http://blogs.ign.com/Gerry-IGN/2006/09/25/31859/
Printable View
:lol: :lol: :lol:
$100 per game, Sony can go and f*** themselves.
Oh, smurf no.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roto13-ness
:lol: :cat: :kaolaugh:
Thats $125-130 here! Farout...
No, its still 100 USD for you :p. Same cost.
Still, way too much. No chance in hell it'll live with those prices.
When is someone at Sony going to say "[img]/xxx.gif[/img][img]/xxx.gif[/img][img]/xxx.gif[/img][img]/xxx.gif[/img] guys, that was dumb as hell." Because logically none of this makes sense.
Yeah, maybe if I bought a system for one game, but wait, I buy a system for many many games. RETARDED SONY
THE JACKEL
That's how much I bought my entire smurfing gamecube for :jess: I must say I quite hope this does not happen.
Oh my god.
Sony is DEAD.
That's it. I thought they were hitting the crack pipe until now but this is proof that they're all completely screwed up and like when systems fail.
lol, PS3
sucks...but when the initial cost of the system was going to be so high, i can't say i'm THAT surprised
Rumors sure can be funny, can't they.
Oh, the speculation gets better:
http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl.../09/25/1322256
http://www.electricsistahood.com/rev...-go-broke.html
I games for ps2 already cost more than 50€ sometimes, I'm sure that some will achieve the 100€! I'm starting to think that I'm gonna start playing games at the computer :(
Shenanigans
Ok,now it's official.They completely lost their minds!!
Seeing as how prices here in Europe are even more than in US (a game here costs 50-60 euros which is like 70-80 USD) i can guarantee that the sales here will be a disaster.
I'm curious to see how this goes...
...all I can say is WIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII! That's so funny :moose:
What, so now we're not getting giant enemy crabs?
Not a good idea for Sony. Triple digits are very scary. Jack up the price of the system by 60$ and down the price of games by at least 20$. That will make things much more reasonable. I'm surprised how cheap games are now. Mind you I only buy second hand, or I wait long enough that it's dirt cheap.
If this ends up true, I guess I won't be playing MGS4 untill 2010.
I sincerely doubt this is true, but if it is, I want to know who hit the entire company leadership of Sony about the head really hard.
Hmmm, maybe you lot should wait for an official announcment from Sony. Oh wait, you all want Sony to fail, guess Im wasting my time here :rolleyes2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreddz
The fact that the system itself is currently slated to be marketed at DOUBLE the price and less than HALF the supply/number of units compared to the Wii... I'll admit flat out that Sony has basically shot themselves in the collective foot, on this one. Ken Kutaragi isn't making things any better with all the overhyping and the "If the games reach $100, don't blame me." routine.
I'm not looking to see Sony fail, but the signs just don't look good.
Actually, $600/£425 is fair for what your getting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandon Stroud
Honestly, yes it is - but a lot of people don't think that way about it. Also, with inflation, it's not actually that much more than the PS1 was over a decade ago. And regardless of how much it's really worth, if people don't think it's worth the money, they won't sell as much as they'd like.Quote:
Originally Posted by DreddzActually, $600/£425 is fair for what your getting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandon Stroud
However, given how consistently Nintendo has smurfed up for the past decade and come up smelling of roses, I'm giving Sony some benefit of the doubt, just for the sake of balance.
Im still against the fact that were having to buy all the extras that we may not use. If it was all additional, then I think Sony would have alot more people in its favour. Maybe they thought having an identical console with graphical tweaks wasnt going to win consumers.
I don't want Sony to fail... I don't want any of them to fail. I will go with whichever has the best games. It's not the people's fault Sony is getting a bad reaction, it's Sony's.
Despite that, I still mostly see people say "But I do still want a Ps3..." It's too hard to tell. The Ps3 will either bomb, or people are just bitching for the sake of bitching and they're all gonna buy it anyway. I don't know how things will turn out, but I'll just buy whichever ends up looking the best to me, be it Sony, Nintendo, or Microsoft. I don't show loyalty to game companies.
If the Ps3 ends with an enormous game library full of games that I'm dying to have and would spend hours upon hours with, then I would pay the price to have them. It's all about will you use it enough to justify all the money, and since I have no life and gaming is all I do I would certainly get my money back in entertainment value.
