IQpierce

BOYCOTT THIS CRAP PEOPLE. Trust me: the guys who came up with these prices literally did not know what they are doing. Think about it: no one has sold this kind of thing before, in this kind of store... they have no idea how much people will pay, so they arbitrarily choose $6. THEY WILL CHANGE IT IF YOU SHOW TELL THEM IT IS TOO DAMN HIGH BY NOT BUYING IT.

Wow, Kyle Schwaneke, you sound like the biggest tool in the world. I'll be looking askance at any Digipen graduates I interview from here on out... especially if their name is Kyle Schwaneke.

Yet again:
joystiq.credibility--;

Okay, this is the second most idiotic editorial I've ever read. Which makes sense, because it's a follow-up to the most idiotic editor I've ever read.

Here's my summary of your argument: "All things being equal, would you want to buy a Twinkie for $8,000; or a case of the herpes for $8? Remember that I'm assuming that demand for these two things is equal, that they are direct competitors in the marketplace, that they have no other competition, and that the oceans have been drained by telepathic slugs from Neptune."

Wait, let me re-read it.

Wait...

Okay, I've read it ten times, and now here's what it seems to be saying:

"The PS3 hardware is worth $800; but they are selling it for $600. This means that when you buy a PS3, YOU ARE GETTING TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS WORTH OF HARDWARE FOR FREE!!! Yet the Wii is worth $200, but being sold for $50. THIS MEANS THAT YOU ARE LOSING FIFTY DOLLARS EACH TIME YOU BUY A WII!!!"

By this logic, yes, the correct choice is to buy a PS3 instead of a Wii. But on the other hand, by this logic, instead of buying a bagel this morning (for $1, even though it was only worth $.10), I should have bought a transatlantic airliner for $1.5 million dollars, because it's worth $1 million and that's a better cost-to-worth ratio.

Guess what? The PS3 costs me $600. The Wii costs me $250. That is the END OF THE STORY for me, the consumer. The PS3 is more expensive than the Wii for me, period. If Sony is losing money on their console, that is their problem. As a consumer, that's nothing but a somewhat-interesting footnote for me; and it has, and should have, zero influence on my purchasing decision.

And how does "Nintendo is actually making a profit on their console sales" lead to "Nintendo is not confident that their console will be successful"? To me, the first fact instead leads to "that must mean that they are using hardware which is not cutting-edge", which leads to "if they're not even trying to compete on the hardware front, they must be EXTREMELY confident in the quality and fun level of their games." Which is, of course, the truth.

Joystiq.credibility--

Second the request for a new TIE Fighter game.

Probot, you're right, Spore is OLD HAT. Why do they keep giving us the SAME OLD SHIT?

This news is false. It was based on the job posting below, which was for a position UE3 programming position at Midway. Around January 27th, this job posting was under the categories "PS3", "XBox 360", and "Revolution." In late January, the website
"Revolution Report" pointed this out as proof that UE3 would work on the Revolution. However, since their news posting, THE JOB DESCRIPTION HAS BEEN CHANGED TO NO LONGER LIST THE REVOLUTION. This clearly indicates that the original categorization was a mistake.

http://www.creativeheads.net/JobDetails.aspx?JobID=1774

The original "scoop" on this:
http://www.revolutionreport.com/articles/read/280