August Console Sales Numbers

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27

These rumored deals are so good that I'm taking a quick break from my break of posting in this thread:

http://www.joystiq.com/2007/09/27/ru...-this-holiday/

The details:

The Pro 360 will include Forza 2 and Marvel Ultimate Alliance (both fun games) starting October 9th. Same deal with the Elite starting October 23rd.

I believe that the Wii has lost the pricing advantage with this. I finally found a Wii at BJ's yesterday, so bought their bundle. $400 for:

Wii
2 controllers w/ nunchuks
pistol shooting controller
2 games: Sonic + Chicken shooter

EBGames.com has a similar bundle for $420 (it includes Wii Play and 2 different games).

If an Xbox 360 Pro is $350 w/ 2 games and another controller can be had for $45, all of a sudden you can get a 360 Pro for the same price as a Wii.

[Big Fo]

Wow, I had no idea people still had to get those kinds of bundles, that's unfortunate. Sonic is meant to be mediocre and I hadn't heard of the second game but if it has a 26% on gamerankings it must be terrible.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Big Fo

Wow, I had no idea people still had to get those kinds of bundles, that's unfortunate. Sonic is meant to be mediocre and I hadn't heard of the second game but if it has a 26% on gamerankings it must be terrible.

Oh, I figured the games would suck, and I would end up throwing about $50 or $60 away, but we really wanted one for the kids and it's the first one I've seen available around here. Maybe we'll spot another one in the next few days with a better set of games and return this one...

[SackAttack]

gstel - best buy has been getting ridiculous quantities in the last two weeks, and doesn't require bundles. Keep your eyes peeled.

[stevew]

That sonic game is awful, I had to buy that in a bundle with my wii a few months ago as well. Keep looking, I'm sure you'll find a stand alone console eventually.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Ryan S

If this year is anything like last year, most retailers will offer bundles on both consoles with PES 2008 (and probably FIFA as well).

The PES 2008/PS3 bundle is an exclusive deal between Konami and Sony specifically designed to make sure Microsoft cannot offer a similar bundle.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

There's been a lot of comments that Halo 3's graphics aren't all that spectacular. It now appears that we have a reason......they're not. Halo 3 is running at 640p.

http://www.gamerawr.com/2007/09/28/h...-runs-at-640p/

Bungie's rebuttal with confirmation that it is running at 640p

http://www.bungie.net/News/content.a...news&cid=12821

In fact, if you do a comparison shot between the native 1152×640 image and the scaled 1280×720, it’s practically impossible to discern the difference.

In fact the reason we haven’t mentioned this before in weekly updates, is the simple fact that it would have distracted conversation away from more important aspects of the game, and given tinfoil hats some new gristle to chew on as they catalogued their toenail clippings.

I agree with both of the above statements. 640p doesn't look any different blown up to 720p. Also, I think the second quote is also true, but that's didn't stop the fodder from flying when the 30 FPS problem came up on Madden. I'm sure that EA could have downscaled Madden to 640p and got the FPS rate up to 60, but they didn't do that.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Nintendo confirms that Wii supply will be scarce during holiday season. It will be interesting to see if the 360 or PS3 may benefit from consumer frustration if the supply issues continue into the holiday season.

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=29122

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

gstel - best buy has been getting ridiculous quantities in the last two weeks, and doesn't require bundles. Keep your eyes peeled.

Yeah, but then I'd have to purchase from Best Buy, and my reasons for avoiding that are well-documented here. I'll keep the $400 bundle with 2 lousy games before buying it from Best Buy.

I may just order from EBGames online which has a bundle with the 2 Mario games. I don't mind the bundle route as I want the second controller and we'll buy several games anyway. Would just prefer a slightly better bundle than I've got right now.

[Eaglesfan27]

Several websites are confirming that the new 360's have been released with the 65nm chip. Also, this site details how to check if you have one of the newer 360's:

http://www.computerandvideogames.com....php?id=172900

[SackAttack]

demand will be scarce? Just in how much of a hurry to post that were you, Mizzou?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

demand will be scarce? Just in how much of a hurry to post that were you, Mizzou?

