I made a post in the forums a while ago about this. I wanted to go into detail on pricing of consoles. What it means to each individual and otherwise.
The main reason I am writing this is because I am very tired of hearing about prices of consoles on this site. I want it to stop but I know there is no end to it. So here I want to break down the basics of all 3 consoles and what you get for each and why one may appear cheaper then the other.
First is the Wii. Most hardcore gamers dislike the Wii but it is a viable next gen platform and is pushing gaming into a more interactive dimension. Nintendo have always had a way of "Nickle and Diming" Gamers. I waited outside of Target in tthe freezing cold for 8 hours to get mine on release day because I wanted to play Zelda. I am a long time fan of the series and have played them all. The first thing I noticed was the console with 1 controller and Nunchuck cost me 250$ It came with Wii Sports which was ok but there is the problem. You want to play with friends and that means 3 more controllers and Nunchucks... 180$!!!! On top of that you need to buy a ton of batteries if you play it a lot. Then to play classic games you need to buy the "Classic" controller... So I am easily close to 450$ by now...
Hard drive space is limited and they plan to fix that one day with another addon... In the end the wii is a very expensive console with limited online gaming capabilities... So for the hardcore it's not a very suitable platfrom price wise and game wise.
Xbox 360. This one to me is a sore spot. It is a good gaming platform. I bought an Elite probably 6 months after it was released. I enjoyed a great many games on it like Bioshock and otherwise.
Now I wont go into costs of the past because there are so many consoles to choose from with so many prices it's irrelevant. but to break it down simply it's a minimum of 200$ plus the price of a game to play something on the 360. So thats 265$. I wont go into what game or how old basically because if you are buying a 360 now you are probably buying it to play new games and not old ones. How long do you plan to keep your console? I would say at least 3-4 years. For the full experience on the 360 you need to be on Xbox live. Thats 5$ a month for 4 years. so lets just say 200$ give or take a few months. So now to play 1 game and be on live your up to 465$ for the lowest end 360 model.
Do you want to be able to download a map for your game? Well you need a Hard drive right? the cheapest, new 20 gig HD I could find was 52 dollars. So 517$ total for your lowest end system to play online and have a few maps to go with your game. What else do you need? Well it really is all on the gamer but many people who are invested and hate cables all over their room would need a WiFi adapter... (Why this is not standard is beyond me as I have WiFi on my DS) The cheapest adapter I could find is 83$. That really is a nice round number too as we are now up to 600$ for the lowest end 360 upgraded to play a game you like with DLC. I wont mention the price for batteries for the controller as some people buy an adapter to recharge but this is still additional cost to the the 360 price.
Now many of you will be saying "Wow" at this point. I think so as well because you may notice there is another system with WiFi, a standard hard drive, free online and all these things added in with a game for 400$. On top of that you have a high def movie player too... Which the 360 doesn't have. A standard recharger with every console and all that. Keep in mind that the 400$ is the 80 gig Ps3 with MGS4 included(Also BC compatible). There is a downfall in price however you have the option of buying an HDMI cable which is not needed but may make a world of difference in your viewing pleasure. Those may cost anywhere from 3$ to 80 or 90$ depending on length and all kinds of things. So since I stuck with the cheapest 360 model I will stick with the cheapest for the PS3 as well. so we are up to 403$. Which in the end is nearly 200$ cheaper then a 360 I mentioned above. However with the PS3 you do have a bigger HD and like I said an HD video player.
The comparison I made was to get the lowest end 360 as close as possible to the PS3 in terms of capabilities.
Basically what I wanted to sum up in my blog is to tell people to stop saying the PS3 is "too expensive". Initially it is a little pricey for some but in the end it is a much cheaper investment. I bought the 60gig BC one with no games for 600$ back in the day and don't feel like I wasted any money. However I was dissapointed in the 360 from the start. I had 2 RROD and traded it in when I heard Gears of War was coming to PC with more content, better graphics and a lower price. I upgraded my PC with the trade in money and have a sweet rig now. I just bought Left 4 Dead and have been playing all morning and I am looking forward to free DLC, Player Mods and other things while playing for free online... Not to mention it cost me less then the console version.
