New news about the price

[Dave A]

They won't be willing to lose close to 50% for each console, do you have any idea how much of a profit they'd need to make on everything else to make that back. When your talking about taking losses for a $400 product, your talking a bout a $100-$150 loss, so if the PS3 cost $550 to manufacture you'd be looking at a $400 launch price at best not $300. If they sold 5 million consoles at an average loss of $100 per console that's already $500,000,000 loss, I don't think they'd increase that to $1,500,000,000 or more making a $300 loss per console.

 

[YSSMAN]

Well, its not like Sony isnt made of money....

Hmmm, maybe they should have been a bit more conservative with their promises?

 

[194GVan]

They won't be willing to lose close to 50% for each console, do you have any idea how much of a profit they'd need to make on everything else to make that back. When your talking about taking losses for a $400 product, your talking a bout a $100-$150 loss, so if the PS3 cost $550 to manufacture you'd be looking at a $400 launch price at best not $300. If they sold 5 million consoles at an average loss of $100 per console that's already $500,000,000 loss, I don't think they'd increase that to $1,500,000,000 or more making a $300 loss per console.

Sony DID say that they want people to feel they have to have one, and are willing to work the extra hours to be able to afford it.

IGN Article

How much will the PlayStation 3 cost?
Unknown at this point, though Sony guru Ken Kutaragi has stated that "It will be expensive" -- so it will almost certainly be more than the sweet-spot launch price of $299. In a recent interview with Japanese economic website Tokyo Keizai, Kutaragi said the company wants "for consumers to think to themselves 'I will work more hours to buy one'. We want people to feel that they want it, irrespective of anything else."

 

[Tenacious D]

I think that Sony knows the happy point at which "expensive" is acceptable, and beyond that is "ZOMG, let's wait a year or get an XBox360!" I think it's $399.

I don't have to count pennies as tightly as a family does, but Sony doesn't want these things to collect dust. The developers will need games to sell too, and for that to happen, the console will have to be hooked up to home TVs or everyone will be hurting badly.

 

[CDailey]

Well, its not like Sony isnt made of money....

That's the thing. Sony isn't made of money. IIRC they have been in "financial trouble" lately.

 

[G-T-4-Fan]

OH NO THATS A SICK PRICE

What kind of freakin public are they aiming for with this PS3?
40 year olds with a job?
Come on, the group ranges more from 12 to...I dunno...19 years.

I just had the rare exception to pay for a new computer, the price was 1050,- all in all. But that was a reeeeeeeaaaallll exception, and I probably wont get over the 200,- next 2 years, only if I start working and stuff to earn extra money.

But this is supposed to be something that parents can give on their kid's birthdays. Damn man thats a set back...

I bet it will take another 2 years before that price goes down to about 199,- or not?

 

[YSSMAN]

That's the thing. Sony isn't made of money. IIRC they have been in "financial trouble" lately.

Were talking about the same Sony, right?

...I havent herd that recently. I mean they have nowhere near the financial backing that Microsoft has with the XBOX, but I do know they they have made quite a bit of money off the Playstation program since 1994/1995. I would most certainly hope so atleast, they have sold more than 100 million PS2's since it's launch in 2000.

 

[tha_con]

Were talking about the same Sony, right?

...I havent herd that recently. I mean they have nowhere near the financial backing that Microsoft has with the XBOX, but I do know they they have made quite a bit of money off the Playstation program since 1994/1995. I would most certainly hope so atleast, they have sold more than 100 million PS2's since it's launch in 2000.

More proof that you make a ton of assumptions, lol.

Sony is nealy 60 billion in IIRC. The Playstation brand does well, but they loose entirely too much trying to make everything multi-function.

Like their Camera's. They would be 100x better if they'd just seperate "camera" from "camcorder" but they want both to do both, so they suffer as a result.

The only things, IMO, that Sony really does "right" is Videogames and TV's.

 

[Solid Lifters]

The only things, IMO, that Sony really does "right" is Videogames and TV's.

