Slashdot Mirror
Grand Theft Auto IV Unveiled On 360
Despite expectations that this would be the least eventful of the E3 pre-conferences, Microsoft's Peter Moore drops the news that Grand Theft Auto IV will be on Xbox 360. Rockstar and Microsoft have teamed up to do exclusive episodic content in the GTA gameworld for the 360. Slated to release October 16, 2007 in North America, October 19 in Europe. Other details include lots of support for Live Arcade titles (Sonic, Galaga, Street Fighter II), the official unveiling of Shadowrun for the 360 and PC, the airing of the Halo 3 Teaser Trailer (which is already on Xbox Live), and much discussion of 'Live Anywhere'. This last is an expansion of Xbox Live to PC and cell platforms in addition to the Xbox arena.
XBox 360 with 20GB hard drive ($400) + HD-DVD drive addon ($100?) + 1 year XBox Live ($50) = $550.
Playstation 3 with 20GB hard drive ($500) + Bluray drive (included) + 5 years online (included) = $500.
Sony are the arrogant ones here, though, right? OK, just checking. I'm finding it increasingly hard to keep track.
By the way, Zonk, GTA4 isn't an XBox exclusive.
The game will be released for both the PS3 and the Xbox 360 on October 16th, 2007.
The Xbox version will have "episodic releases" via Xbox Live.
It means you can update your "xbox has two good games (if you buy two copies of halo)" jokes to "xbox360 has two good games (if you buy two copies of GTA4)"
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
Rockstar Games announces Grand Theft Auto IV for the Xbox 360(TM) and PLAYSTATION®3 computer entertainment system.
If the GTA franchise is indeed going to become a Xbox360 exclusive, I foresee Sony going the way of the Sega
Where was anything bad said about Sony?
Just curious.
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
FYI, Halo3 Info and trailer is up at http://www.bungie.net/
Sounds like the new GTA will actually be for both the 360 and PS3, but extra GTA episodes will be availiable exclusivly through XBox Live. So the original game will be for both but there will be extra content exclusive to the 360. Stay tuned for more details folks, but the MS conferance.... well all I can say is .... WOW!
"reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
Bombshell. Hoooooly crap!
this is the E3 knockout blow. MS wins in the first round!
The gaming press is wrong.
Rockster press release
Rockstar Games Announces Grand Theft Auto IV for the Xbox 360(TM) and PlayStation(R)3 Computer Entertainment System Tuesday May 9, 3:15 pm ET
It will be on the 360 first, but it will be on the PS3 as well.
Remember the Alamo, and God Bless Texas...
Better get rid of this Zonk. It's not true. Coming simultaneously to PS3 and 360.
That's 2007...the PS3 is 2006
Its currently 2006. Next year..
Bill Gates' entrance!
:-D
"What is that in Bill's hands? He's holding a tiny white object and can't stop fiddling with it."
Finally! News that Bill truly is one of us - except hes probably more compulsive about the whole thing.
in other news, halo 3 is up on bungie.net but i guess that is not surprising.
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
Given the poor quality of some of these games when they are not platform-specific, I almost hope that they will stick to one platform.
Some of these games are ported so poorly that attention is barely paid to the controls specific to the platform (e.g. Keyboard + Mouse = PC).
Is it just me, or did games that were written for PCs and then ported to the console seem to be much better than games apparantly written the other way around?
Soon they will be writing these things in java.
"While the game will be available for both the PS3 and 360, only XBox Live will have access to the 'Throwing Chairs Monkeyboy' mod. Rockstar CTO Paul Walker was quick to go on record that the game will *not* become a single-platformer: 'We would never marginalize our most successful demographic, overweight white suburban kids who wish they were dangerous Negroes.'"
"Made up/misattributed quote that makes me look smart. I am on
You know what? Super Mario (fill in the blank) is coming out exclusively for the Nintendo (fill in the blank) and that is all I need. I'll probably not buy either the PS3 or the 360.
I can't wait to see what easter egg porn is in this one.
You know someday Bill Gates is going to turn into an eccentric billionair that'll make Howard Hughes look like Mr Normalperson.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
This is actually pretty cool. It means that the acheivements and gamerscore are coming to Vista. Xbox live support for multiplayer (good bye gamespy) and its cross platform. I know PC gamers will dispise the concept of playing with console kiddies but given the chance I think this will be huge. Friends lists, video and voice chat, gamerscore, acheivements this is all big and welcome news for Vista. The additional connectivity to the windows community will only help the 360. Leave it to microsoft to once agian figure out how to leverage its OS monopoly to help in other markets.
Ves
Well, a keyboard and mouse don't really compare to a good gamepad device, though the opposite can also often be true (I'll forever be a fan of mouse-aiming vs with joystick). Flight games and many others are quite centric to the input device, but then a decent PC joystick or gamepad will make a big difference as well (I have one that was all of $15 and is quite similar to a Playstation 2 gamepad, works great). Of course, if you can't find a PC gamepad that suits you, one could always get the playstation-USB or Xbox-USB adaptors for PC.
Even if the game is only exclusive on 360 for a few months and then comes out on other platforms (as is currently the case with ps2 GTA), the majority of the sales happen during the exclusivity period. After that, the hype pretty much dies. I was amazed to see how low the sales numbers were for the GTA games on xbox.
So, whatever is the case with this GTA exclusivity for 360, it's a huge blow against sony. In north america at least.
X-Box 360:
DOA4 is here
DOAX2 is coming
HALO 3 is coming
GTA 4 is coming
Madden for the 360 sucks.
It's finally reaching a point that I might think it's worth getting one.
PS3:
Nothing is here.
The console itself if coming... eventually.
Madden for the 360 sucks.
Wii:
Nothing is here.
The console is coming, but won't take advantage of my HDTV anyway.
Madden for the 360 sucks.
Amid the 360 hype (from haters and fanboys alike), I've mostly been sitting on the side-lines to see what Sony and Nintendo would be offering before chosing which new-gen console (if any) I would buy. With this announcement, Rockstar has just made the decision a little bit easier for me.
In spite of Madden sucking, I'm leaning more and more towards the 360.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
I can't remember where it came out first, but GTA III was great on the PC. The "save point" thing was the only console-based annoyance, but the graphics were great, and the game was fantastic.
I wonder a little bit whether the episodic content will be "really exclusive", or whether it will be "exclusive" the way GTA3, GTA:VC and GTA:SA were.