Just for the record I am not a hater of the 360. I play whenever I get the chance and even hit up some friends to play Fable 2. I think if it's your thing then thats fine but really my only intention in writing this is to try and get people to understand that you get what you pay for. If you buy the cheap system you will be putting a lot more into it in upgrades then you may want to. So please everyone stop slamming the PS3's price. They are already selling it at a huge loss. If you don't like it don't buy it but really in this day and age I think it's a real good deal especially looking at the competition and how I feel both MS and Nintendo Nickle and dime you to death.
Not to mention the library on actual exclusives on the PS3 is just much more appealing to me then the 360 because to me I can play almost all those games on the PC. Maybe not today like you but I will be able to one day and I can wait.
I really tried to be fair in my views on price. And yes you can play Left 4 Dead or gears 2 on the 360 for as little as 265$ if you like... Is that all you want though? Really? Tell me you don't pay for live and own the 200$ version or show me someone who does just that and nothing else and maybe that 1 person out of every 25000 people may be on to saving money and enjoying just what he/she wants... Otherwise you are being a fanboy. I know that sounds like "Pot calling Kettle" but I at least owned a 360 for a long time and this is the conclusion I have come to on my own. Thats a lot more then most fanboys who just pick one and despise the other.
Either way if you like what I wrote or hate it thanks for reading it and game on!
A number of leaks have popped up that reference Pokemon Black and White remakes in some way. Are they all coincidences or real in 2024?
The Final Fantasy VII Rebirth combat director has expressed that he wants the final part in the trilogy to offer players "even more freedom".
I love the game so far but please don’t make the final part a mini game fest
Everytime I get to a new part in Rebirth it’s “mini game time”
Hope ya don't mind me asking since it seems like you've played it, did it feel like a decent step up from the last game or was it more like the best from the last but more polished?
It makes Remake feel like a demo.
9.5/10 imo. And I think the “mini games” did a great job of adding variety to the gameplay. Purely optional as well.
Here's my thoughts
I think it's a big step up from the first instalment, I'm enjoying it way more.
I thought keeping it just in Midgar was silly, it felt dragged out and it didn't have much variation in terms of the scenery.
However with Rebirth, as soon as you get out of Kalm you have a big world to explore and it's great to just wander round and explore.
Now that I'm half way in though, despite still liking what I'm playing, the gameplay loop is now starting to slow down on me. I've got to a new region and I'm like "Yaaay...need to go and find those towers again, oh look another special beast marker, is that a bird I see in the distance? Better follow it to another Mako Crystal"
It's like....you know how Peter Jackson was only supposed to have two Hobbit films then Warner Bros wanted a third film so he stretched the second film out as much as he could so he could keep stuff for the third film making a trilogy? Yeah it feels like that, so these mini games are a part of that overall gameplay loop to keep us going and stretch the game out overall so they have something for the third and final game.
I personally think you could have had the first instalment get you out of Midgar and through to Grasslands / Junon and the second game finishes things off.
I had a weird cycle of love/hate for all the mini games as I played through. At first I really hated the seeming need to check all these boxes while exploring the grasslands. I didn't enjoy the Gilgamesh quest initially, and thought Queen's blood was fine but didn't want to commit to it. The side quests didn't really grab me either.
Then for some reason everything in Junon region changed my mind and I did pretty much everything. I liked most of the side quests, I actually liked playing fort condor (didn't care for it in the intergrade dlc). And my interest for completing these quests stayed pretty much through to Cosmo Canyon.
Then they added that horrible Lifestream memory/battle mini game and I started getting so burnt out of it all. I just wanted to do the story. I didn't do any side quests in neibleheim and beyond except for the summon. I abandoned Gilgamesh.
So what I'm saying is I would like the third part to go back to the focused progression from remake. Keep the mini games to the gold saucer. Start the game snowboarding if you want, but from there keep the story rolling.
