Not to mention the fact we already know that the PS3 costs Sony $100 more to manufacture than the X360 costs Microsoft.
If the PS3 is the same price, Sony is losing $100 more per unit sold than MS is. The question isn't whether or not the PS3 will be more expensive. The question is HOW much more expensive it will be.
And with MS's already announced planned price reductions, expect the X360 to cost less than the $399 in costs now when the PS3 launches. So the PS3 won't be just competing against a $399 competitor, they'll probably be competing against a $350 competitor. So even IF the PS3 launches at the same price of the X360 launch, it'll still be more expensive by the time it comes to market.
Why would MS include mouse and keyboard support? To kill of PC gaming? That'd be simply brilliant by them!:roll eyes:
If there was no PC gaming, there would be no graphics card industry. There'd be no need to upgrade your motherboard and CPU every 2 years. Yes, it'd be brilliant of MS to include mouse and keyboard support for the X360 so they can have a hand in killing off nVidia, ATI, Intel, AMD, and every other PC manufacturer that depends on consumer upgrades every year or two in order to stay in business.
Also, PC gaming is what not only fuels the upgrade cycle, it is what fuels the replacement cycle. Sure, some people "transfer" windows licenses from their old box to their new, but a great majority of people keep their old box and give it to their wife, their kids, maybe sell it to their neighbor, or give it to their parents to use for checking email. All those people then buy NEW licenses for Windows XP SuperDuper Version for their new system.
So MS doesn't just kill off their partners by including mouse/keyboard support, they take revenue away from themselves too.
Face it, without PC gaming there'd be no reason for 99% of residential consumers to upgrade or replace their computers outside of 5 years. How fast of a machine do you need to surf the web, write email, use Word and Excel? My 900mhz celeron based system does all that just fine and dandy. My 3.8 PIV with 1 gig of ram and a 6800GT doesn't perform noticably better when I'm writing a letter in Word.
But it sure makes playing Far Cry a whole different experience!
Is everybody missing the point of the article?
It says two things. One, that the PS3 costs Sony $100 MORE to manufacture than the X360 costs MS. Somehow you still think the PS3 will be the same price as the supposedly "Expensive" X360?
I can't wait to see what all you people who are complaining about how expensive the X360 is have to say when the PS3 is released.
Secondly, it says that MS is planning on doing yearly price reductions. Because it's cheaper to manufacture than the PS3 and because it's coming out sooner, MS is going to be able to lower the price of the X360 and make the already over priced PS3 look even more expensive with each passing year.
Do you forget that MS started the price war this generation and while Sony initially stated they wouldn't follow course, they eventually were FORCED to? Only N didn't have to initially because their console was cheaper to begin with, but even after two price cuts from MS (followed by Sony), N still HAD to reduce the price of the Gamecube in order to compete because it couldn't exist in the same marketplace as equally priced PS2 or Xbox.
So let me get this straight.. you don't like FPS on consoles because they are too difficult compared to FPS using mouse + keyboard combination on the PC?
Isn't the common argument the exact opposite? That controllers take away 'the skill' that is required normally of FPS through the mouse/keyboard combination?
I'll admit, it was a seriously tough transition going from mouse/keyboard to controller. Trying to battle my neighbors in Halo, I kept getting killed... yet I was fairly decent at playing UT and other such games online. Guess what? It just takes time to adapt.
And certainly you wouldn't want the option of having one set of users working with a mouse/keyboard playing against those using a controller. Learn how to use the controller, learn how the lack of accuracy effects the game, and work from there.
You can get quite good at FPS using a controller, it just takes time to get used to. Even more time if you are "unlearning" the mouse/keyboard combo.
"What do you mean invert the controls?" LOL
I agree with Fall. It actually made me re-play the original Halo single player campaign as well. It added a great deal more perspective, especially in terms of the "suspension of disbelief" that comes with all FPS.
Why is it Master Chief can wipe out entire armies and the NPC marines are mostly cannon fodder? The Fall really addressed that issue in a way that the game didn't touch.
I actually appreciated Fall so much I'm still hoping Halo 3 is a prequel!
I can't believe they haven't already had televised Madden games!
Hell, it would give G4TV something else to broadcast during its continual 4 hours worth of actual programming loop.
