice. They play it safe, don't innovate (much), and focus on making as much money as possible.

Meanwhile through all the acquisitions, we end up having fewer and fewer companies likely to put out original titles, which could've been hits or not. And now we'll never know.

That is why EA is generally reviled - we love creativity and innovation, and we hate to see potientials being lost (regardless of whether it actually makes money or not). Rez and Beyond Good and Evil are excellent titles that never got the attention they deserved and were money losers, yet there are some of us who loved these titles and want to see more. EA isn't a likely source of such titles.

How does EA's competitive business practice make their games worse?

Mainly because their main business model is cashing in on sequels to hit titles. Take a look at the reviews of the original hit titles (review in the 90's), then look at the sequels and their average reviews (80's, then 70's, then 60's...) For examples, see:
NHL 2005 - http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/xbox/nhl 2005/
Goldeneye 2 - http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/xbox/gol deneyerogueagent/
Urbz (aka The Sims 2.5) - http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/ps2/urbz /
Fifa 2005 - http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/gamecube /fifasoccer2005/

And so on. Madden review scores are all over the roadmap, but now that they have the exclusive NFL license, do you seriously expect the quality to go up? Granted, there are some exceptions and there are excellent sequels, such as SSX3, but they are generally in the minority. An average rating in the 70's still isn't too shabby, but it's not fantastic either.

If there's one thing you can count on from EA, it's sequels. Lots of them. Which brings up the next point... innovation.

Unless a sequel radically changes the gameplay mechanics (and they usually don't), it cannot be considered innovative to cash in on an existing brand name. Not that there's anything wrong with that since they do have to please their shareholders. However, sequels dilute brand names and make them worthless over time (how excited can you get about another Sims game now?)

As for original hit titles, there are very very few original hit titles that EA actually created themselves (only SSX springs to mind in recent history). They generally acquire companies who have already made the initial risk in putting out a proven hit title, then generate endless sequels, as long as it remains profitable. This is their business practice. They play it safe, don't innovate (much), and focus on making as much money as possible.

Meanwhile through all the acquisitions, we end up having fewer and fewer companies likely to put out original titles, which could've been hits or not. And now we'll never know.

That is why EA is generally reviled - we love creativity and innovation, and we hate to see potientials being lost (regardless of whether it actually makes money or not). Rez and Beyond Good and Evil are excellent titles that never got the attention they deserved and were money losers, yet there are some of us who loved these titles and want to see more. EA isn't a likely source of such titles.

How does EA's competitive business practice make their games worse?

Mainly because their main business model is cashing in on sequels to hit titles. Take a look at the reviews of the original hit titles (review in the 90's), then look at the sequels and their average reviews (80's, then 70's, then 60's...) For examples, see:
NHL 2005 - http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/xbox/nhl 2005/
Goldeneye 2 - http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/xbox/gol deneyerogueagent/
Urbz (aka The Sims 2.5) - http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/ps2/urbz /
Fifa 2005 - http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/gamecube /fifasoccer2005/

And so on. Madden review scores are all over the roadmap, but now that they have the exclusive NFL license, do you seriously expect the quality to go up? Granted, there are some exceptions and there are excellent sequels, such as SSX3, but they are generally in the minority. An average rating in the 70's still isn't too shabby, but it's not fantastic either.

If there's one thing you can count on from EA, it's sequels. Lots of them. Which brings up the next point... innovation.

Unless a sequel radically changes the gameplay mechanics (and they usually don't), it cannot be considered innovative to cash in on an existing brand name. Not that there's anything wrong with that since they do have to please their shareholders. However, sequels dilute brand names and make them worthless over time (how excited can you get about another Sims game now?)

As for original hit titles, there are very very few original hit titles that EA actually created themselves (only SSX springs to mind in recent history). They generally acquire companies who have already made the initial risk in putting out a proven hit title, then generate endless sequels, as long as it remains profitable. This is their business practice. They play it safe, don't innovate (much), and focus on making as much money as possible.

Meanwhile through all the acquisitions, we end up having fewer and fewer companies likely to put out original titles, which could've been hits or not. And now we'll never know.