But the same goes for the Wii's library of games too... =/
I just beg of Sony not to make 100 dollar games, rather I would pay for it or not :jess:
Sony failing may be good in some ways, it'll show Sony that they cant rely on a fan base to sell consoles. Sony will obviously go in a different direction when the PS4 is finally being made.
Meh, the only thing the PS3 has that I know I won't be using out of the box is HDMI, and since I could easily see myself with an HD TV in a few years, that doesn't bother me one bit. Built in Wifi is also a godsend for me (talking about the premium package here).Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreddz
I'm willing to give Sony the benefit of the doubt for now, especially on rediculous rumours like this. I mean in all seriousness, the details on price for the PS3 are all but set in stone now, and Sony has explicitly stated that there is a maximum price most consumers are comfortable paying for games and that they don't want to cross that line. At the end of the day it's still the only next-gen console I want right now anyway, and likely the only one I'll buy for awhile.
I will be getting a Wii no matter what, since it will have an awesome library of games almost on day 1, and it is completely affordable. Whether or not I get a PS3 down the line at this point is dependant on how the tide turns in another year or so...I never thought I'd say this, but they've driven me to it...my future just might not include a PS3.
Sony, you can take your Blu-Ray and shove it up your :skull::skull::skull:.
I personally arent complaining about what Sony's offering, but I understand that some people dont want what Sony are forcing us to have. Im still rooting for Sony to do well, I still want there console more than the Wii or 360.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivi22Meh, the only thing the PS3 has that I know I won't be using out of the box is HDMI, and since I could easily see myself with an HD TV in a few years, that doesn't bother me one bit. Built in Wifi is also a godsend for me (talking about the premium package here).Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreddz
I'm willing to give Sony the benefit of the doubt for now, especially on rediculous rumours like this. I mean in all seriousness, the details on price for the PS3 are all but set in stone now, and Sony has explicitly stated that there is a maximum price most consumers are comfortable paying for games and that they don't want to cross that line. At the end of the day it's still the only next-gen console I want right now anyway, and likely the only one I'll buy for awhile.
That blog post is a load of crap, anyways. If you got to the actual news article linked in the page, it mentions Sony's planned to sell games for cheaper to encourage homebrew games on the Ps3 or something, but since that's not happening they may increase the price of games, to what it seems like Xbox360 levels, or a bit higher.
But it's all speculation at this point, so stfu and stop listening to some guy who hates Sony, linking to some guy who admittidly only cares about ffxiii on ps3!
I swear, all of the PS3 fanboys are in denial that their console's not gonna last long.
Also, XBox 360 games are NOT expensive, they cost around they same price XBox 1 games were when it first game out.
I'm not a PS3 fanboy, I'm a 'making baseless claims with only further speculation to back it up' anti-fanboy.
And yeah, they're not that expensive. $60-$70 is around the pricerange the actual article gave for the equivlents in Yen, well considering that PS2 games are cheaper in the states than they are in Japan, and that Sony continues that trend.
Dispite hanging out with hot chicks and having a killer mowhawk that Gerry guy has no reason to assume it means they'll cost $100.
I wouldnt assume that the PS3 will flop already. I'd say it'd have a pretty good run, hell, it may be a success for Sony. But it beating the 360 and Wii ( especially Wii ) is unlikely, for sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Erdrick Holmes
Who says Sony won't jack up the prices?. Sony's head is so far up it's own ass they will do that just because they know heavy fanboys will buy them.
Even before this a 500 dollar pricetag on the PS3 is asking way too much.
If we're going to start making assumptions based on the fact that Sony has a huge market share we should assume that the price of the first shipment of PS3s will rise, to agree with supply and demand, to close to $1000, Sony will change their minds about the free online play and make you pay twice as much as Xbox live, without any of the fuctionality.
And, hmm, let's say once you beat a game the PS3 will break the blu-ray disk causing you to buy it again for a replay.
Im ok with it halfway. itll take longer to save up for games, but at launch, i only want resistance: Fall of man, and later Assasin's creed.
Joel: why do you incessently harp on baseless rumors?
So, the question is not in the subject of this thread. Instead, it's "can Joel argue one thing based on factual evidence?"
It's already been confirmed by SCEA that PS3 games in the U.S. will retail for $60.
http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/26/s...-for-us-59-99/
I love you, Yams.
I guess that's a "no" to my question.
Hmm, that wasn't on a Sony website, so according to everybody else (Everybody that isn't me) so it must not me true right?... lol, anybody?
And yet again Joel makes things up.
Your article came from a BLOG. It cited "the word in Japan" according to some other, non-official website.