I mean, what are the chances that a few months after the last of the XBox 360 "episodes" is released on XBox Live, we'll see a compilation disc with all of the GTA4 "added content" ported to PS3?
I'm thinking back here to when GTA: Liberty Stories was supposed to be the great and powerful savior of the PSP, and once it came out it got really good review scores; but once it was actually released it didn't really make that big a splash, and now a year or so later it's just coming out on the PS2 where the actual customers are.
Well, at least Microsoft's finally figured out how to make XBox Live Arcade good now. $5 horse costumes and games that were on the $20 Midway Arcade Treasures collection 3 years ago = no. Mods and cheap mini-expansion packs = yes!
Read the actual news and you'll see that the PS3 will also have GTA4. Microsoft was able to get exclusive downloadable content, not exclusive rights to the game.
Yeah, seems to be a misunderstanding. GTA4 will be released to both platforms, but RockStar and MS have an exclusive agreement where additional espisodes will be released exclusivly via Xbox Live if I understood the conferences correctly.
"reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
Oh c'mon. If you want to buy a 360 now, more power to you - but surely we should wait for all the boxes to come out before we pass judgement as to the best console?
(and yes, the GP was a joke).
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
re: who cares" guys who are driving lousy cars and getting no pussy - which is just about 90% of Slashdot readers. That's a MARKET BABY!
Some people have that single game or two that they love, and would rather spend more money to improve the experiance of that one game than purchase more games. Similar to MMO's where users pay money each month for continued / interactive content. It is optional, you don't have to buy it, you aren't missing anything if you don't get it ... just an option for those who would rather get more of the game instead of buying a different game.
Microsoft didn't give complete details on Live Anywhere, but if I understand Live right, don't many of the most useful features require a subscription? I'm really not understanding what Microsoft is ultimately trying to do in the first place, but why would PC gamers pay to play on Live when they can play on free servers elsewhere? It doesn't seem like they would shell out $50/year just to play with their console friends.
This really is a sad day in the world of video games, I thought this franchise was the absolute best one ever but now I am changing my mind. They are deserting a lot of loyal fans with this move and I hope they figure that out quickly. I refuse to pay that much for a video game console when I can build a computer much smarter and much faster for less.
My Tuesday is now ruined, thank you assholes.
If carrots got you drunk, rabbits would be fucked up. - Comedian Mitch Hedberg R.I.P. 03/30/68-2/24/05
if anyone wonders, here the original Summary:
Grand Theft Auto IV Unveiled As 360 Exclusive
Posted by Zonk on Tuesday May 09, @04:03PM
from the didn't-expect-that dept.
E3 Microsoft XBox (Games)
Despite expectations that this would be the least eventful of the E3 pre-conferences, Microsoft's Peter
Moore drops the news that Grand Theft Auto IV will be an Xbox 360 exclusive.
What the hell are you talking about?
... I mean a FPS?? WTF?
SR really needed to be a 3rd person RPG, like KOTOR or WoW...
(TLA overload! 601!! 601!!!!)
Zonk just f*ed up. The other game is an exclusive, GTA is being simultaneously released (you should really RTFA)
Thank you Mr. AC! Folks, please mod the AC up so people can see what a fucking douchebag Zonk is.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Whoa, an "urban simulator" on the XBox?
How innovative!
Yea all of us PC owners screamed that when started having to wait 6+ months for ports of the last few sequals. Eventially when consumers make a game popular, the companies have to screw us over in order to get a promise of big money from some hot new system.
As others have commented, it will be released for both PS3 and 360 at the same time.
What no one is mentioning is the PC release. Rockstar tends to wait for a few months after console release before releasing the PC version. They're not being jerks. They're retooling it for the purpose of bringing it over to PC. That's why the GTA series hasn't suffered from consolitis, by and large. I'll be looking forward to GTA IV on the PC, even if I have to wait half a year.
The expectation of GTA lock-out was the one barrier which has kept me from seriously considering the 360.
The X-Box exclusive DOA series is *almost* enough on its own to make me want a 360, and hopes for more HALO games also has me rather jazzed over it. My "wait and see" attitude has mostly been based on a fondness for GTA:III & GTA:VC, which were exclusive to the PS2 for about a year.
If Sony does not have the GTA series locked up in their stable, what is there left to wait and see? BluRay? The Wii controller?
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
That is if GTA-4 is a good game.
Not every sequal is great or even good.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
$500? FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ?!!
And that's without even a game!
I can give a starving village in Africa a herd of four goats that would make them self-sufficient for that kind of money! (Hah, I bet you thought I was gonna say I could buy blowjobs for a year!...)
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
If I remember correctly, GTA 4 (IV) is Vice City...
San Andreas is really 5 (V).
Any NEW GTA whatever the name would technically be 6 or 7 (if you count Liberty City Stories).
The only difference between the priced models is hard drive size. Go troll elsewhere, diggboy.
Read the actual news and you'll see that the PS3 will also have GTA4. Microsoft was able to get exclusive downloadable content, not exclusive rights to the game.
The big news here is not that the exclusive content for the 360.
The big news is that it's coming out on the 360 at all. The last three GTA games were each PS2 exclusives for many months.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
I'd blame microsoft for making such a big deal out of having GTA4 on their console.
I don't blame them at all. Since the Xbox 360 hit, or dropped softly onto, the street, Interweb rumor after Interweb rumor has had GTA being either exclusive to the PS3 or at least coming out way ahead of an Xbox 360 version (said rumors being driven mostly by the franchise history). Given the extreme popularity of the franchise, and the fact that the Xbox 360 will be much cheaper than the PS3, this is indeed a very big deal for Microsoft. While Halo 3 will have the legions of fans of the previous two games, those legions are expected to get 360s anyway. With GTA hitting simultaneous on both boxes, they're going to be able to steal a lot of people who look at the two games, see that whatever differences (the additional episodic content) there are between the two versions play to the benefit of the 360, and decide that paying $100+ extra isn't a great deal.
I thought that Rockstar had given up numbering the GTA series.
GTA I, II and III were normal. Then we got Vice City and San Andreas, which would be IV and V respectively.
They're now suddenly going back to using normal numerical systems? What are VC and SA then? III.III and III.VII?