LOL.......I'll correct it. Got my opposites crossed.

[Big Fo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Nintendo confirms that Wii supply will be scarce during holiday season. It will be interesting to see if the 360 or PS3 may benefit from consumer frustration if the supply issues continue into the holiday season.

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=29122

That's Reggie's way of saying "buy them as soon as you see them folks, don't wait until Christmas."

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Sony will be releasing a $39.99 version of Warhawk this month. Could allow for good Warhawk sales numbers when $399 PS3 comes out later this month.

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/level...his-month.aspx

A Sony Computer Entertainment spokesperson has confirmed to Level Up that sometime later this month, retailers will begin selling a $39.99 SKU of Warhawk that does not include the Bluetooth headset. When the game went on sale in August, two versions were available: a download-only version sold through the Playstation Network for $39.99, and Blu-Ray disc version with a Jabra Bluetooth headset packed in, for $59.99. With this price reduction, the retail and digitally distributed versions of Warhawk now sell for the same price.

We first got wind of a possible stripped down retail SKU for Warhawk on Friday, when, in the course of reporting a separate story, we came across a listing for "Warhawk--Game Only" on GameStop's Web site. The listing says that the $39.99 version will be available on October 10th, but the Sony rep had not been able to confirm that with SCEA's sales department by press time. When asked whether this was indicative of Sony's strategy for future AAA games that are jointly released on PSN and Blu-Ray--i.e. an initial run with a pack-in for $59.99, followed by a standalone Blu-Ray version for $39.99--the rep only said that Sony had no new announcements to make at this time.

We predict that games like SOCOM: Confrontation, where communication is essential, will ship with and without headsets. Similarly, a game like Gran Turismo 5 Prologue might have a limited number of bundles with a Logitech racing wheel optimized for Polyphony Digital's latest opus. Still, this is merely speculation, and we'll keep an eye out for any future announcements that Sony makes in this area.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Bill Harris posted some comments concerning the sub-HD issue with Halo 3.......

http://dubiousquality.blogspot.com/2...on-denial.html

[gstelmack]

( sarcasm on )

Wait, CoD 3 was below full resolution? I got ripped off? Give me my money back! I don't care how fun the game was, or how well it looked, I can't believe they ripped me off!

( sarcasm off )

Is the game fun? Does it look good? If you answered yes to both, STFU.

[CraigSca]

While graphics are cool, it's all about gameplay. That's why I love Maximum Football so much.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Is the game fun? Does it look good? If you answered yes to both, STFU.

If you, as a game developer, think that it's acceptable to put '720p' on a game box and release it when it's not a 720p game in any way, that's fine. Just let me know which games you're creating and I'll avoid them. The fact that Bungie and other developers like you would like to write this kind of practice off speaks volumes.

I've never said that Halo 3 wasn't a good game, but it's embarrassing to MS and the 360 that their franchise game can't even reach the simple programming level of 720p and 30 FPS. This game got several perfect scores. It should at least be rendered at a HD level to receive a perfect score, especially when it's THE game on the 360.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

If you, as a game developer, think that it's acceptable to put '720p' on a game box and release it when it's not a 720p game in any way, that's fine. Just let me know which games you're creating and I'll avoid them. The fact that Bungie and other developers like you would like to write this kind of practice off speaks volumes.

I've never said that Halo 3 wasn't a good game, but it's embarrassing to MS and the 360 that their franchise game can't even reach the simple programming level of 720p and 30 FPS. This game got several perfect scores. It should at least be rendered at a HD level to receive a perfect score, especially when it's THE game on the 360.

This post has me beyond baffled:

1) MS and Bungie should just admit they screwed the pooch and shouldn't have put 720p on the box if it didn't support 720p. It was a ridiculous thing to do and they should be ashamed they did it. They won't be and that's the way it goes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Let me stop right there. I believe what I just wrote. It was a stupid thing to do and it was moronic. But. . .