The article Yams posted cites SONY.
And you seriously think they should be given equal weight?
EDIT: that article even mentions the official Sony website preorder costs.
This may make me seriously reconsider buying the PS3. 100$ games! That's just way too much. I'd rather they make the console itself a high price and lower the new game cost to at least 60$ (lower would be even better) but 100$! 100$! 100$!! 100$!!!
I'm really seriously reconsidering here.
No, the website is wrong because the website it smurfing cites has completely different prices, than what it says. The fact that the article it refrences is wrong doesn't even have to come into play, but it helps. :love:
This is so incredibly smurfed up. At $100 dollars per game I'll never be able to move out!
Some of you guys need to bone up on your reading comprehension.
Official Sony store listing PS3 prices.
That article is from June.
What's your point? They could change things at any time. Microsoft eventually increased the price of first-party games for the Xbox 360, after all.
Seeing that they've listed pre-order prices at the $60 mark means something. Furthermore, Sony does not have to compete with Microsoft in Japan, the U.S. is another story. If they price out of range in relation to the 360's $60 third-party title they'd be losing many potential customers. People here will not pay $80 or $90 for a game.
I'd like to think people wouldn't pay six hundred dollars for a video game console, either.
People will pay a premium for hardware. Not so much for software.
$60 is stretching it already. Closer to $100 and you're no longer mass entertainment. Again, though, Japan (and Europe to a certain extent) is a whole different set of rules. We're cheap bastards here.
When will they learn?
I parted with my cash for the PsOne, and I parted with my cash for the PS2, but I just cannot afford that sort of money. Both the console and its games are far too expensive for my budget. :/
Well, since I've been in Japan, I've really fallen in love with Virtua Fighter 5. I would love to bring an arcade machine to Bermuda so I could play it without having to fly all the way back to Japan, but apparently the machine itself costs $40,000.
Considering I can get a PS3, plus the game and the Arcade stick for maybe $800 max, that's a good deal for me.
Still, I think Sony is in a position of arrogance similar to Nintendo several years ago. They know that they are on top, and they think they can go along unchallenged. We've seen what happened with Nintendo, I wonder if history will reverse itself.
Still, I don't agree with how Sony is attempting to force a souped up PSX down our throats. They could have taken out some of the extra stuff to make it much more affordable for themselves and the general consumer.
Joel, iv got to ask you this, do you know how much a Blu-Ray driver costs? I doubt it, my uncle (who makes computers, has a Blu-Ray Burner on his compuet spent $945 on that alone... that would probbly be why it is so expencive, IMO I think pay£600-800 is hugely worth the price tag considering what is inside the computer.
BTW I cant link this information because i read it out of a magazine and as such i had to write it up by handQuote:
Originally Posted by PLAY
See, I don't even use my DVD player. I don't care about a blu ray player and I'm not going to spend all that extra money for one. I buy video game consoles to play (DUN DUN DUN-N-N-N-N-N!) video games. It might be incredibly cheap for all that it can do, but it's incredibly expensive for all that I would do with it.
I think you misquoted me and completely missed the point of my post. Sure, considering what you get with the system, that's a fair price. However, I'm talking marketing strategy and overall analysis of the competition. What I'm talking about, here, is that the system itself is currently slated to be marketed at DOUBLE the price and less than HALF the supply/number of units compared to the Wii. I'm not trying to argue a point, here, btw. Just being sure to clarify my point.Quote:
Originally Posted by DreddzActually, $600/£425 is fair for what your getting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandon Stroud
$945 is the cost as a consumer, not for the manufacturer. (Although $945 is too expensive anyway. $700 is more like it)Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Reno~
The $200 to $300 is the estimated cost of how much it costs Sony to manufacture a Blu-ray drive; just the manufacturing costs, without all the consumer and resale markups and additions. I will say I have not verified if $200-$300 is actually accurate, I just know it certainly doesn't cost Sony $700 to make a BluRay drive.
Maybe it is but I can't afford $600 and I bet theres' a lot of other people like me too. The gaming age is not just teenagers anymore. A lot of us are older and married too with bills!Quote:
Originally Posted by DreddzActually, $600/£425 is fair for what your getting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandon Stroud
I only have one more thing to say on the PS3 issue, after this you guys can waste all of your hard earned gamer cash on this piece of crap.