But, there was a time when Sony did a lot of things correct. Their products where usually the best, if they had the features you wanted. I used to be a real big fan of Sony and most of the products they made. Not any more. Too bad they've been trying to tell people what they want, instead of listening to what they want.

Their stock prices have been dropping for several years, now. The PS2 has saved their ass, but it's time they get the rest of their products up to snuff. I think it's a shame that they treat their ES line as some cheap marketing plow, when it used to stand for something.

 

[LaBounti]

Come on, the group ranges more from 12 to...I dunno...19 years

more like 13 to 35. and no even if it cost them $900 to make which it probably wont they wouldn't sell it for that much. Most 25-35 year olds grew up in the videogame age like myself and thats why its a culture now when years ago when we were kids video games were considered just for kids. Now its a more than childs play with many of the best games having an "M" rating. 17+ doesnt mean 17-19. But this is just my opinion as I'm 27 and Its my culture. Videgames grew up with us.

 

[a6m5]

Sony is not quite in serious trouble yet, but they are getting there. As Solid pointed out, once they were great company(I was somewhat of a fan too), but in my observation, they've struck out for last decade or so. Exceptions are TV and Video Games, indeed. I liked the Mini Discs too, but that didn't do too well in the States unfortunately.

My guess on video game age group would be a lot closer LaBounti's. Back when the gamers were 12-19 must've been in the 80's.

 

[G-T-4-Fan]

Well I think that if you are 25+ and play video games you can probably call yourself a very loyal gamer.

But seeing what Sony is aiming for, only HARD CORE gamers would lay down 900,- for a friggin PS3. I can but myself a used car for that...

 

[Dave A]

I've been a gamer since about 11-12, I'm 23 now. A lot of my mates still play games, they're mainly 18-35, some a little older. The average gamer isn't the spotty 15 year old, not round here anyway. I think youger people, kid's play hand held games a lot more, I'd never consider a hand held console like the PSP or GameBoy and none of my mates have one. And sometimes a few of us go to Mike's and have have multiplayer fun on Pro Evo football. None of us would call ourselves hardcore or loyal gamers, not by a long, long shot.

 

[G-T-4-Fan]

............

So can dream on about the days I can afford the PS3


Oh I've seen the new Metal Gear video on gamespot, together with a preview of medal of honor airforce or something. PLUS NOT TO FORGET: GT5!
This is sweet

 

[kjb]

I'm 32 and I've been playing videogames since the Atari 2600 days. I love playing games but I just cannot see myself spending $900 on a PS3.

 

[tha_con]

...g-u-l-l-a-b-l-e.

 

[Solid Lifters]

I'm 32 and I've been playing videogames since the Atari 2600 days. I love playing games but I just cannot see myself spending $900 on a PS3.

It wont be that much. I bet it'll cost $499 for the US market, at the most. I'd easily pay that pirce, and I'm 36 and don't play that many games. I like Res Evil, Metal Gear Solid, Gran Turismo, Ace Combat series, and a few other titles.

There might be other titles and series I would like on PS3 that I didn't like on PS2 because of horrible graphics, and terrible game play. Games like SOCOM series, Syphon Filter, Splinter Cell, Killzone and a few others. Maybe, and I'm hoping, game developers can and will make these games much better than they were on the PS2.

 

[LaBounti]

I think think the younger generation of gamers 11-17 are more impressed by pretty much anything new and with a fancy comerical. They arent scared away by reviews like older gamers.

Maybe, and I'm hoping, game developers can and will make these games much better than they were on the PS2.

So you are saying you hope developers cater to your own needs seeing none of the games you mention are bad or even mediocre for that with exception of Killzone from a general opinion but I like it..

 

[G-T-4-Fan]

I think think the younger generation of gamers 11-17 are more impressed by pretty much anything new and with a fancy comerical. They arent scared away by reviews like older gamers.

Well....their parents will be scared away when they finally see the price tag of their kid's new wish, they'll be like O_O

 

[tha_con]

So you are saying you hope developers cater to your own needs seeing none of the games you mention are bad or even mediocre for that with exception of Killzone from a general opinion but I like it..