2) Making the jump that the game shoudln't have received perfect scores is asinine. There is so much screwed up with that statement that it'd take me a week to write about it. As a game reviewer, your job is to review the game based off of what it appears to you. Not the hype it gets. Not last years version of the game. Not what resolution the game is in. Not weather or not a game is a flagship game for the console.

The job is to review the game based off what you think of it. NHL '07 was much prettier than NHL2K7. I preferred 2K7 and had I did a review, the scores would have reflected that.

This gaffe by MS shouldn't impact a review score. It should impact them in a PR standpoint. It should be a black eye. But it has nothing to do with the quality of the game they released. If a reviewer were to go back now and change their score to 8.5 because they couldn't tell the differnce between 640p and 720p the first time, I'd cease to read any reviews that individual ever wrote again.

I'm simply stunned you would imply otherwise.

[Galaxy]

Looks like rumors of a $399 40GB PS3 are getting more intense.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by TroyF

I'm simply stunned you would imply otherwise.

You're stunned that he's taking shots at a MS product?

I'm stunned that you're stunned.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Got my opposites crossed.

Shenanigans.

Opposites weren't involved.

You know as well as I do exactly why that happened.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

You're stunned that he's taking shots at a MS product?

So why should consumers accept products that aren't what they claim to be? I took a shot at Madden for the PS3 for the same reason. I'm amazed at how many people would rather take a shot at me to avoid addressing the actual topic of discussion. Bungie did the exact same thing, but a lot of sites are calling them out on it since some of their rebuttal is actually inaccurate.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Looks like rumors of a $399 40GB PS3 are getting more intense.

I'm not sure it's even a rumor at this point. The SKU has already been confirmed and most expect the new unit between October 30th and November 16th. It's all but a done deal.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by TroyF

2) Making the jump that the game shoudln't have received perfect scores is asinine. There is so much screwed up with that statement that it'd take me a week to write about it. As a game reviewer, your job is to review the game based off of what it appears to you. Not the hype it gets. Not last years version of the game. Not what resolution the game is in. Not weather or not a game is a flagship game for the console.

If they would have mentioned it before release, there's no question in my mind that it would have received lower scores. I agree with you that the scores should not be changed retroactively and never said they should. However, where was the similar outrage when a website reviewed Warhawk before release, but then said they would retroactively change the score based on it's price on release. My guess is that you didn't agree with that either, but I thought I'd give you the opportunity to agree that was just as 'asinine'.

You and I both know that most review sites and their methods of scoring are flawed.

[MizzouRah]

Wow, blogging must REALLY be slow this week.

[Big Fo]

Originally Posted by MizzouRah

Wow, blogging must REALLY be slow this week.

Obviously you haven't come across the Bungie and Microsoft breakup rumor.

[astrosfan64]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Bill Harris posted some comments concerning the sub-HD issue with Halo 3.......

http://dubiousquality.blogspot.com/2...on-denial.html

Are you in love with Bill Harris? I like some of the stuff he writes, but seriously why don't you get on your knees and give yourself to him.

[astrosfan64]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

While graphics are cool, it's all about gameplay. That's why I love Maximum Football so much.

LOL

[MizzouRah]

Originally Posted by Big Fo

Obviously you haven't come across the Bungie and Microsoft breakup rumor.

Nope. I don't get all reved up about stuff like this.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

So why should consumers accept products that aren't what they claim to be? I took a shot at Madden for the PS3 for the same reason. I'm amazed at how many people would rather take a shot at me to avoid addressing the actual topic of discussion. Bungie did the exact same thing, but a lot of sites are calling them out on it since some of their rebuttal is actually inaccurate.

I think MS/Bungie deserves some criticism for fudging their claims on their box about their resolution, yes.

But ultimately, who gives a flying fuck? Does the game look good? More importantly, is it fun to play?