Well, it turns out its not exclusive after all. I think the messaging from the conference was definately confusing. At first I thought maybe the game was coming out in October of this year, meaning it would be exclusive to the 360 until the PS3 ships, but it's actually 2007.
:)
Still, this is a major coup for MS since no longer are they getting the "scraps" from Rockstar. I know there were millions of folks who bought a PS2 soley for GTA3, and Xbox owners had to wait a very long couple of months before it finally came to their console. Now it's on an equal playing field, that's only good news for MS.
Although yeah, having it be truly 360 exclusive would have essentially sealed it for Sony.
-- jchenx
Episodic content is just a way for them to raise the price of the game without raising the price on the pricetag in the stores.
I'm sick of this crap where game companies think they can get $1.00 out of us for what would have been $0.10 of content had it been in an expansion pack, or included in the game to begin with. I'm also pissed at all the stupid moron gamers that buy this crap that 'costs less than a cup of coffee' because they don't understand that they're paying way more money in the long run; thus letting the micropayment mind-games continue.
I wish one of the next-gen consoles didn't have an online component, so they wouldn't be able to pull this crap. I'd buy that console instead of the other ones.
If Sony does not have the GTA series locked up in their stable, what is there left to wait and see? BluRay? The
Wii controller?
You answered your own question.
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
Being a 360 owner, this comes as really good news. The GTA series was the clincher that made me buy a PS2, but since GTA4 will be out on Xbox360 the same day as the PS3 version, there's no need to get a PS3 at all. ;)
(Though I'll probably get one when it comes down in price.)
Changing material after the fact destroys any context for comments written to rebut the claims published on slashdot. May I suggest a retraction next time? It's the honest thing to do.
True, but you didn't mention it under your PS3 column ("Nothing is here), which makes me think that you saw Zonk's original update.
And your comments about CPU utilization are wrong. The multiple cores on the 360 don't do much without being programmed for. IIRC, Microsoft has said that none of the current crop of games take much, if any, advantage of the extra cores.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
perhaps you meant windows 2000 instead of 3000?
and I would disagree, a properly configured 2000 box is plenty stable. if you said 95,98, or ME I'd agree with you, but 2000 or XP can be perfectly stable.
OK, I'll concede. Being on the 360 is quite the steal for Microsoft. For me, this is one of the few franchises that was sony "exclusive" that I missed by having a broken ps2.
"Something's wrong with you...and I hope we never do meet again." - Deftones When Girls Telephone Boys
This last is an expansion of Xbox Live to PC and cell platforms in addition to the Xbox arena.
Okay, am I completely misreading this or does that open the door to PS3 vs XBox 360 over XBox Live?
Probably not, but it's an interesting possibility.
Xbox reviews.. We think they're funny.
hang on... you got GTA1 the original 2.5D version then you got GTA London which what more of a mod of GTA1 then GTA2 came. GTA Liberty City was number 3 GTA Vice City was number 4 GTA San Andreas was number 5 This next one should be numbered 6 ...oh, wait there's more, GTA Liberty Stories comes after GTA SA...
The future of gaming is... paying for the same game over and over again. Not to mention the joy of downolading patches and paying extra for extra skins or weapons or any other tweaks they can wring a few bucks out of. Thanks Xbox live!
OK, screw videogames. Guess I'll have to learn how to play softball or something... *grumble*
Captcha: rebuffed LOL
Regarding BD movie playback... BD has support for HDCP, so, any studio that wants can limit non HDCP playback to (IIRC) 480p, so you wouldn't get the full resolution. But, HDCP is coming under fire lately, and a number of movie studios are backing away from it. Currently, most of the installed base of HD sets do not even have HDMI inputs.
FYI, the Xbox 360 does not include an HDMI output, and that will be an addon made available later. I see no reason the basic PS3 and the Xbox 360 aren't in the same boat.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
What we've all been waiting for!!!
HOT COFFEE 360 BABY!
Rockstar = whores.
All was good when the top-down view games were on PC first, just as god intended. But then they sold out to Sony for GTA3-5. Now they sold themselves to MS for 360. Thankfully, being the whores they are, they'll release a PC version sooner or later, but I'll still be pissed off when I'm the only one not getting any...
Shouldn't be a big deal. Remember when Sony lost Resident Evil to GameCube? Sony still got RE4, which has been the franchises best title yet. I wonder if the graphics will be better when they port GTA over to PS3, just like the graphics were better going from PS2 to xbox?
Can I bum a sig?
mod parent down(sorry)
27 playable games? nothing is coming?! ha!
Red Steel
Twighlight Princess
H.A.M.M.E.R
----- You know you have ego issues when you register a domain in your name.
That's right. Halo 3 is enough said. Wrap up E3. It's done. No more news to give. You just can't top that.
Can I bum a sig?
Let me get this straight ... you have a 5 digit ID and you actually took a slashdot story on face value? Hah.
And given that this incident caused you great embarassment, it's a safe assumption that you go to Junior High School. That means that you must have registered your slashdot ID when you were about 6 years old. I guess that makes you a child prodigy. (Or at least that's a better story than a sad pathetic man whining about video game news.)
A.) The 360 doesn't have HDMI out, neither version.
B.) You do not ever need HDMI out to watch HD (sorta)
C.) All HD movies will play over non-HDCP outputs, just at a reduced resolution. These movies are encrypted when sent over HDCP compliant outputs, and decrypted by the television. Considering that most HD sets today do not have HDMI inputs, HDCP may be dead in the water. Several major movie studios are backing away from HDCP.
And, just FYI, since the 360 does not include HDMI, it will have to be made available as an addon. I don't see why the same couldn't be done for the base-model PS3. If there IS a reason, someone, please do tell.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Constant anti-nintendo troll might fly off freely, but don't be stupid enough to do it twice in the same thread. This is not /v/.
Oblivion is going the way of smaller expansions and lower prices. (No new land+dozens of quests for $20-40, but rather one or two new quest arcs for $2.) I personally don't like this, but it's a valid market choice- if it works for Oblivion why not GTA3?
"Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
Wow...GTA on the 360...IN 17 MONTHS!!! Why is this exciting news exactly? I am sure there are a lot of great games coming out on all the consoles in late 2007. The reason we haven't heard about them - because they are saving them for E3 2007.
What is MS going to talk about at next year's E3, Halo 8, arriving at your local game store October 7, 2059.
The world moves for love. It kneels before it in awe.
Shouldn't that be GTA4.