The PS3 launch is one of the worst launches I ever seen in a console. Ever! I've been around the block a few times, I've played and beaten thousands of video games in my lifetime, there is no way in hell the PS3 can last long unless the 3 has enough fanboys willing to waste their money on this.
Confimred stuff that will probably at least give the PS3 a heavily shakey start.
1. The console itself costs WAY too much. 500-600 dollars is just not worth one console. For 600 you can buy a Wii and an XBox 360 (since the Premium set will drop to about 350 by the time the Wii and PS3 come out) and still play fun games like Dead Rising, Dead or Alive 4, Halo 3 (around early 2007), Enchanted Arms, Zelda: Twilight Princess, Phantasy Star Universe, Super Mario Galaxies, Sonic and the Secret Rings (origionally called Sonic Wildfire) Sonic the Hedgehog 360, and Condemned Criminal Origions.
2. The PS3's hardware has so much high end technology that companies hardly wanna make games for it due to it being to hard to write them for it, notice how only a few Japanese developers are sticking with it? Konami, Square, Capcom (possibly just for Devil May Cry 4)
3. Quite possibly the biggest thing of all. A lack of interesting launch titles. Sure early on people were pissing themselves over Metal Gear Solid 4.. oh but WAIT! It's not a launch title? OMGWTF I WILL STILL BUY ONE LOLOLOLOL!!!!!!1111ONEELEVENsmurfRE! All the cool games that will at least be somewhat fun for the 3 won't be out till at least mid-late 2007.
That's all I have to say on this subject, if you wanna accept it or deny it I don't really give two [img]/xxx.gif[/img][img]/xxx.gif[/img][img]/xxx.gif[/img][img]/xxx.gif[/img]s about it.
Thank you, and good night.
I've yet to see a Wii launch title that interests me either.
Do you have proof Microsoft will drop the price of the 360 by the time Wii comes out? Furthermore, a 360 with an HD-DVD add-on is the same price as a PS3, regardless of SKU.Quote:
Originally Posted by Erdrick Holmes
"Fun games" is entirely subjective.
Yep, it's hard to code games for the cell processor, but it's bold to say that "hardly" any companies want to make games for the system. "Hardly" any Japanese game developers want to make games for the 360. What's your point?Quote:
2. The PS3's hardware has so much high end technology that companies hardly wanna make games for it due to it being to hard to write them for it, notice how only a few Japanese developers are sticking with it? Konami, Square, Capcom (possibly just for Devil May Cry 4)
What console in the last seven years has had AAA launch titles?Quote:
3. Quite possibly the biggest thing of all. A lack of interesting launch titles. Sure early on people were pissing themselves over Metal Gear Solid 4.. oh but WAIT! It's not a launch title? OMGWTF I WILL STILL BUY ONE LOLOLOLOL!!!!!!1111ONEELEVENsmurfRE! All the cool games that will at least be somewhat fun for the 3 won't be out till at least mid-late 2007.
Do you have proof Microsoft will drop the price of the 360 by the time Wii comes out? Furthermore, a 360 with an HD-DVD add-on is the same price as a PS3, regardless of SKU.
November is close to the Holidays, plus the console's been out for at least a year, so a pricedrop is gonna happen. Besides, I think Teamxbox.com mentioned it a few times. And HD-DVD Add-on is just that, an Add-on, you don't NEED it to play any games.
Yep, it's hard to code games for the cell processor, but it's bold to say that "hardly" any companies want to make games for the system. "Hardly" any Japanese game developers want to make games for the 360. What's your point?
I meant native developers.
What console in the last seven years has had AAA launch titles?
The Dreamcast, XBox (Halo, Dead or Alive 3), and the XBox 360 (Dead or Alive 4, Condemned, and Call of Duty 2 *I don't even like WW2 games yet this game is awesome*)
Dreamcast pretty much had Sonic Adventure and Soul Calibur going for it. Great games mind you, but not the most stellar launch lineup overall. As for Xbox, DOA is a joke of a fighting game, and Halo is overrated on a good day. The Xbox 360 launch wasn't anything to drool over either (again, DOA, and games like Call of Duty 2 are better on the PC).Quote:
Originally Posted by Erdrick Holmes
I'll go on record as saying that the PS3 is the first launch lineup I've been excited about since the N64. I can name more PS3 launch titles I want or at least am interested in than I can Wii launch titles (or titles from any other launch in history for that matter), and once I start looking at titles coming out in the next year or so, the gap between them only grows. It's all personal opinion and taste, and my taste is telling me the PS3 will have more games I want than the competition.