I'm 100% with Troy on this one - why should fudging the resolution numbers matter one iota in a review score? The graphics rating is what it is, and whether or not Bungie is lying about the resolution shouldn't mean shit to the reviewer - the game looks like what it looks like, and it shouldn't matter a bit what the actual numbers are.

That is the key thing I'm criticizing you for. If you'd limited your criticism to saying it's sketchy of MS/Bungie to fudge the resolution numbers on the box, I'd agree wholeheartedly. But to extrapolate that into saying that Halo 3's review scores should take a retroactive hit as a result is the height of ridiculousness, and given your history of criticizing MS and trying to pump up Sony it comes across as partisan spitefulness that is completely lacking in credibility.

[MizzouRah]

Don't be too hard on MBBF, he's quite bored with his ps3 and needs something to occupy his time.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

That is the key thing I'm criticizing you for. If you'd limited your criticism to saying it's sketchy of MS/Bungie to fudge the resolution numbers on the box, I'd agree wholeheartedly. But to extrapolate that into saying that Halo 3's review scores should take a retroactive hit as a result is the height of ridiculousness, and given your history of criticizing MS and trying to pump up Sony it comes across as partisan spitefulness that is completely lacking in credibility.

So it sounds like we agree on all issues. I've never said anything concerning the gameplay. I've restricted my comments to exactly what you noted, that Bungie failed to disclose that the game was not rendered at 720p. I also never said that the score should be changed retroactively. I noted that there was no outrage when a reviewer implied that a Warhawk score should be change retroactively based on price point, but I agreed with Troy that the score should not be changed retroactively.

[dawgfan]

I don't see why the actual resolution numbers should affect the review score one iota, retroactively or not. The reviewer that cares more about a number on a paper than what he sees on the screen as far as graphics are concerned is a reviewer who's opinion I don't care about.

The issue here is solely about honesty in marketing.

[SirFozzie]

Speaking of Harris, he makes a good point.

Rock Band is due to come out.. on Black Friday. (ie the Day after Thanksgiving)

ARE YOU KIDDING ME???

The only thing that I can compare it to, is if they released a major game system on Black Friday. (costs about the same). They are betting that this will be the big GET THIS gift of the Christmas Season. It won't be Tickle Me Elmo crazy, but if they judged right.. it might be close.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

I don't see why the actual resolution numbers should affect the review score one iota, retroactively or not. The reviewer that cares more about a number on a paper than what he sees on the screen as far as graphics are concerned is a reviewer who's opinion I don't care about.

The issue here is solely about honesty in marketing.

I'll buy that. I'm not sure I totally agree that the reviewer shouldn't be aware of the lacking graphics (which were reported as early as August). But I agree overall that gameplay should be the main focus of the review.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'll buy that. I'm not sure I totally agree that the reviewer shouldn't be aware of the lacking graphics (which were reported as early as August). But I agree overall that gameplay should be the main focus of the review.

What does it matter what the numbers are? How does knowing that the resolution is 640 and not 720 change what your eyes see?

It's sort of like the audiophile who has gone to countless rock shows and has blown out his ears numerous times trying to convince himself that he hears a difference between vinyl and a CD. He doesn't, but because he knows there's more audio information coming from the vinyl he convinces himself it matters, regardless of whether he can hear it or not.

The graphics are what they are. If they look good to you, who cares what the actual resolution is?

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'm not sure it's even a rumor at this point. The SKU has already been confirmed and most expect the new unit between October 30th and November 16th. It's all but a done deal.

It makes the PS3 a lot more competitive. For an extra $50 that the Premium 360 system, it's an attractive deal.

Is the PS3 online play free?

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Speaking of Harris, he makes a good point.

Rock Band is due to come out.. on Black Friday. (ie the Day after Thanksgiving)

ARE YOU KIDDING ME???

The only thing that I can compare it to, is if they released a major game system on Black Friday. (costs about the same). They are betting that this will be the big GET THIS gift of the Christmas Season. It won't be Tickle Me Elmo crazy, but if they judged right.. it might be close.