That's funny you say that because I did everything in the Grasslands but once in Junon I started to slow down a little until Corel where by the end I was burnt out. I'm still currently going but I'm just doing what I can while things keep getting thrown at me.
I would have preferred half of these mini game side fillers / collectibles for some really beefy side quests that really adds onto the world of FFVII.
Sounds like they hadn't really figured out what they wanted to do with Remake and this one is more of what they thought of doing which is probably why they're dragging it out to make a trilogy. Disappointed to hear it has towers cause man do i hate towers lol. It's been a while since I've played the first and it'll be a while longer to play the sequel, but it sounds like I'll enjoy it. 7 really impressed me especially after being disappointed with 15, felt like Square finally realized that FF was THEIR big franchise again.
How many hours are you into it at this point?
My friend got like 20-30 in and pretty much quit because of its mini game era. He loved and basically binged through Gran Blue compared to Rebirth
As long as it comes out on PS5 to have the entire series on one platform, do whatever you want
The combat is my favorite thing about Rebirth. Would be really cool if they can improve it even more.
I hope after FF7 Square will either give a new FF game the remake treatment. Or give some of their older titles a remake treatment like Chrono Trigger, Chrono Cross, even Xenogears.
Wccf tech writes: "Kingdom Come Deliverance 2's scope was impacted by the Xbox Series S hardware limitations, as developers could only make a game that was 25% bigger than its predecessor."
This is the issue with things like this
Xbox Series X is apparently to MS the worlds most powerful console
However the Series S is obviously a limitation because it’s underpowered and developers have to go for parity.
So what’s the point of the world’s most powerful console if you are holding third party developers back? They aren’t going to push themselves if they have to think about the weakest console.
The issue wouldn’t be as bad if it was just Xbox but you are also affecting the PS version aswell
I think developers need to start just taking advantage of a console and if one of them can’t do X Y and Z then f*** them…why should the others suffer. What’s MS going to do? The bigger the franchise the least chance MS are going to tell them to f*** off. Baulders Gate 3 seemed to have stood their ground and suddenly their “strict” parity rule didn’t really matter. We suddenly got super optimisation efforts for the Series S that got things sorted.
I agree, and the sad part is use normal folk saw it the second they announced their plans.
Agree 100% this is why I didn’t want the M$ Monopoly, now PS5 version will be held back too.
If PS5 Pro comes out and Series S is still a thing it’ll be interesting what differences and what devs choose to do. Really hoping Rockstar pushes the PS5 pro with GTA6 and we get the best version possible.
Good ole S indeed. Everyone knew this all along. S was holding games back...Now where the hell is Orchard i want a word with him.
More info from the author of the article, I think: https://www.reddit.com/r/ki...
Quote:
"1) I was told this info from the producer of the game Martin Klíma.
2) He specifically said the game will have only one mode.
3) And this mode is 4K 30 on PS5/XSX and 1440p 30 on XSS.
4) He said that the game is already running north of the 30 FPS cap so the performance should be stable on launch, much better than KCD1.
5) The limitation was XSS because of the 10GB memory. He said that's why they wanted to make the game 25% larger.
6) Speculation on my part: the output resolution is probably upscaled and the reason why there won't be a 60 FPS mode is because it'll most likely be very CPU heavy, like Dragon's Dogma 2 for example."
Doesn't seem like they're adding a 40fps mode on PS5/Series X for launch even if they can handle it.
I'd much rather have 1440p/60fps or even 45fps. Having just one, even with the Series S in mind, is disappointing.
Remember when xbots were adamant that the series s won’t hold back the gen?
Microsoft just needs to let go of the mandatory parity. Who cares if your grandma doesn’t understand that a game cannot be played on the S. It’s not like it she can buy you a physical game for it anyway. Before buying the game put up a notice that it only works on series X. If you’re buying for a friend-allow for a refund.
Bam. Everyone is happy. Most series s owners are for casuals that want Game Pass anyway and most likely don’t purchase most games.
If the developers want it to run on S, let them figure it out.