GTA3
GTA:VC (vice city)
GTA:SA (san andreas)
GTA:LCS (liberty city stories)
GTA:IV (? ?)
Embarassment isn't the correct word, however. I'm hardly embarassed by being made an ass of. It was actually a good laugh.
What I actually am, though, is one of those sad pathetic men who whine about how much /. sucks these days, and the lack of editing skill of the editors(indeed, the lack of reading skill... *sigh*). Most likely I am jealous of Zonk's job. I would certainly love to get paid to do what he does, or pretends to do, whatever your interpretation of his doings is. I mean... is he actually getting paid to be a fucking jackass, or is he getting paid to be an editor, and is really, actually that bad of an editor?
In reality, we all know with relative certainty that he's paid to produce ad impressions, hence, the jackass option fits pretty well. A paid jackass. That's cozy. I could fucking do that shit, man.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Its like it always will be, out first to the most popular console.
:)
There is no chance it will be exclusively for one console. Rockstar are not that stupid.
Less Consoles = Less money
And GTA is always horrible on aby console. It really kicks into gear when it hits the almighty PC
I'd actually bet more slashdot readers get laid than you give credit for. Most people don't play the GTA auto series for cheap porn, they do it because they can steal a wide variety of vehicles and not go to jail for it. Personally, I love to see how long I can evade the police in a camper.
You can get 15 minutes of fame, but you can go down in history for infamy.
It's not the GameCube controller or memory card slots (since those are on the top), so I'm going to assume that it covers up the "2 Front-loading SD memory card slots" (since they're supposedly optional).
In other news, Jack Thompson drops dead due to a combination of "fear" for the children who are going to be corrupted by GTA4, and glee at the TV appearances in his near future.
I mean damnit, I'm still trying to rescue Maria from Catalina and her henchmen. Give me a chance to catch up!
By "memory card slots", I meant "GameCube memory card slots".
Sigh.
The X-Box exclusive DOA series is *almost* enough on its own to make me want a 360, and hopes for more HALO games also has me rather jazzed over it. My "wait and see" attitude has mostly been based on a fondness for GTA:III & GTA:VC, which were exclusive to the PS2 for about a year.
If Sony does not have the GTA series locked up in their stable, what is there left to wait and see?
To each his own. For me, DOA is fun, but for fighting I prefer Tekken. My roommate prefers all the 2D fighters. I'm looking forward to the new Zelda game. I've played all the GTA games so far, but I'm getting bored with them. I never even finished San Andreas. There's only so much killing people and taking there cars I need to do. I like RPGs, and Fable was one of the few games that tempted me toward the original Xbox.
So I'm not excitied about the PS3. I'm less excited about the 360. I'm somewhat excited by the revolution. I'm perfectly happy with all the great games for PS2, Gamecube, and Xbox so far. The next generation just doesn't matter to me yet. Gameplay is far more important than graphics (I liked Dragon Warrior VII,) and the current consoles are 'good enough' for me. Give me great games, and I'll spend $500+ on a console. Meanwhile, I'll be busy playing all the good games I still haven't had the time to finish.
I'm glad you enjoy GTA and Halo enough to make you want to buy a 360. But just because those are your favorite games doesn't mean that's the end of the console wars for the rest of us. The super great game that I'm looking for is the one that we won't be expected. It won't be a re-make of an existing franchise. It'll be something like Katamari or Shadow of the Colossus that comes out of nowhere and is different. Maybe it'll be on the 360, maybe it'll be Sony's baby. Maybe it'll be for my cell phone. I don't know. But I'll still wait and see. More of the same just isn't worth $500 to me. I know I will own all three eventually. But Nintendo is likely to win this one just because they'll be in the $200-300, which is more reasonable for non-essential purchase like a game console. Especially when I have 6 different ones in my living room already that are still fun.
Got Apathy?
"... is one of those sad pathetic men who whine about how much /. sucks these days,"
it is sad when you consider slashdot has not changed much at all.
So if you think Slashdot has gone down hill, you are incorrect. You have gone up hill.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Actually you're technically right, since there was supposed to be an SD-card adapter for the GC.
economics (n.) The social science that deals with the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services and with the theory and management of economies or economic systems.
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun the frumious Bandersnatch.
You know, it's not like you're getting forced to buy the content. As for the cost of content - you have obviously *no* clue what it costs to generate and test new content. Of course we're making some money on it - the point is that we actually would like to live off making games. If you don't like that, just make your own and release them as open source. Nobody's stopping you.
I think it's pretty clear that the market is still in control of these transactions. Witness, for example, the uproar over the horse armor for Oblivion. I'm about as big an Oblivion fan as you can find and I did not buy any of the add-ons that Bethesda offered. I simply thought they weren't that great of a value and they came out by the time I beat the game and had gotten sick of playing it so much.
If you remember, the uproar over the horse armor pack led them to offer the next content at a much better price.
If two missions for GTA4 cost $15.00, then people are going to balk and not get it, which prevents further releases at that price.
At this point my concern would be elevated if I was a retailer. How does Gamestop get a cut of this? One thought is offeting kiosks with this stuff to download and Gamestop getting a certain cut. For those without an internet connection or who don't want to sit and wait 6 hours for a 400MB map pack to download, they can go to their local Gamestop and get it there locally. Retailers are also currenty selling the points you use to get this content in the first place. For many people, the way they get points is to go into the store, plunk down $25, and walk out with a card.
Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.
WRONG... episodic releases are exclusive. The game will be released for both the PS3 and the Xbox 360 on October 16th, 2007. The Xbox version will have "episodic releases" via Xbox Live.
o n/index.php
CORRECT: Game will be an XBox360 exclusive, at least until the PS3 ships.
Note October above and November below:
"The full version of the PlayStation 3 will be priced at US$600 in North America and 600 (US$763) in Europe. It will first go on sale in Japan on Nov. 11, followed by North America, Europe and Australasia on Nov. 17."
http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/05/09/playstati
A top of the line graphics card costs $500-600. A top of the line mobo for $120-$180 and a top of the line process for $400-$1000. Add in memory and the rest of the computer and you get the picture.
Hmmm... Pie...
Rockstar and Microsoft have teamed up to do exclusive episodic content in the GTA gameworld for the 360.
Could somebody please explain to me why so many developpers (think Valve) have lately become obsessed with episodic games? What is the point in that, besides the obvious money milking argument?