Best Buy is going to have interactive demos set up for the game.

They didn't need to have it on the D.A.T. for it to be crazy. That'll just add to the chaos.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Is the PS3 online play free?

Yes, and by most accounts you get what you pay for with that service.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

What does it matter what the numbers are? How does knowing that the resolution is 640 and not 720 change what your eyes see?

It's sort of like the audiophile who has gone to countless rock shows and has blown out his ears numerous times trying to convince himself that he hears a difference between vinyl and a CD. He doesn't, but because he knows there's more audio information coming from the vinyl he convinces himself it matters, regardless of whether he can hear it or not.

The graphics are what they are. If they look good to you, who cares what the actual resolution is?

Exactly. The game is what you see on the screen. If the graphics are substandard and have an impact on the game, you review it that way. If you are happy enough with the feature set for the game to be a 10, it doesn't matter if a feature got pulled at the end even if it's on the box.

There is a huge difference between bashing MS and Bungie for making a horrific marketing decision and than trying to pretend it really isn't a problem. That's stupid. It's moronic. It's sickening on some levels.

But as sickening as it is, it doesn't change the game itself. If the game looked good enough to get a 9 or a 10 a week ago, it still looks good enough to get a 9 or a 10. If you are going to tell me your review score would be impacted by something like that or that you would steer clear of any game that didn't hit the 720p mark, I have two points for you as a reviewer and consumer:

1) I don't want to read a single review you have, ever.
2) You are really screwing yourself. If you like FPS games, you like Multiplayer and you like the storyline, Halo3 delivers on all counts. If 80p of resolution is going to keep you away from the game, you are cheating yourself as a gamer. To each his/her own. Idiots exist. I realize this.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Couple of new news notes today........

Best Buy leak has confirmed that the new 40 GB PS3 will go on sale October 28th, retailing for $399.99. It will be bundled with the new Spiderman 3 BR movie.........

http://gaming.engadget.com/2007/10/0...d-by-best-buy/


Nintendo is offering free Wii Remote Jackets (limit 4 per person) to those who bought them before they became standard with all Wii Remotes.......

http://slickdeals.net/?pno=10360&lno=1&afsrc=1

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Yes, and by most accounts you get what you pay for with that service.

I'm not going to make it out to be the be all, end all of online gaming. But I've never had any connection problems with the Sony servers and the online gaming experiences that I've had on Resistance and Warhawk have been clean and lag-free.

Some complain about the match-making process. I'd definitely classify match-making as the weaker part of the PS3 online, though it obviously varies from game to game. The Home software currently in development is reportedly going to help out on that front, but obviously no guarantees until we see it in action. I've personally never had any problems finding my friends to play a match or to join random ranked games.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

What does it matter what the numbers are? How does knowing that the resolution is 640 and not 720 change what your eyes see?

It's sort of like the audiophile who has gone to countless rock shows and has blown out his ears numerous times trying to convince himself that he hears a difference between vinyl and a CD. He doesn't, but because he knows there's more audio information coming from the vinyl he convinces himself it matters, regardless of whether he can hear it or not.

The graphics are what they are. If they look good to you, who cares what the actual resolution is?

I agree with you here. The graphics on Halo 3 even in early builds were classified by some as 'Halo 2.5'. Some of the reviews after it went gold noted that issue and marked down the game accordingly. That's exactly how it should work. The technical notes only further give credence to what those reviewers noticed.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

If you, as a game developer, think that it's acceptable to put '720p' on a game box and release it when it's not a 720p game in any way, that's fine. Just let me know which games you're creating and I'll avoid them. The fact that Bungie and other developers like you would like to write this kind of practice off speaks volumes.

I've never said that Halo 3 wasn't a good game, but it's embarrassing to MS and the 360 that their franchise game can't even reach the simple programming level of 720p and 30 FPS. This game got several perfect scores. It should at least be rendered at a HD level to receive a perfect score, especially when it's THE game on the 360.