I think he's just saying they aren't "pretty" enough for him...at least that's all I can think, since all but Killzone were awesomely fun games.

 

[LaBounti]

But he says terrible gameplay too, if the graphics are so bad what is it that people like about them if they dont have good graphics or gameplay? Great story line? Thats were I had to reply, the fact that somehting works for most people that he'd like changed.

 

[Solid Lifters]

So you are saying you hope developers cater to your own needs seeing none of the games you mention are bad or even mediocre for that with exception of Killzone from a general opinion but I like it..

These are far from just "my" needs. A lot of people feel the same way I do about the following games. They lack a certain need to play these games, and lack that fun factor other games I mentioned have.

Well, ask yourself this. How many people bought SOCOM 3? Not as many as they thought they would sell. But, who bought it, mostly? Online gamers. Nobody else really wanted it; myself included. The main reasons, since you want some details? Graphics are bad; it's not "pretty." Second, stupid commands that don't work. Give a command and your team wont follow orders. Third, orders that don't fit the actions you need to occur. "Mount Up," "Regroup" when you need to clear an area, or send Bravo Team to a different area, but "Clear Area" is not available, and you can't move Bravo Team when and where you need to. Fourth, horrible controls of your character, and the lack of adjustment to how your character moves or is controlled. The lack of telling your team to launch a rocket grenade was also stupid. Every time you tried to deploy something like that, they couldn't perform, or wouldn't, for some stupid reason. This game is fun, to a certain degree, but it's far to frustrating to purchase and play constantly. I also like to take the roll of a sniper, and the sniper controls for the character you control was horrible. Real life snipers don't move around that much trying to pinpoint and aim on a target, even with a rapid heart rate. But, trying to aim on a bad guy from a distance with a sniper rifle was a frustrating task, thanks to the stupid movements.

With Killzone, I hated how the characters moved and where controlled. Again, no adjustments where available to me when I needed the character to move at a different speed. How can the character, Big Boss, be so smooth and so easy to move around in MGS3, yet all other games have such difficult-to-control characters? Killzone looked great, and sounded unique. But, the movements where horrible. Maybe, you younger guys don't have problems with it, but I sure did. I did love the Stealth Character, the chick, but I couldn't play with her from the beginning, and the other characters were too horrible to play for more than 20 seconds. Plus, I thought the controls for the Sniper Rifle, the weapon for the Stealth Chick, was one of the worst controlled weapons in any game. I have no idea why they made it that stupid.

The problems with Splinter Cell are similar to both Killzone and SOCOM, but there were several things different. I hated the story and the character. With MGS, you really like and want to be Big Boss or Solid Snake. With this character, I didn't give a damn if he got killed or got the job done. Story is more important than action when you get older, I guess. To be honest, I found the entire game to be silly, and really boring. All of the SC games are like that. Plus, it looks horrible, IMO. I hate the graphic and visual quality of the game, and the sound was horrible too. I bought only one SC game, and wont buy another.

I might be picky, but why can't these game developers make their games without all these issues? The other games I mentioned can do things correctly, so why can't they?

 

[tha_con]

Well, ask yourself this. How many people bought SOCOM 3? Not as many as they thought they would sell. But, who bought it, mostly? Online gamers. Nobody else really wanted it; myself included. The main reasons, since you want some details? Graphics are bad; it's not "pretty." Second, stupid commands that don't work. Give a command and your team wont follow orders. Third, orders that don't fit the actions you need to occur. "Mount Up," "Regroup" when you need to clear an area, or send Bravo Team to a different area, but "Clear Area" is not available, and you can't move Bravo Team when and where you need to. Fourth, horrible controls of your character, and the lack of adjustment to how your character moves or is controlled. The lack of telling your team to launch a rocket grenade was also stupid. Every time you tried to deploy something like that, they couldn't perform, or wouldn't, for some stupid reason. This game is fun, to a certain degree, but it's far to frustrating to purchase and play constantly. I also like to take the roll of a sniper, and the sniper controls for the character you control was horrible. Real life snipers don't move around that much trying to pinpoint and aim on a target, even with a rapid heart rate. But, trying to aim on a bad guy from a distance with a sniper rifle was a frustrating task, thanks to the stupid movements.