Don't think of it as changing the story... think of it as a "patch".
Similarly, you can think of CmdrTaco's dupe of this story tomorrow morning as "episodic content".
See? Now XBox Live really is everywhere!!!
You're right, I'm not getting forced.
As for having no clue...
Let's say they have a team of twelve guys working on some episodic content. I pick that number because I know for a fact that there are developers who create the content with less, and because it makes the math obvious. Let's say it takes a month to create and test a $1 add-on. I pick that time period and price because the price is representitive and the time period is demostrably conservative. Let's say all ten of those people make a quarter million dollars a year. Which, quite frankly, isn't likely. I know plenty of people in the industry, and I can tell you that the average salary is signifigantly less than that. I personally don't work in the industry because they don't pay nearly that well.
That's a quarter million dollars to develop the mod. There are some notable recent examples of $2 mods that have sold 400,000 copies in the first two days. What's the profit margin there? And that's if you assume there are no further sales after the first few days.
In reality, the teams are smaller, the salaries are smaller, and you're totally full of shit if you try and tell anybody that the content has to cost $1/hour of play time to be profitable.
the point is that we actually would like to live off making games. If you don't like that, just make your own and release them as open source.
My point wasn't that people shouldn't be able to charge whatever they want. My point was twofold. First, that I'm not going to pay that much for mere minutes of content, and second, that I don't think other people should either. You can think I'm wrong all you want, but I have just as much a right and reason to try and convince people not to fund this crap as the developers do to pull it.
If you remember, the uproar over the horse armor pack led them to offer the next content at a much better price.
No it didn't. It prompted them to offer the later content at a slightly reduced price. ($0.10 less? Give me a break.) I have the game. I love the game. I have the Orrery add-on... If taken as a fraction of a $35 expansion pack, there is about $0.25 worth of content in it.
I'd buy the "expensive to create next-gen content" argument if the game weren't 10% content and 90% cut and paste copies of that content, or perhaps if there were more that 10 minutes of gameplay in there for $1.89. Episodic content is just a marketing ruse to get people to pay 10x more for expansion content than they used to. Next gen content isn't 10x more expensive to create, and it's not worth 10x more to buy. End of story.
I have no clue what the guy who modded you up was smoking, but that's the most retarded troll I've ever seen. People have every right to complain about it AND not buy it. If people don't buy the extra content it doesn't show up in their statistics other than as someone who didn't buy it. If people however complain loudly in various forums and get others informed so they in turn complain loudly, it shows up in a completely different way.
/.
Thus I'm proud to say: This "extra content" has convinced me not to buy either an Xbox360 or a PS3, I'll just go with the Nintendo Wii now. I've been a Sony fanboi since PSX was released, and I bought an Xbox for excellent games like Halo, Fable and Jade Empire. However, as of their new "feature enhancements" to the next generation, I'm switching camps. There's more innovation in Shigeru Miyamoto's left testicle than in all parts of of Sony and Microsoft combined.
See? It's my right as a consumer to express my dissatisfaction, the more vehemently the better, just as it's your right to be a dick on
Do you know how much revenue Blizzard is anticipating from World of Warcraft next year?
A billion dollars.
A freaking BILLION.
Six million subscribers, $15 per month, 12 months - do the math, those micropayments add up spectacularly. A hit console game may sell a few million copies, and that revenue is divided between the retailer, the console maker, the publisher, and the developer. *This* is why they are obsessed with episodic content - the lure of having a healthy revenue stream, most of which they get to keep.
I was amazed to see how low the sales numbers were for the GTA games on xbox.
Apples and oranges, I'd say. Have you ever seen the numbers for PS2 vs. X-Box? I'm not about to go wiki it up, but let's just postulate that it's something like 30 billion million PS2s for every X-Box (note: slight exaggeration).
Now, for every 30 billion million PS2s, at least five of them still work. So that's 5 working PS2s for every 1 working X-Box (note: source for final PS2 vs X-Box numbers: this thread).
Now, what percentage of X-Box users also own a PS2? Again, too lazy to Wiki it, but it's soemthing like 75%, if my memory serves me correctly.
So basically, the largest installed base gets an exclusive... and so then even when it does come out for both platforms, most of Platform B's users already have it on their Platform A. Gee, I wonder which platform will sell more copies?
Now, compare that to this generation, where, even if the X-Box (Circle) drops in price, only your Neo-Geo kiddies will have the monies for both consoles - and a lot of people have saved for an X-Box (Circle) without being able to purchase one, so they're prime Sony-bait - and I think you'll find that the split will be closer to 60-40 or thereabouts.
In conclusion, it's not the exclusivity period itself that determines final results. Rather, the install-base, and the "whatever-the-fancy-word-is-for people-who-own-both-consoles", play the biggest role in determining which console's version ends up selling more. Any doubts? Look at one of the GameCube "exclusives" that later came to the PS2.
Given the way the market seems to be shaping up, I'm betting sales figures will be roughly the same - assuming a relatively uneventful launch (neither good nor a disaster) for Sony.
--
My MOMMY knows I'm not a fanboy!
There are some notable recent examples of $2 mods that have sold 400,000 copies in the first two days. What's the profit margin there? And that's if you assume there are no further sales after the first few days.
The situation you describe is, though, a best-case scenario for the publisher. In your example, they've sunk a quarter-million dollars in the thing before they have any idea who'll buy it or how many copies they'll sell. I'm sure that the two dollar mod that sells 400,000 copies is a highly atypical example.
You are a minority consumer. Most consumers enjoy and accept expansion packs, aftermarket mods, sequels etc. When they invest their time in a game, they like that they can continue the relationship with more content in the future.
You, the consumer that wants a distinct beginning and end, with nothing beyond what is in the shrinkwrap box, are a minority. (Based on my completely unscientific estimation, of course)
The MPAA knows that there can't be any deviations from the protected cables at high quality, because all it takes is one guy to get an unprotected copy to put online and the whole world has it. So even one model out there that can play protected content on unprotected line totally screws their whole strategy.
That was an extreme example in every way. In reality it doesn't cost them nearly that much, even if they don't sell very many. The difficult to create assets are re-used in these add-ons. None of the "next-gen" aspects are new.
In reality you're talking a couple of artists and a script writer/programmer for a week, and then a QA person and maybe a few play testers for a week. The artists and script writer will be lucky to be making $75k, the QA person slightly less, and depending on the company there's a good chance the play testers aren't even payed at all. So now you're down to $5500 of people time in the most likely case to make one of these "episodic" add ons.
