Next Gen Consoles

[djbass]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

That's a seperate issue. If I make £100,000,000,000,000 profit on each unit I sell (including set up costs, and R&D and the like), and I only sell one after targeting 5,000,000 sales, is that a "failure"?

boy, at that price it's no wonder they didn't sell well.. unless your example is greatly exaggerated and not representative of actual figures in order to prove a point. I think you'll still find in order to be competitive they would have been closer to that of their rivals and they definately would have lost out from that.

If you like, and don't see anything wrong with, the single players of Jedi Outcast, Jedi Academy, Soldier of Fortune, Soldier of Fortune 2, Elite Force, Elite Force 2 and the rest, then I advise you to pick up this great game called "Half Life" that's coming out next year as you're obviously mentally stuck in 1997.

I've played neither of the two Jedi games you mention, but I did play the original JK 1 & 2 and loved them to their core. Elite Force 1 & 2 were also great games, infact they are the best Star Trek franchised game I've played to date, no other game has made me feel as immersed in the Trek universe as they have (though the point & click adventure games based on The Original Series were still great games as well). Do you also deny Hexen 1 & 2 and Heretic 1 & 2 were not both innovative and great games of their time?

Who better to develop an oldschool style game than a company so steeped in oldschool history as Raven?

Oh, and "Half Life"? don't get me started on that steaming pile of shit!

[Phang]

Originally Posted by djbass

boy, at that price it's no wonder they didn't sell well.. unless your example is greatly exaggerated and not representative of actual figures in order to prove a point. I think you'll still find in order to be competitive they would have been closer to that of their rivals and they definately would have lost out from that.

HIGHER PROFIT PER UNIT REQUIRES LESS SALES TO MAKE PROFIT. this is not a spectacularly complex piece of mathematics here. and the discrepancy with profit per unit compared to Sony/Xbox may well have been larger than the discrepancy in sales (although I really doubt the Xbox, and most certainly the PS2, didn't themselves make a profit)

[Chika]

SONY, will as normal, beat the competition. X-Box, in a nut shell, are turning the xbox into a computer. I have a computer, and most x-box games that are any good, I can get on computer, with better graphics and a HELL of a lot better online play. Nintendo, sadly, will only draw the asian crowd, with thier handheld field at a constant boom. The only thing good about Nintendo is Mario Cart.
If I had to choose between PS3 and Xbox 360, I would undoubtedly choose PS3. I am a bit biased though, because I play mostly sports games, and Madden and Live are both better on Playstation.

[djbass]

Originally Posted by Phang

HIGHER PROFIT PER UNIT REQUIRES LESS SALES TO MAKE PROFIT. this is not a spectacularly complex piece of mathematics here. and the discrepancy with profit per unit compared to Sony/Xbox may well have been larger than the discrepancy in sales (although I really doubt the Xbox, and most certainly the PS2, didn't themselves make a profit)

false economy.

that equation can only be true given certain variables stay within defined limits. yes, selling smaller quantities at higher prices will make you decent profit, but do you really feel enough people could have been persuaded to pay the higher price to validate your argument in a world so fueled by 'cheaper is better'?

Don't be dazzled by high numbers, in order to make profit they have to recieve back everything that went into development & research, cover all staff costs & wages, pay for the manufacturing and in short keep all their debitors happy before they can see any sort of return on the product.

So few companies actually run in the green, just about all the economy of the world is run on credit.

The fact that they had a projected sales figure means they predicted they would have to fall within a margin of that amount to profit from it.

[SbOlly]

You know that Sony make a loss on every PS2 bought? I believe all the console manufactors do on each of their hardware.

But we also make money from every unit of software bought for it. So we have a tie in value (the number of pieces of software each console owner would have to buy before they were making us money, rather than costing us money). From memory, at EU launch it was something like 3:1, and nowadays as manufacturing gets cheaper etc, its about 1.2:1.

The average tie in for the PS2 is 14:1 (at least for the US) meaning on average every PS2 is very profitable and getting more so by each day.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by djbass

boy, at that price it's no wonder they didn't sell well.. unless your example is greatly exaggerated and not representative of actual figures in order to prove a point. I think you'll still find in order to be competitive they would have been closer to that of their rivals and they definately would have lost out from that.

My point was that if profit is made, then it's hardly a "failure".

Originally Posted by djbass

I've played neither of the two Jedi games you mention, but I did play the original JK 1 & 2 and loved them to their core. Elite Force 1 & 2 were also great games, infact they are the best Star Trek franchised game I've played to date, no other game has made me feel as immersed in the Trek universe as they have (though the point & click adventure games based on The Original Series were still great games as well). Do you also deny Hexen 1 & 2 and Heretic 1 & 2 were not both innovative and great games of their time?

Who better to develop an oldschool style game than a company so steeped in oldschool history as Raven?

Oh, and "Half Life"? don't get me started on that steaming pile of shit!

You're objectively bad at having good opinions.

[Demon Dave]

Originally Posted by djbass

(though the point & click adventure games based on The Original Series were still great games as well)

i wish i still had an old 5 1/2" floppy drive so i could install and play Star Trek 25th Anniversary

[Androme]

MrL - according to Edge magazine, Quake 4 is being developed by "Raven/id software".

Anyway, Doom 3 was pretty... shit after I completed it. Playing it late at night, blinds closed, surround sound turned right on, it was bloody good and lasted me 2 sweet weeks. After that... well got bored. It's so prolonging too - something I found in Halo but Halo has after appeal and is such a sweet game imo. which Doom 3 lacked big time. The original Quake had a nice engine and this feels nothing like Quake 3 which I think is a big shame. I was expecting this to be original but no, it's just Doom 3 at heart. Blurgh.