Having been in the military, and having shot many weapons, there is a degree of movement when firing, especially in a combat zone on the move.

Most importantly, when you are 300+ meters away from your target, the smallest movement has the largest impact on where you are aiming, and I feel this game has a very good feel for that.

Also, the game very closely reflects that of basic firing fundamentals, from trigger squeeze to breathing control.

The movement is his breathing, and when it stops, it's when he holds his breath. These are all REAL techniques taught to both snipers and standard infantry soldiers. THey are not just aspects created to make the game difficult. THe purpose is to reflect a point of realism. It does it fairly well.

Also, I understand your complaints, but the game is heavily centered around online play, and if you haven't played it online, you don't even begin to understand the differences in play. If you play it online, it's an entirely different game.

 

[G-T-4-Fan]

Most importantly, when you are 300+ meters away from your target, the smallest movement has the largest impact on where you are aiming, and I feel this game has a very good feel for that.

Also, the game very closely reflects that of basic firing fundamentals, from trigger squeeze to breathing control.

The movement is his breathing, and when it stops, it's when he holds his breath. These are all REAL techniques taught to both snipers and standard infantry soldiers. THey are not just aspects created to make the game difficult. THe purpose is to reflect a point of realism. It does it fairly well.

Well, I agree these features improve realism. I haven't played the game either, but I think Solid doesn't want these features to be GONE, but he would like to see them in, but not as important.

Games is all about balance, and if you mess up the game's snipers completely by adding recoil that smashes your gun up 20 feet then thats not balanced very well.
Offcourse thats not a realistic example, but that is what you are trying to avoid.

Personally I like Americas Army because it's a game where this is balanced very very well.

 

[Solid Lifters]

I'm no stranger to real world firearm technique and shooting. I'm a NRA Certified Chief Range Safety Officer Instructor, former indoor shooting range owner, former Silhouette Competition Shooter (IHMSA UASHS) and former Cowboy Action Competition Shooter (SASS). I've trained with the "Fog Of War" and "Turnipseed Technique" shooting techniques. I know what sniping at a target that's over 500m is like. I've shot at half-sized ram silhouette targets placed 200m away, using a 14 inch single-shot pistol in .44 Remington Magnum using 265gr. bullets in creedmore position in a heavy crosswind. In no way does SOCOM 3 accurately depict real world shooting styles. MGS is far more accurate, but not completely accurate to real world shooting technique.

I never shoot "on the run" in video games, so I don't know what's that like in SOCOM. I use a traditional hunting technique of glassing, spotting, stalking, ranging and killing. But the sniping in SOCOM is grossly inaccurate. But then, most video game sniping usually is. If they adapted real-world sniping technique, I'm sure most people would find the game boring. But, that's the technique I often use, and I would like for it to be a lot more accurate. MGS came close, though. I guess that's why I like it so much.

The movement of the crosshairs in SOCOM is not real. They might bounce around at the beats of the heart in real life, but that is easily controlled with breathing, (and doses of Lorazepam, he-he). In SOCOM, every time you move sideways, the crosshairs move around again, making you reacquire your target all over again. That never happens in real world shooting. In SOCOM, the sniper aiming is not smooth and is very "twitchy." No way is that accurate in real-world shooting. In real world sniping, you can move slowly and smoothly to acquire your target. You can't do that in SOCOM, which is really frustrating.

I also notice that full auto shooting of silenced M4 rifles is grossly inaccurate, too. They don't recoil straight up, and keep going up until you aim is way off target. That is so fake and poorly reproduced in SOCOM. Again, MGS is more accurate, but not entirely real. Silencers are fantastic compensators and the recoil is greatly reduced when you use them. Plus, the recoil on a full auto M4 without a silencer is very manageable. Not so with the M4 in SOCOM.