Dead or alive does not qualify a AAA game.Quote:
What console in the last seven years has had AAA launch titles?
The Dreamcast, XBox (Halo, Dead or Alive 3), and the XBox 360 (Dead or Alive 4, Condemned, and Call of Duty 2 *I don't even like WW2 games yet this game is awesome*)
Ports do not qualify as AAA games.
I've never even heard of Condemmed.
Dreamcast had Soul Calibur, which was widely regarded to be the best fighter ever made (at the time). Xbox had Halo, which I don't need to tell you was a massive hit. Twilight Princess looks like it's shaping up to be amazing, not that I was expecting anything less from Zelda.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yamaneko
So at least two, likely three.
So? You fail to make a point with this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Erdrick Holmes
Good games rarley come out when a system comes out. It's not untill developers know what to do with the system that good games start to come out. If you think the first few games that come out make or break a system, then videogames would not exiest right now.
A bad launch dosent mean a console will fail. The PS3 line-up is strong, no doubt. It'll just take till around 2007, when the price drop happens, and all the strong titles are released, that the PS3 will dominate.
Dead or alive does not qualify a AAA game.
I hate to break it to you, but it does. You gotta PLAY IT to realize it. Beleive it or not it's very fun, you just gotta like games to actually like it.
Ports do not qualify as AAA games.
What ports did I mention?
I've never even heard of Condemmed.
http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/adve...ml?q=Condemned
I told you that you weren't done, Joel.
I see Yams shredded your argument. You have nothing but your wishes and feelings that the 360 will drop in price, yet again with NO evidence. Most people also consider other games besides the launch titles when buying consoles.
A minor subject...many of the game yet to come on 360 are also coming to PS3 such as COD3, and Darkness, Mercenaries2 is coming to PS3 with good polish. the point is that untill PS3 launch...most of the games yet to come won't (wich sux for 360 owners)
AnyQuote:
Originally Posted by Erdrick Holmes
fightinggame where the main point is tits does not qualify as a AAA game.
Call of Duty 2, it came out a month earlier on PC. If that still qualifies xbox 360 as having a super fantastico launch, PS3 is going to have Obilvion. PS3 wins. Oh, and since this is all subjective, Call of Duty 3 is also ported launch title for PS3, if real RPGs don't float your boat. Oh, as well as Sonic the Hedgehog, and Rainbow Six: Vegas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Erdrick Holmes
Yeah, I really wish Tecmo would lay off the gratuitous sex stuff, seeing as the game itself is smurfing amazing (Best fighter series that's not SC), but people react against that one part of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by MecaKaneAnyQuote:
Originally Posted by Erdrick Holmes
fightinggame where the main point is tits does not qualify as a AAA game.
Just thought I would help everyone out in this thread.
Quote:
Opinion
[uh-pin-yuhn]
–noun 1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.
3. the formal expression of a professional judgment: to ask for a second medical opinion.
4. Law. the formal statement by a judge or court of the reasoning and the principles of law used in reaching a decision of a case.
5. a judgment or estimate of a person or thing with respect to character, merit, etc.: to forfeit someone's good opinion.
6. a favorable estimate; esteem: I haven't much of an opinion of him.
PS3 is going to have Oblivion? I'm playing it now on my 360 :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by MecaKaneAnyQuote:
Originally Posted by Erdrick Holmes
fightinggame where the main point is tits does not qualify as a AAA game.