That is why EA is generally reviled - we love creativity and innovation, and we hate to see potientials being lost (regardless of whether it actually makes money or not). Rez and Beyond Good and Evil are excellent titles that never got the attention they deserved and were money losers, yet there are some of us who loved these titles and want to see more. EA isn't a likely source of such titles.

Probably because they don't have that many paying customers (or a very good game)

Um.. hello?

Quality of the game aside (reviews range from 90% to 40% - which indicates that you probably either love or hate it) - Lineage 2 has 1.5 million subscribers and still climbing. This is more than three times the number of Everquest subscribers at it's peak.

Lineage 2 is the second most popular MMO in the world - next to the previous game in the series, Lineage 1, which still has 3.25 million subscribers.

If I was worried about people leaving me for another game, I would give it away for free. If I was secure in my products quality, I would charge.

Your attitude could be why most online games are their own downfall. The only thing that Lineage 2 is competing against is Lineage 1. But they're gaining customers - and keeping them - with their regular free content updates.

You might like Metacritic as well.

Actually, Shatner's most recent album, "Has Been", has gotten some pretty positive reviews. So yeah, maybe we should stick with Carrot Top as the failure example. Or Pauly Shore.

Let's make a reality show game!!" Which would then, of course, be designed with a linear storyline :)

Been done; see the Survivor video game.

I like reading hachet jobs. That ought to tell you about how that game was reviewed, even without visiting that site.

No matter how you feel about reality shows, anything that has a "voting" component ultimately can't be simulated in one player games. The contests are usually incidental to that; unless you sweep the immunities in Survivor, for instance, you damn well better have a good political game or you are toast... and nobody has ever swept more than a couple in a row at the end. The games can't match this.

Can you imagine an Apprentice video game? If you lose the contest (which can't be adequately simulated anyhow), a random number generator determines if you win or lose... :-)

Um, look at any product that you already like on amazon or go to a speciality website like MetaCritic and read the reviews, "what other customers bought" and recommended. Who needs advertising anymore when you can go online and read about products from people who actually have used them? I don't trust jack out of a corporation's mouth, any corporation.

Metal Gear Acid is a turn based card game. You may enjoy it a lot if you are into yugioh and such things.

Not to say it is gonna be a bad game. It is just not the Metal Gear you expect.

Actually, it is the Metal Gear I'd expect. Contrary to normal /. procedure, I did research and know what I am talking about.

Being a big fan of Culdcept, it has piqued my interest. I just wish I could afford to play it.

You're kidding right? Just try and count the 100% reviews here

Remember that thing I said about checking your personal tastes at the door? Personal taste is in the eye of the beholder. I think we could all agree that Willennium was probably a shoveling, but the fact that Stankonia was among those distributed, and it currently holds the third-hightest score ever on Metacritic suggests that it would probably be best for the recording industry to distribute that as a high watermark for their art, rather than your personal favorite.

I had a chance to look at the excel file that was linked in an earlier story, and they've been distributing Aquemini and Stankonia in both their edited and non-edited forms. They may not be your personal faves, but in a general sense they're the ones that should've been sent out as an artistic representation of the group.

Remember, these are going to libraries, not your record collection, so it's best if they pick stuff that's palatable to the general public as well as to the growth of culture, which is why I think you used the wrong example.

The first way we'll know if contact has been made is when all the grown-ups disappear. No parents!

Gigli was critical acclaimed? Are you sure about that? Metacritic

I'd pick Headhunter over MGS any time.

" Right, but you fail to realize that there must be a reason that companies began using the *.99 marketing. They can't all be doing it because everyone else is doing it, because then where would it have begun? Your argument, if you don't mind my saying so, is somewhat illogical."

Actually, I do mind. I don't fail to realize - I simply failed to state. Another poster took care of this issue and proved that you are the one that is mistaken, so I won't waste any time with you on that point.

" I don't really see your point. I know that 19.99 + 0.01 = 20.00, and so does the average shopper; that doesn't mean that we, as shoppers, aren't psychologically affected by pricing."

It doesn't mean that shoppers are psychologically affected either. You've offered no proof.

" I don't doubt that. But is it significant enough to warrant sales suddenly doubling? I was not sure about that, and so therefore in my original post I ruminated on the psychological devices that would cause the average shopper to perceive the PS2 as dirt-cheap."