I might be picky, but shooting is something I do a lot, and I would like an accurate shooting video game.

 

[LaBounti]

SOCOM3 may not have sold well because you have to have a credit card to use all of the online features. Just my guess.

Most of these newer games look like first gen Xbox games(original games not ports) now compared to the first gen PS2. I'm not trying to tell you what you should like I'm just saying they have improved greatly in the last 2 years.

As for Killzone the reason they moved that way is because they wanted a realistic style of movement, MGS3 is far from realistic. I'm not saying Killzone was realistic but that was the goal. I dont understand the part about "Again, no adjustments where available to me when I needed the character to move at a different speed." There is a sprint button but I dont think thats what you meant. I had no problem with the controls just aiming system. Playing with the stealth chick early would involve rewriting the story and i think they designed it that way because they people would want to use her a lot, kinda the same was early FPS would not let the gamer have access to powerful weapons early. I rarely used her when i could, the sniping was wonky. But using other charactors reveals different parts of the game or levels not much but it adds to replayablity for die hard fans. i'm 9 years younger than you but I dont like any game tossed my way.

 

[tha_con]

MGS is no where near close....it's fantasy. Maybe I'm a bit biased because I fire very very frequently on the range with some of the same weapons featured in Socom (i.e. M14, M16, and M25). I think what you are negating as if it isn't a factor is that no Sniper ever sets up or fires his weapon without support, generally from a tripod mounted at the barrel of the weapon. It is only natural if you are in the prone unsupported to have movement, because you have to breath, there is wind, and you are only supporting the mid section and butt of the rifle, not the front end, which is where muzzle travel comes into play. I'm sorry, but unless you're shooting from these position with these weapons, I don't clearly see how you can judge the games accuracy. Toss on the tripod, as all snipers would, and it's much more balanced and "real world". But we're getting way off topic.

Only two months left before we find out any REAL info...unless Sony drops some bombs at the GDC, which I doubt.

 

[Solid Lifters]

MGS is no where near close....it's fantasy.

It's closer than SOCOM, that's for sure.

Maybe I'm a bit biased because I fire very very frequently on the range with some of the same weapons featured in Socom (i.e. M14, M16, and M25).

What and where do you shoot? I've never like the M14. And the M25 is just a dressed up pig, IMO. They're decent for 500m stuff, but I wouldn't stress past that. Headspacing problems often occur and interlope on shot accuracy with M14-25. That's why I don't like them.

I think what you are negating as if it isn't a factor is that no Sniper ever sets up or fires his weapon without support, generally from a tripod mounted at the barrel of the weapon. It is only natural if you are in the prone unsupported to have movement, because you have to breath, there is wind, and you are only supporting the mid section and butt of the rifle, not the front end, which is where muzzle travel comes into play. I'm sorry, but unless you're shooting from these position with these weapons, I don't clearly see how you can judge the games accuracy. Toss on the tripod, as all snipers would, and it's much more balanced and "real world". But we're getting way off topic.

IRW, snipers can easily support their rifles without the aid of a tripod or other support. I can easily do it. But, if I do need the support, I often used sticks off the ground, my KBAR, logs, bushes, etc. if I need some type of support. Two sticks makes a fantastic support. But, how can a game turn that into gameplay? Right, impossible, but that type of hold accuracy is there, IRW, so why not in games?

Plus, I shoot pistols with 14 inch barrels in medium and large bore pistol calibers, unsupported and leg supported (creedmore position), and easily hit targets 200m away. I can't, for the life of me, understand why the hell anyone would make a game where targets just 145m away, with a 4x scope on a M4, be so difficult to target and stay steady on once acquired! Even training with "Fog of War" technique, I can shoot my Rem700PSS .308 after 50 fast situps, 25 fast push ups and 200m of fast running at a 500m target and still shoot less than one MOA when it shoots .3-.5 MOA rested. It makes no sense SOCOM is that unrealistic. Shooting unsupported is not that difficult, and you can easily target, aim and hold aim on a target without moving around as much in SOCOM. A little is present, but not that much.