If it were Series X only then they'd only be selling to 25% of the Xbox Series userbase, and that's certainly not worth the time and effort into doing a port. Could just do PS5 & PC instead. No compromises needed.
“During the event, the Kingdom Come Deliverance 2 producer also revealed that on PlayStation 5 and Xbox Series X, the game will run at 4K resolution and 30 frames per second“
Another “creative decision” right? 🤦♂️
Since you're not an amateur and clearly know more than them, can you over there and help get the game running on the S without having to sacrifice their true vision. Us gamers would really appreciate you using your wisdom for good 🙏
Thousands of games run just fine on S.
But Kingdom Come is the game that can’t. Must be one hell of a game!
Thousands of games run on PS4 and on Switch. If developers want them to run on those systems. Fine. Those two platforms still get new games. Sony isn’t making studios also make a ps4 pro version, or Nintendo a wiiu version. Microsoft technically is.
If games like Alan Wake 2, GTA6, COD, hellblade all run on S, no excuse for this 100x smaller and 100x worse looking game to be held back.
"Thousands of games run just fine on S.
But Kingdom Come is the game that can’t. Must be one hell of a game!"
Kingdom come 2 runs just fine alright. Its the SCOPE that they want. They had to cut it because of the stupid S series. Hellblade2 ran just fine too..but im pretty confident if it was just the X in mind, the scope of the game would have been much bigger.
Now as for the blog. There is some huge contradiction here. First, you wanted to start with the "lowest" end model with the 360/ps3 correct? Well, in actuality, you chose the most expensive. You basically built up an arcade sku. Adding for inflation, the things you "need". Now truth be told you do need a hard drive if you want to fully experience the 360's capabilities. Right now though you can buy an arcade and buy a "refurbished" hard drive, but I won't get into that. Simply put, the 360 pro is the cheapest model you can buy if you want the full optimal experience. So you said + a game correct? Well that's around 365. Okay next is Live, of course your going to need it if your comparing it to the ps3 right? Okay so that's what, u said 4 years? $565, and were not even going to add that most of the time Amazon sells this for $40. Now what confused me was that you chose not to add the optional hdmi cables or hd cables for the ps3 yet you added the Live charge? Let's be fair now, so the real cost of the ps3 would be 400+ a game+ the cheapest cables. I myself have a Sony hdmi cable which cost me 49.99 so I'll add that since it's middle rounded. So that's 515 right? Now here's the interesting part. You failed to add that the 360 right now adds two free games. The ps3 yes does have a free game, though it depends on if you can scout for the Mgs4 bundle or the uncharted bundle. At most your getting one free game and one movie. So let's subtract that $65 from the 360's price. And let's subtract that Sony game. So that's 500/450. Now let's see here what else? Obviously the 360 doesn't have a blu-ray drive, so that's a +. You can't add that feature :( so it won't be inflated to adjust. Oh, wifi. I will not even bother to add that one. Simply put, an ethernet cable is much faster than the ps3's wifi. This is simple math, the ps3 is a Wireless G. Even I have to use the ehternet cable on my ps3. Basically it's a luxury and there is no need to add that overpriced wireless adapter for the 360. Last but not least, you say you prefer the ps3 lineup. Which is very surprising. In charted facts, the 360 has higher rated games than the ps3. So to counter this you brought up the fact that you have a pc. Which is kind confusing since your comparing a pure gaming console to a pc gaming rig which cost's upwards of a thousands dollars depending on your specs. Not too mention the constant upgrading. But to each his own :). But to be completely fair, the real cost difference between the ps3/360 is 500/450
Well said but unfortunately it's all in vain.
I think it works both ways. PS3 is the best value for the money, but the 360 is more accessible to the average consumer.
Sure if you add all the features that the 360 is missing from the PS3 it makes the 360 more expensive, then again, those things aren't needed.
Either way, I feel that both systems are worth their respective prices (except for the extremely high priced wi-fi adapter for the 360,) and I'm glad I own all three systems. Of course if I had to choose just one, well the PS3 would get my vote faster then the other two.
Good read.
too bad we're busy doing other things to actually game together lol!