Actually, yes - especially considering that the price drop had been hinted at so before the price drop went into effect, sales would have dropped. It's easier to double sales once sales drop off.

"I apologize, this is pretty much off on a tangent, but...how many good games are there in the cheap bin at EB? Be honest, now.

Oh yeah? Here's games below $10.
Metal Gear Solid 2: Metacritic score of 96
Maximo: Ghosts to Glory: Metacritic score of 84
Max Payne: Metacritic score of 80
Grand Theft Auto III: Metacritic score of 97
Gran Turismo 3: A-Spec: Metacritic score of 95
Devil May Cry: Metacritic score of 95

Pretty easy to pick out good games in the cheap bin. If I were to open up my search to games less than $20, I could provide even more.

"Or they may not. Anyway, the issue is moot; the lower to middle class consumer is perfectly capable of saving money from month to month. Hell, I do that. I have a good understanding of the middle class, considering that I'm in it."

Again, you missed the point completely. Anyone who has not bought a console, specifically a PS2 - the best selling console for this hardware generation, is not a very hardcore gamer. At this point in the PS2's life cycle, the purchases are coming from casual gamers. These are not the types of people who want to save money for a console. If the price point is lowered to the point where no saving has to be done, obviously sales are going to increase. Your intuition about how people think is sorely lacking.

"No, I believe that the function of government is to serve its citizens, to keep them healthy, and to provide a safety net to those who need it. How stupid people are is entirely irrelevant.

It's amusing how much disdain you, as a typical liberal, have for the general public. You were quite prepared to call them stupid cows in your original post yet you want to provide a safety net for them, why? You obviousl

" Right, but you fail to realize that there must be a reason that companies began using the *.99 marketing. They can't all be doing it because everyone else is doing it, because then where would it have begun? Your argument, if you don't mind my saying so, is somewhat illogical."

Actually, I do mind. I don't fail to realize - I simply failed to state. Another poster took care of this issue and proved that you are the one that is mistaken, so I won't waste any time with you on that point.

" I don't really see your point. I know that 19.99 + 0.01 = 20.00, and so does the average shopper; that doesn't mean that we, as shoppers, aren't psychologically affected by pricing."

It doesn't mean that shoppers are psychologically affected either. You've offered no proof.

" I don't doubt that. But is it significant enough to warrant sales suddenly doubling? I was not sure about that, and so therefore in my original post I ruminated on the psychological devices that would cause the average shopper to perceive the PS2 as dirt-cheap."

Actually, yes - especially considering that the price drop had been hinted at so before the price drop went into effect, sales would have dropped. It's easier to double sales once sales drop off.

"I apologize, this is pretty much off on a tangent, but...how many good games are there in the cheap bin at EB? Be honest, now.

Oh yeah? Here's games below $10.
Metal Gear Solid 2: Metacritic score of 96
Maximo: Ghosts to Glory: Metacritic score of 84
Max Payne: Metacritic score of 80
Grand Theft Auto III: Metacritic score of 97
Gran Turismo 3: A-Spec: Metacritic score of 95
Devil May Cry: Metacritic score of 95

Pretty easy to pick out good games in the cheap bin. If I were to open up my search to games less than $20, I could provide even more.

"Or they may not. Anyway, the issue is moot; the lower to middle class consumer is perfectly capable of saving money from month to month. Hell, I do that. I have a good understanding of the middle class, considering that I'm in it."

Again, you missed the point completely. Anyone who has not bought a console, specifically a PS2 - the best selling console for this hardware generation, is not a very hardcore gamer. At this point in the PS2's life cycle, the purchases are coming from casual gamers. These are not the types of people who want to save money for a console. If the price point is lowered to the point where no saving has to be done, obviously sales are going to increase. Your intuition about how people think is sorely lacking.

"No, I believe that the function of government is to serve its citizens, to keep them healthy, and to provide a safety net to those who need it. How stupid people are is entirely irrelevant.

It's amusing how much disdain you, as a typical liberal, have for the general public. You were quite prepared to call them stupid cows in your original post yet you want to provide a safety net for them, why? You obviousl