It's my constant attention to IRW shooting that allows me to make such judgments. Perhaps I'm more experienced than you at shooting? Perhaps I don't suffer from the same shooting hindrances as you and others? Beats me? I don't know. I am and excellent marksman; "Distinguished Expert" in rifle, pistol and shotgun according to the NRA. But, so many others are that the makers of SOCOM could have noted their experiences.

As far as IRW shooting in video games, I did like the "hold your breath" feature of Splinter Cell, but thought the movement when you didn't hold your breath of the point of aim was ridiculous and stupid. IRW shooting, you don't move around that much. If you did, you wouldn't come near a Military sniper training course and would never make it as a Special Forces team member and that defeats the purpose of SOCOM, and games like it.

 

[Niels]

It's my constant attention to IRW shooting that allows me to make such judgments. Perhaps I'm more experienced than you at shooting? Perhaps I don't suffer from the same shooting hindrances as you and others? Beats me? I don't know. I am and excellent marksman; "Distinguished Expert" in rifle, pistol and shotgun according to the NRA. But, so many others are that the makers of SOCOM could have noted their experiences.

Please dont...bring that up. It's about experiences of a game and real life techniques. Dont turn this into some childish battle on who's more experienced.

If I listen closely, then I hear that if you got the right technique you can aim very very acuratly without any stupid movements like in SOCOM.

So lets focus on how to impliment this ingame. You could make a bar that simulates your heartbeat. Now imagine you aim on a target and just sit still for a minute, then the heartbeat bar would go down and would increase accuracy, is that nice enough?
Or maybe press a button several times so you are slower then usual but it would simulate you getting your heartbeat down (maybe breath together with heartbeat).
Cause you can demand alot, but you need to make it possible ingame, preferably with simple things.

Also, for alot of FPS games, I dont think (I dont know this really) snipers operate in the normal infantry battles like you see in some wargames.
I think, snipers are more focussed on HUNTING down targets, and observing them and act like surveillance of an area.
To include that hunting down stuff, you would need to make a seperate game I think. It's just a totally different thing from the usual FPS games.
Thats why I think snipers have always been a bit unrealistic in most games anyway.

 

[tha_con]

And before this gets ugly...

1) MGS is no where near realistic. I'm not taking away from the fact that it's the most amazing console game I've ever played, but it's not worthy of that much praise in the shooting department.

2) I'm not doubting you're a great shooter, or even questioning your experience, I am however, stating that movement is natural when you're not firing. Obviously you haven't had sniper courses. Shooting and hunting are very different from sniping. Having been in a Trainning Support unit for 4 years in the military, I have come across many Snipers from the op 4 team.

You DO NOT, I repeat, DO NOT, tense up and hold still while "tracking" your target if you do not have a tripod. Your muscles will get tired and you have a greater chance to miss. You relax, losely follow your target, then you hold your breath, lock up, and fire. These are all taught by the military, and Socom is a military game. I'm not doubting any of your experience, however, you are ignoring key factors about this in place of Civilian firing techniques that are not for sniping at all.

Also, you are forgetting that Socom is a game, and I will admit some (to an extent) of the muzzle movment is exaggerated, however, it is this way for balance. If the muzzle were to stay perfectly still, or even slightly still, then it would take away from the balance of the game(as the sniper rifle would become too powefull).

With that having been said, I do not know ONE sniper who takes his M25 (Which, by the way is the urban combat sniper rifle of choice by both the US army and US Navy) without at least carrying a tripod.

Also, while the M25 is best with distances up to 500m, it has a maximum effective range of between 800 and 900 meters.

With that all having been said, I don't doubt that Socom is overcompensating, but it isn't that bad, as it does in fact reflect real practices of the US military. Your goal as a sniper is not to maintain your steady aim throughout, only when you are ready to fire to you steady your self, close your scanning eye, hold your breath, and pull the trigger. Any other time, you are simply scanning, with no focus on your other fundementals.