Now, let's look at these game's marketing budgets. How much do you think that TV time costs? Are they charging the customers to watch the ads? Was the business development department asleep the day Captian Obvious handed out the memo that taught how cheap add ons could be used as marketing to lower advertising costs and increase sales? There is a good chance that the $2 add on that sold 400,000 copies actually cost the company more in the long run than if they had given it away in lieu of TV time.
I'm sure that the two dollar mod that sells 400,000 copies is a highly atypical example.
I hope the $2 mod that sells any copies will be an atypical example. When people start learning how little they're getting from their money, hopefully they will stop buying. I hope, but I have very little hope.
So...because other shops pay a dozen coders to churn out a mod, it makes this one just the same? What about the hollywood talent that they hire, does that come cheap? What about the major label music that they license, how much does that cost them? What about the other costs associated with a project like this (testers, project management, voice actors, graphics, etc)? What about their legal fees incurred in order to fight off the jokers who blame video games for violence? What about all of the other costs associated with running a business (these are far too numerous to list)?
Your cost estimates make absolutely no sense, which doesn't say much for your profit margin numbers. In any case, you can see their margins any time as they are public record -- if you're interested. I don't think that they're really relevant anyway. Even if RS could churn an hour of gameplay out at no cost to them, $1/hr of entertainment still sounds pretty sweet to me. I loved the last game and would gladly pay that for add-ons to something even better, especially if I don't have to go to a store (or wait for the mail to arrive) to get it.
Think about how much you pay for a movie. $7 if you live out in the sticks, and $10+ in the city for a 90-120 minute feature. Best case scenario, you're still paying $3.50 for that same hour of entertainment. What about a DVD? How much does a roller coaster ride cost? I think that episodic gameplay still beats these in terms of value for entertainment. You might do better with a good album, since it may have some solid replayability -- but I can't think of much else that isn't free.
People do pay that much for mere minutes of content, and they don't have a problem with it. You probably pay more for less minutes of content right now. This sounds like sour grapes to me.
-Turkey
Not just on 360, but on PCs too!
I can see why it is M$ wet dream, but I don't like it.
Sony lets developers run their own service, so you can play against people on the PC without having to pay anyone to do it. That sounds a lot better to me.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
No. They'll just ruin it.
Why does Microsoft have to keep buying the games I enjoy (or think I'm going to enjoy), delay their development, and kill every innovative feature, proprietise and homogenize until I have no interest whatsoever.
I remember playing tribes and drooling over the graphics and physics that were supposedly going to be in halo. Then Tribes 2 came out, and suddenly I didn't care. Finally Halo came out on a platform I didn't have anyway, looking very little like it had years before, and vastly less.. errr. vast than promised. I mean seriosly.. goldeneye-like controls, linear play? I shudder to think what they're going to do with rockstar's gem. Well at least there will be plenty of photoshoppy lens flare.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
a big fat amerinigger!
personally, i feel the reactions from slashdot users about a game a year+ in the future is better entertainment than news of *another* xbox-only game that will only be xbox only for a few months. I'll happily buy it after it's out on ps3, once the ps3's price isn't stupidly retarded. So, in 2008 when I'm buying GTA 4, I doubt any of us will even remember this thread. We'll be too busy bitching about the Wii 2 and the Xbox 360^2 and Halo 5.
Yeah, because that's what gets people excited about a new console. A controller.
I don't care if the Wii operates by wireless brain-wave scanning. It's still mainly going to be used to throw pastel mushrooms at cartoon dinosaurs. I'll pass, thanks.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
I'm glad you enjoy GTA and Halo enough to make you want to buy a 360. But just because those are your favorite games doesn't mean that's the end of the console wars for the rest of us
I must have missed the part where I said I was speaking for the universe.
I'm just throwing in my $0.02 worth.
I'm a (very) casual gamer, and the 360 has finally sparked my interest, when it had utterly failed to do so back on Launch Day.
One person is hardly a statistically valid sample of general sentiment, but if my view of the 360 has changed, I might not be the only one who feels the same way.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
True, but you didn't mention it under your PS3 column ("Nothing is here)
But nothing is here where the PS3 is concerned. There is no PS3 on the market yet. I wasn't making a point-by-point comparison of each console, so much as looking at the overall motivation for buying one at the moment.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Yeah, because that's what gets people excited about a new console. A controller.
But it's the only new thing in any of the consoles. All the others are the same as their last offering, with slightly better graphics - Nintendo is the only company offering something new.
It's still mainly going to be used to throw pastel mushrooms at cartoon dinosaurs.
Whatever dude - if you think that's all nintendo offers, then you really shouldn't be participating in a console discussion.
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
It's not about how much hardware you get per dollar. Speed/capability per dollar, PS3/360/Wii are all about the same because that's the reality of components and manufacturing.
The point is, most of us don't have 1080p TV's with a massive sound system. Most of us don't have a need to watch bluray/HD-DVD movies, and won't want it until netflix start distributing it. And even then, we need 1080p to enjoy it.
I don't want to spend an extra $200/$250 for hardware I don't need or want. I want to play games. Nintendo and, to a lesser degree, Microsoft get this.
MS will be the real winner here. They get to keep the bad-ass hardware image with a close-to-Wii price. That's going to sell huge, especially with 720p sets hitting the sweet spot price point in the next 3-5 years. Look for a $50 price cut in November followed by some high quality 2nd gen games to compete with Wii and gut PS3.
How many fulltime jobs can one man have?
Well I feel that as Rockstar make more GTA's they get worse. I think that Vice City was good on X-Box but San Andreas is just a bit different. It didn't have a "great" storey line either. The GTA LCS on PSP was an excellent game. I felt that it was interesting, wasn't to much of a take off of GTA III (even though it was based on it) and had an excellent storey line. I hope that rockstar make a better game than GTA SA on the 360. Let me know what you think.....
Talk later, Holmesey For free Domain names, PSP's & I-Pod's click
"Episodic content" for a game is just a fancy way of saying "Expansion pack", though. I really enjoyed GTA London, so I'm perfectly prepared to believe that such a thing will be worthwhile with this GTA as well.
After all, it's hardly like San Andreas was a small game to start with.