Slashdot Mirror
Not to mention the fact we already know that the PS3 costs Sony $100 more to manufacture than the X360 costs Microsoft.
If the PS3 is the same price, Sony is losing $100 more per unit sold than MS is. The question isn't whether or not the PS3 will be more expensive. The question is HOW much more expensive it will be.
And with MS's already announced planned price reductions, expect the X360 to cost less than the $399 in costs now when the PS3 launches. So the PS3 won't be just competing against a $399 competitor, they'll probably be competing against a $350 competitor. So even IF the PS3 launches at the same price of the X360 launch, it'll still be more expensive by the time it comes to market.
Why would MS include mouse and keyboard support? To kill of PC gaming? That'd be simply brilliant by them! :roll eyes:
If there was no PC gaming, there would be no graphics card industry. There'd be no need to upgrade your motherboard and CPU every 2 years. Yes, it'd be brilliant of MS to include mouse and keyboard support for the X360 so they can have a hand in killing off nVidia, ATI, Intel, AMD, and every other PC manufacturer that depends on consumer upgrades every year or two in order to stay in business.
Also, PC gaming is what not only fuels the upgrade cycle, it is what fuels the replacement cycle. Sure, some people "transfer" windows licenses from their old box to their new, but a great majority of people keep their old box and give it to their wife, their kids, maybe sell it to their neighbor, or give it to their parents to use for checking email. All those people then buy NEW licenses for Windows XP SuperDuper Version for their new system.
So MS doesn't just kill off their partners by including mouse/keyboard support, they take revenue away from themselves too.
Face it, without PC gaming there'd be no reason for 99% of residential consumers to upgrade or replace their computers outside of 5 years. How fast of a machine do you need to surf the web, write email, use Word and Excel? My 900mhz celeron based system does all that just fine and dandy. My 3.8 PIV with 1 gig of ram and a 6800GT doesn't perform noticably better when I'm writing a letter in Word.
But it sure makes playing Far Cry a whole different experience!
Is everybody missing the point of the article? It says two things. One, that the PS3 costs Sony $100 MORE to manufacture than the X360 costs MS. Somehow you still think the PS3 will be the same price as the supposedly "Expensive" X360? I can't wait to see what all you people who are complaining about how expensive the X360 is have to say when the PS3 is released. Secondly, it says that MS is planning on doing yearly price reductions. Because it's cheaper to manufacture than the PS3 and because it's coming out sooner, MS is going to be able to lower the price of the X360 and make the already over priced PS3 look even more expensive with each passing year. Do you forget that MS started the price war this generation and while Sony initially stated they wouldn't follow course, they eventually were FORCED to? Only N didn't have to initially because their console was cheaper to begin with, but even after two price cuts from MS (followed by Sony), N still HAD to reduce the price of the Gamecube in order to compete because it couldn't exist in the same marketplace as equally priced PS2 or Xbox.
So let me get this straight.. you don't like FPS on consoles because they are too difficult compared to FPS using mouse + keyboard combination on the PC? Isn't the common argument the exact opposite? That controllers take away 'the skill' that is required normally of FPS through the mouse/keyboard combination? I'll admit, it was a seriously tough transition going from mouse/keyboard to controller. Trying to battle my neighbors in Halo, I kept getting killed... yet I was fairly decent at playing UT and other such games online. Guess what? It just takes time to adapt. And certainly you wouldn't want the option of having one set of users working with a mouse/keyboard playing against those using a controller. Learn how to use the controller, learn how the lack of accuracy effects the game, and work from there. You can get quite good at FPS using a controller, it just takes time to get used to. Even more time if you are "unlearning" the mouse/keyboard combo. "What do you mean invert the controls?" LOL
I agree with Fall. It actually made me re-play the original Halo single player campaign as well. It added a great deal more perspective, especially in terms of the "suspension of disbelief" that comes with all FPS. Why is it Master Chief can wipe out entire armies and the NPC marines are mostly cannon fodder? The Fall really addressed that issue in a way that the game didn't touch. I actually appreciated Fall so much I'm still hoping Halo 3 is a prequel!
I can't believe they haven't already had televised Madden games! Hell, it would give G4TV something else to broadcast during its continual 4 hours worth of actual programming loop.