Sheesh. FWIW, take a look at the list linked in the thread you found earlier and note that my games are all 720P. Heck, in the online portions of GRAW we didn't even take the scaler shortcut and provided a separate 480P 4x3 HUD setup, no letterboxing or anything.

But I'm just pointing out that I think this is blown WAY out of proportion. Troy's points are the key here. How does the game look to you? Is someone going to take away all of the accolades for CoD 3 all of a sudden because the resolution was only 600P?

How the graphics look is the key. I'm far more concerned about the narrow field of view (which makes the game feel claustrophobic to me) and the short sight distances (unexpected) than I am about a bit of resolution that no one notices unless they run specific analyses. If the game was looking blocky or pixellated or blurry, then you'd have a point.

Sure, maybe they need a "600P" and a "640P" and whatever else on the back of the box, even though it will just confuse the consumer who barely knows what "720P" means. But the reality is it does not affect the final gameplay or look of the game one iota, unlike the Madden 30 FPS thing which clearly did (or more specifically, the 60 FPS clearly played better to a lot of people).

Let me put it another way: The instant you turn on anti-aliasing, you aren't running at whatever resolution you think you are running at. All of a sudden you want things like "1280x720P 4x+9tap GFFX" written on the box for a console game? Do we need to separate out the render target resolution, frame buffer resolution, and final output buffer resolution for you? What if I render my shadows into a low-detail depth buffer, do I need to document that for you, too?

Maybe the best bet is just to have "SD" and "HD" checkboxes, although then everyone will get into a tizzy about what "SD" and "HD" mean.

Basically, I think it's a lot more complex than you think it is, and this is opening up a huge can of worms where developers would be asked to document every piece of their graphics tech to avoid "lying" to consumers, instead of everyone focusing on how well the game looks and plays, which is all that REALLY matters. I can render complete junk to a 1080P buffer, but that doesn't make my game high-def...

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Maybe the best bet is just to have "SD" and "HD" checkboxes, although then everyone will get into a tizzy about what "SD" and "HD" mean.

Basically, I think it's a lot more complex than you think it is, and this is opening up a huge can of worms where developers would be asked to document every piece of their graphics tech to avoid "lying" to consumers, instead of everyone focusing on how well the game looks and plays, which is all that REALLY matters. I can render complete junk to a 1080P buffer, but that doesn't make my game high-def...

I agree with that. We don't need to start to the path of complex data listed on the box. Most would state that 720p rendered should be the baseline of HD. Anything that has to be upconverted to 720p shouldn't be considered HD.

[Bee]

If I'm understanding correctly from the link shown in the blog, some PS3 games have done basically the same thing so I don't think it's fair to come down hard on M$ for this and ignore Sony. But I agree with everyone else, what matters is how it looks to the gamer and from all the reviews and comments I've heard about Halo 3 it is a pretty amazing game. Not my taste, but if I liked those types of games I'd probably pick it up based on what I've heard and seen.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Most would state that 720p rendered should be the baseline of HD. Anything that has to be upconverted to 720p shouldn't be considered HD.

This is where I think you'll get an argument. You don't think that upconverted 640P looks worlds better than 480P SD? What about CoD 3's 600P?

I'd actually make the cutoff at 600P, which is halfway between 480P and 720P. But we're splitting hairs.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

The Bungie/Microsoft break-up appears to have been finalized. All Bungie employees have been removed from the Microsoft address book as of this morning. The NDA for Halo 3 expired last night. The official announcement will not be made until after the quarterly results are issued on October 6th.

[Bee]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

This is where I think you'll get an argument. You don't think that upconverted 640P looks worlds better than 480P SD? What about CoD 3's 600P?

I'd actually make the cutoff at 600P, which is halfway between 480P and 720P. But we're splitting hairs.

I have to agree with MBBF on that. While 640P looks tons better than 480P, it doesn't make it HD. The cutoff for HD is already pretty well defined and I don't think it should be manipulated myself.