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
In any case... in the end it's all good for a laugh. I'm sure it's pretty pathetic for us to still visit this site on a regular basis, nevermind posting on a regular basis. Pathetic I can handle though. At least I can admit when I'm wrong, and my opinions aren't set in stone in the face of overwhelming evidence against them. And even more important, IMO, is I don't make shit up because of some fuckin' insane need to have everyone agree with me.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
But it's the only new thing in any of the consoles. All the others are the same as their last offering, with slightly better graphics - Nintendo is the only company offering something new.
Yeah, and the only new thing about the PS2 & X-Box was the addition of a DVD player, while the Nintendo of that generation was the same as their previous offering, with slightly better graphics. So what?
The purpose of a console generation update is to provide more raw horsepower for the next generation of games. The games are what make consoles worth owning, not gimmicks.
if you think that's all nintendo offers, then you really shouldn't be participating in a console discussion.
Lighten up, Francis. For somebody who spends most of his time trolling on the Mac threads, you really don't have much of a sense of humor about it when it's your ox being gored.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Allright, everyone get all hyped up that the PS3 has a Blue-Ray drive. Go ahead and make your decision about what format you want to win the format war, before the war begins. Last time I checked, I didn't see any HD-DVD or Blue-Ray discs for sale at my local Best Buy. Nor did I see any Blue-Ray or HD-DVD players. If you are buying the latest GAME CONSOLE for anything other than GAMES, you are not buying a GAME CONSOLE, you are looking for a MULTIMEDIA CONSOLE. From what I see, XBOX 360 will play all of my current movies, meaning I don't have to rebuy a single one. Factor that cost into the Blue-Ray on the PS3 and the cost just skyrocketed.
I'm no Microsoft fan by any means, nor am I a Sony fan, but a little common sense in price battles never hurts.
Besides, they are both too expensive for a console system anyway. Current generation consoles shouldn't go for more than $300 and should focus on GAMES. If I want all that other crap, I can buy additional devices at bargain prices when I need them. It's kind of like packaging milk with cookies at the grocery store, and not offering just cookies. Not everyone likes milk with their cookies.
Cheesy Movie Night
"My point wasn't that people shouldn't be able to charge whatever they want."
That's the stupidest statement ever. People should be able to charge whatever they want to. Of course if the price is too high no one buys, too low and there's no profits, so it's not to anyones benefit to have the wrong price...but it's their content they can sell it for whatever they want to.
...if they stop to think about it. He's not against expansion packs, he's against expansion packs that get broken up into "episodes" and sold for 10x the price of the same content in an expansion pack. If you've played San Andreas, imagine if it cost $5 to unlock each city and 50 cents for every mission...it'd be about a hundred bucks for the whole game.
So...because other shops pay a dozen coders to churn out a mod, it makes this one just the same? What about the hollywood talent that they hire, does that come cheap? What about the major label music that they license, how much does that cost them? What about the other costs associated with a project like this (testers, project management, voice actors, graphics, etc)? What about their legal fees incurred in order to fight off the jokers who blame video games for violence? What about all of the other costs associated with running a business (these are far too numerous to list)?
Your cost estimates make absolutely no sense, which doesn't say much for your profit margin numbers.
Ok, you bought into their crap and you actually believe that they're creating suffcient 'new' stuff here to inflate the costs. You're wrong because they don't actually generate any of the new expensive in any of these types of add-ons that I've seen so far, but OK, you believe it.
That still doesn't make it a good value. When I said $1/hr I was being generous. That's the *best case scenario*. Would you still consider $2 for 10 minutes a good value? Those types of these things exist too.
Everything else I would say to you I've already said in another post.
Also, I could care less what it costs to go see a movie, because that has exceeded my cost tolerance years ago, and I don't go anymore. And Hollywood talent and pop music in video games is a stupid waste of money in most cases. You can make a case for the music in some games, but there are plenty of talented voice actors who would kill for a job that there is no need to pay a name premium. You can't name a single game that would have suffered for lack of hollywood star level voice talent (If you think you can, you'd be wrong), and I could name a dozen - two from the last year - that suffered because they cast a name over an appropriate voice.
I still won't be buying an XBOX 360. Until I have the convenience of being able to go to the store and grab one off of the shelf, and there is at least more than one game I'm interesting in playing available for it, I'm not interested.
For that matter, the $500 price on the PS3 is the price to eBay sellers who will be camping out and buying every unit available (all 10 or so) during the first few months of its release. The general public can expect to pay much more per unit.
My understanding is that Blu-Ray (and for that matter, HD-DVD) will only downgrade analog outputs to standard def if the disc contains ICT, or Image Constraint Token. Because a lot of early adopters of HDTV don't even have HDMI inputs, only component video inputs, many early Blu-Ray movies will not have ICT; this is a concession the movie studios are making to early HD adopters. (HD-DVD movies in the first generation will also be missing ICT, for the same reason.) I believe Sony Pictures made an announcement along these lines for the Blu-Ray movies they'll be releasing in the first batch.
That's assuming the lack of HDMI is a big deal, which it might not be since many movie studios aren't including ICT on their discs. But regardless, this isn't the only reason to put a Blu-Ray drive in the PS3.
Sony fully intends to leverage the storage capacity of BD-ROM, the Blu-Ray disc storage format, for PS3 games. This means more in-game content and more high-res textures.
I haven't seen any reason to disbelieve Rockstar. Maybe others have bungled the job, but why should anyone else's performance reflect on Rockstar? I'm not sure why you keep jumping to these "you're wrong" conclusions. How can either of us possibly be right or wrong when neither of us have seen any episodic content for this game/series?
I read the other post that you linked me to, and your cost estimates are still wildly speculative. They do not hold any ground in the real world. If you want to read about their P&L (and gobs of other information), check out Edgar for their SEC filings. They're also available by searching on Yahoo finance. Stop with the BS speculation on what you think talent costs and what you think it costs to run a company and instead, do some real research and read up on what it did cost.
But enough people still go to the movies that it's highly profitable. It's not important until you're part of a larger group that makes movies less profitable. You're not there yet.
