Slashdot Mirror
86 games for the 360, 45 for the PS3
MBCook writes "Joystiq has posted lists of 86 Xbox 360 and 45 PS3 games that are expected to be released in 2006. They contain expected games (Halo 3, Killzone), ports (Burnout Revenge, Half-Life 2), sequels (SSX 4, Armored Core 4), and more. As for the Revolution? From the third link: 'For those who are wondering: the Nintendo Revolution list is just 8 titles long right now. Nintendo is being characteristically tight-lipped about their plans for the Revolution.'" The word seems to be that some of the mystery around the Revolution will be revealed at this year's GDC.
I'd rather have quality than quantity when it comes to console games. I'm pretty sure that FFXII is worth about 20 xbox360 games...
Where the Music Matters
If the games are good, it shouldn't really matter who has more titles. This is nothing more than the console version of measuring penis length. Now, when you include previous-generation titles that play on the new system, who comes out ahead?
My vote is still for the PC.
The number of games expected to be released for one system in 2006 is far greater than the others. Only one system has been released already. Guess which one it is?
Is this anything other than an obvious function of stage of development? Or just some pro-360 spin?
One decent game that kept me engrossed for hours and hours than 100+ rubbish games that I wish I'd never spent my money on. I suppose the problem for the developers though is tat they want to make a game that is just good enough to make you want to buy more but not so good that you never want to buy another one. It's a tricky problem and personally I think they have been failing badly for a number of years.
I used to have a better sig but it broke.
Nope, just like the deluge of Atari games back in the 80's didn't manage to teach them the same lesson.
If they spend less money developing a poor quality game, then they have to trick fewer people into buying it in order to make a profit.
Fanboy or not, I don't care how many games there are, as long as there is one I want to play. The console I end up buying, will depend on which games tempt me the most.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
But they aren't including the fact that not only will the Revo be backwards compatible with the GC, but it will allow you to download and run games from the last 20 years of Nintendos consoles. So long as these games are reasonably priced, under $5, I think that Nintendo will probably have a big advantage over the competitors.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
The PS3 is going to be using games that come on blu-ray disks, wich can hold a lot more data than the DVDs that the X-Box currently uses.
They can. But what makes you think they will?
Besides, Sony doesn't intend to sell the PS3 at a loss, so the profits won't have to be made back in the games.
But they're still charging developers a royalty per game. just because they don't have to doesn't mean they aren't going to. They're after profits.
The popularity of emulators and roms sites says that there's a lot of people who still aren't bored with old nintendo games.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
"Besides, Sony doesn't intend to sell the PS3 at a loss, so the profits won't have to be made back in the games. "
Yes absolutely Sony intends to sell the console at a loss. Other Blu-Ray players being released later this year will be pushing $1500. There is no way they are selling an early (practically beta) version of a Blu-Ray player AND a gaming machine with a CELL processor at cost.
Sony will most likely be selling this at a substantial loss. PS3's release will coincide with the release of Halo3 and a Xbox360 price cut to around $250. PS3 must launch in the 400-500 range at most to have any chance of competing, and this is much less than the manfacturing costs.
You haven't played RE:4
My wife could give $0.02 about gaming consoles. Yet she has told me that we are definitely getting a Rev, because she wants to play all the old school games from when she was a kid.
That, in my mind, is the target audience for this sort of feature.
The world moves for love. It kneels before it in awe.
The price of an electronic device can be divided into a fixed development cost for the first unit, plus a marginal cost for each additional unit. The fixed development cost is usually spread out over each "expected" sale for an initial period. Which is why the cost fall drastically after that period.
It is quite likely that the PS3 will be sold for a price above the marginal cost, especially since Sony is co-developer of both the CELL processor and the blue-ray disc technology. Since they have alreaady paid directly for the development of these technologies, they will not have to pay for it again through a unit license fee. Unlike other providers of CELL or blue-ray based devices.
They will still have to regain the development cost for all three technologies, most likely in game licensing fees.
This is a silly stereotype, and I have yet to see it proven in numbers.
... not including those I've rented. And that's just in genres I actually like.
How many games are available for the PS1/PS2 combined? How many are considered bad/terrible/stupid by a majority of players (meaning, there's no reason it should have been released).
Yes, I said majority, because if you release a mediocre game and it has fans who go out and want to play it regularly and buy new releases, its not a failure, despite not being in the top-10.
Now, for the second statistic -- how many excellent PS2/PS1 games are there? Quite a few. I own at least 10 myself
The PS2 has been a huge success as a platform, no matter what some "insiders" claim.
On the same note, the Gamecube has been a huge financial success for Nintendo, despite not having the sales figures of the PS2.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)