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.
...121 will be sports.
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?
Hasn't the mountain of discount no-hoper PS2 titles taught the industry to go for quality not quantity?
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
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.
Here's one so far: Magical Tree
--
"Open source is good." - Steve Jobs
"Open source is evil." - Microsoft
As the author of the original article states on the very first line:
This list shouldn't really be compared to the list of Xbox 360 titles that are to be released in 2006 because the PlayStation 3 isn't out yet and because we still don't know a whole lot about the system or the games that are scheduled for it.
Now compare that with the headline for this story. I can't wait to see if the dupe headline is any better :)
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.
are just part of the 2006 EA Sports lineup that the PS3 won't have (the 2007 lineup will be ready when the PS3 is released).
*ducks*
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.
Much bigger news (and news that one would think would appeal directly to the /. crowd) is that so many third-party developers have already commited to the Revolution and many more are very interested. Not only that but the fact that from day 1 Nintendo has pledged support for indie/single developers! What more could we ask for, and it gets *zero* coverage. Now, this may change once the full details are known, but with all the fluff and hype covered about everything else this has received NOTHING.
Of those supposed 86 Xbox 360 titles, how many will even be decent? Judging by the fact that out of the 15 or so launch titles, maybe 1 is decent that equates to about 5-6 decent games over the full spread. So in a year and a half you get 5 or so decent games. Now, how many of those are cross-platform or PC games? Oblivion, anyone? And the fact that the Oblivion system specs. were released and not too massive (2ghz, 512MB, common ATI/Nvidia cards, DX9).
Same for the PS3. Oh, but wait Sony has said time and time again that the PS3 is NOT a game console. They are banking heavily on the blu-ray angle. We are all aware of the standard Sony fare and the same proportions of decent:crap as MS. So they may have 3 solid titles out of their lineup.
To buy either the 360 or PS3 to play a handful of titles that are still a year out is a bit silly. Add to this the slow release schedules due to cost and dev. time and you have two expensive consoles that will be seeing more standby time than action. Unless you use your PS3 to play all the Blu-Ray discs you will be buying up like crazy to replace those "so-outdated" DVD's you just built up. I guess just like how we all own so many UMD movies and games... ooh, and mini-discs, don't forget the ubiquitous mini-disc in America.
Two powerhouse machines built around closed standards, DRM, and hype... or the Revolution, with close to open development, low cost, quick development time, standard media, and a back catalog a mile long... even if you are a fanboy it is hard to not see this.
http://teasphere.wordpress.com - A little spot of tea
They can. But what makes you think they will?
4.7 GB should be enough for anybody!
"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.
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.