Call of Duty 2, it came out a month earlier on PC. If that still qualifies xbox 360 as having a super fantastico launch, PS3 is going to have Obilvion. PS3 wins. Oh, and since this is all subjective, Call of Duty 3 is also ported launch title for PS3, if real RPGs don't float your boat. Oh, as well as Sonic the Hedgehog, and Rainbow Six: Vegas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Erdrick Holmes
Maybe I misunderstood the post :confused: please explain :)
Joel, have you even played a PS3? no, so how on earth can you call it a 'piece of crap' when you dont even know what it is capeable of? In my eyes you just a pathetic fan boy with arguements like these.Quote:
Originally Posted by Erdrick Holmes
Again all I hear (or read as the case may be is) OMG PS3 SUX! im a major Nintendo FAN BOI!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Erdrick Holmes
Erm... the price is too much? correct me if im wrong, but didnt the 360 coue out at like $600? and dont say im wrong on this as I know that I am not (being the fact that I was the best sales advisor for Toys R Us at the time of the release). And believe me the 360 has a much smaller fanbase then the PS3 also you stupidly forget to take into account that the 360 sold on ebay for well over $1000 so if people are willing to 'throw away their money' on a 'pice of crap' like the 360 then the whole world (idiot fanboi's excluded) will be snapping up the PS3 like there is no tomorrow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Erdrick Holmes
You again are foolishly mistaken, the developers are bound to snap it up as it will be one of the biggest gameing consoles on the planet, sony DOES have a huge fanbase and I personally think you are just trying to find chink's in the armor that just arent there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Erdrick Holmes
sure it might have a slow start but when the 3 different Final Fantasy's come out, you will see it rocketQuote:
Originally Posted by Erdrick Holmes
erm not that i dissagree with you but 1. we are the consumer and 2. my uncle got his when they first came out and as such was willing to pay top dosh for.Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuraid$945 is the cost as a consumer, not for the manufacturer. (Although $945 is too expensive anyway. $700 is more like it)Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Reno~
The $200 to $300 is the estimated cost of how much it costs Sony to manufacture a Blu-ray drive; just the manufacturing costs, without all the consumer and resale markups and additions. I will say I have not verified if $200-$300 is actually accurate, I just know it certainly doesn't cost Sony $700 to make a BluRay drive.
I played it, and I personally dont think it is up to muchQuote:
Originally Posted by Erdrick Holmes
Actually, yeah, you are wrong. The 360's premium system was 400 dollars and the core system was 300 dollars. I don't know how you were the sales advisor for Toys 'R' Us and thought the 360 cost 200 dollars more than it did. :p I don't think your post is really any less fanboyish than Joel's is, as you're making nearly as many statements without backing them up with anything concrete.
Im am talking about the UK... in the UK the core system was £300 and the full was £400 and currently the £ - $ exchange rate is £1 = $1.8746 Exchange Rates so lets do the math here... £400 x 1.8746 = $749.84 so no, im not wrong.
The PS3 costs over $800 in the UK :eep:
I thought I responded to this earlier, but apparently my internet lagged out. :| Anyway, here's a link that says the 360 was 279 pounds in the UK when it launched, which matches the amazon.co.uk list price. That works out to about 520 bucks US, which is still pretty expensive, being 120 dollars more than we have to pay for it. Still, that's a far cry from 750 bucks.Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Reno~
Those who cannot speak civilly to each other should refrain from posting altogether. If you think I might be refering to you, you're probably right. I can and will close this thread, and I can and will ban people who don't learn to stop attacking each other incessantly over a video game system that hasn't even been released yet.
Haveing sold 30 of the very top packages in one day, I can tell you that it was £400 on release reguardless of wethere amazon sold it for £279 or not lets think about it, you have a most wanted item in you shop that some retailers foolishly sell for £279 and they sell out after 2 hours then you have the rest of the world that actully want to make a decent amount of money from their purchases do you A. sell it for what the Internet sells them for or B. do you sell them for as much as the consumer is willing to pay for it... need I say more?Quote:
Originally Posted by AzarI thought I responded to this earlier, but apparently my internet lagged out. :| Anyway, here's a link that says the 360 was 279 pounds in the UK when it launched, which matches the amazon.co.uk list price. That works out to about 520 bucks US, which is still pretty expensive, being 120 dollars more than we have to pay for it. Still, that's a far cry from 750 bucks.Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Reno~
Just because you could have got it for as low as £279 doesnt mean that other places (such and Game, Gamestation, Toys R Us etc.) will not sell it for as much as humanly possible.
Edit: not being content with your statements I did a little research of my own at Xbox Official Site you will see the 360 package currently retailing at £279 also I did a little digging at the Toys R Us website and found this little bundle for the tasty price of £319 (which incedently is $598) I rest my case.
Regardless, the price range is beyond what I can pay. I had to do a lot of fast talking just to get permission from my wife to pay $400 for my 360. No PS3 for me :(
OMG I KNEW IT! I TOTALLY KNEW IT!!!
As soon as the rumored $500 console price came around, I said, No way, if that's what the console costs the games are going to be like $100!!!
I was never going to buy this due to the $500 price tag, but now....
:nonono:
If you read a couple of more posts you would find out that it was just a rumour and the games won't cost $100.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesse1
Oh, really?
Well that's good to know.
Either way I guess I'm not getting one :P
:spin:
Thank Odin. Good news.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yamaneko