Again with the right and wrong based merely upon speculation -- it's nonsensical. In any case, I thought that using Samuel jackson and Chris Penn as the first two voice actors in GTA:SA was a really nice touch. I recgonized them right away, and liked it -- I didn't mind paying for that. The fact that you don't care is only a matter of opinion, and I have a feeling that the market disagrees with you. Similarly, RS chose to use major label music. I also miss the days of cheap music in games, but RS took a different angle, and I also felt that it was a nice touch. Again, given the number of people who bought the game, the market seems to disagree with you. What other games have had a major label music selection as wide as the GTA series? You suggest that it's old news and it's been done over and over.
You are consistently confusing fact with opinion. You're coming off as neither credible nor mature with the I'm-right-you're-wrong stuff. It's difficult to have a discussion (not an argument) when someone is trying so hard to be right or wrong. If you want to discuss this further, I'd be glad to. However, if you want to continue to be confrontational and rude, I'll wish you the best and politely be on my way.
-Turkey
I've put some of the words above in all caps. You should pay special attention to those, because you have obviously missed the point.
I thought the reason you did that is because you presented an ineffective argument. Why make a GOOD point when you can EMPHASIZE your SLOPPY ONE?
One person is hardly a statistically valid sample of general sentiment, but if my view of the 360 has changed, I might not be the only one who feels the same way.
You are right. And I didn't particularly meant to rant really at you specifically. It's just so often I see posts where someone has decided that Console A is the best because it has X, Y, and Z on it, and they forget that there is a wide variety in taste out there. I like that there is such a variety of games for all platforms, even if many don't catch my interest for too long.
My own $0.02.
Got Apathy?
Again with the right and wrong based merely upon speculation -- it's nonsensical. In any case, I thought that using Samuel jackson and Chris Penn as the first two voice actors in GTA:SA was a really nice touch. I recgonized them right away, and liked it -- I didn't mind paying for that. The fact that you don't care is only a matter of opinion, and I have a feeling that the market disagrees with you. Similarly, RS chose to use major label music. I also miss the days of cheap music in games, but RS took a different angle, and I also felt that it was a nice touch.
GTA:SA was one of those games where the music was justified. They were trying to portray a real-world time period. It was necessary. You'll get no disagreement from me for that game regarding music. Would changing the music to something cheaper have made it a lesser game that would have actually sold less copies? Probably.
Would having used talented, but not recognisable voice actors that wouldn't have cost percentage points of the games development budget have made it a lesser game? To the point where you wouldn't have gotten that two second twang of recognition, perhaps, but on the whole, no. Would it have made it such that it actually sold less copies? I'd bet a big pile of cash that difference in sales would have been statistically insignifigant. The only games where the celebrity voice talent is a driving force for sales are typically the ones that aren't worth playing. If they were, they'd have sold regardless.
Am I speculating as to what episodic content from Rockstar is going to look like? Hell, yes, but considering what platform they're targeting the content at, and what all the other such content so far on Microsoft's platform has been, they don't get the benefit of the doubt. My default position is that it's going to be like all the rest of it, and I'll be surprised (pleasently) if it's otherwise. I'm not sure why you think Rockstar is deserving of any different treatment than other developers though. If anything I'd be *more* skeptical of them. Look at their history as a development company. The only games they have put out that have a high standard of quality come from thrid parties that they purchased. The games that come from/came from what was originally Rockstar have a notoriously low quality level (ever play Midnight Club? Summoner? Whatever the name of that dune buggy game was...?), and even with the stuff they bought like DMA Design's GTA3 series, they've shown they're not above rehashing it haphazardly and slapping a full pricetag on it (witness Liberty City Stories for the PSP). No, I'm not convinced that when Rockstar says 'episodic content' they don't mean the same thing that every other Xbox publisher has meant when they said it: Expansion content in little pieces for too much money.
You are consistently confusing fact with opinion.
You're confusing speculative analysis with opinion. You'll be hard pressed to find things in my previous posts in this thread that aren't at the very least educated guesses. You say I guessed at what talent costs/did cost, but I didn't pull most of those numbers out of my ass, and the ones I did were generously conservative. I'm not some kid off the street. I have first hand knowledge of the economics of the game industry.
You, like most people I try to discuss this with, take the developers perspective and assume that the only argument that can be made is from their profitability standpoint. I won't argue that this content isn't a profitable business practice for developers (though I may argue that other practices might be more profitable even if they don't have as high a price tag), or that developers are unjustified in trying to wring out every last cent they can from their potential customers. My argument is merely that it is a marketing gimmick to get a lot more money for the same amount of stuff, that they've exceeded my price threshold, and that it makes me mad because it doesn't decrease my desire for the product but only my w
Yeah, and the only new thing about the PS2 & X-Box was the addition of a DVD player, while the Nintendo of that generation was the same as their previous offering, with slightly better graphics. So what?
No, the PS2's graphics were an enormous improvement over the PS1, the xbox was ms's first offering, so can't be compared to its predecessor.
The N64 wasn't particularly special, but I think the graphics improvements over the snes were far larger then the gap for this generation of consoles.
The purpose of a console generation update is to provide more raw horsepower for the next generation of games. The games are what make consoles worth owning, not gimmicks.
I absolutely agree with you the games are what make consoles worth owning, not gimmicks - I don't agree with you however that raw horsepower makes a good game.
Additionally, (as I said), I don't think (certainly for the xbox, probably for the wii, I'll reserve judgement on the ps3) that this generation of consoles offer much of a graphical improvement over the last.
That's why I'm interested in the wii - it's the only console offering something that really distinguishes from the previous generation.
Lighten up, Francis. For somebody who spends most of his time trolling on the Mac threads, you really don't have much of a sense of humor about it when it's your ox being gored.
Is Francis an insult or someone you think I am? But you're quite right - I shouldn't have attacked you like that. It's your right to think all nintendo produces is hello kitty games or whatever.
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
The N64 wasn't particularly special, but I think the graphics improvements over the snes
Whoops, substitue gamecube for n64 & n64 for snes.
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
Is Francis an insult or someone you think I am?
If the quote "lighten up, Francis" is too obscure of a pop-culture reference for you, then I'm guessing you're either very young or else you simply don't get out much.
It's your right to think all nintendo produces is hello kitty games or whatever.
I never said that. And furthermore, if that was what I thought, I'd probably want one.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
If the quote "lighten up, Francis" is too obscure of a pop-culture reference for you, then I'm guessing you're either very young or else you simply don't get out much.
Oh right. Sorry for not immediately picking up the reference to that Ivan Reitman classic 'Stripes'. Truly - an amazing work, I'm amazed that people don't reference it more often.
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.