quote:

---

>
> Xbox 360 console: $299.96
> Xbox 360 games: $59.99
> North American release date: November 4, 2005
>
> sources:
>

quote:

---

> Highlander wrote:
> Too late, you were beaten to this exciting bit of news by about five
> and a half hours... you must keep more on the ball young man!
>
>

quote:

---

> Xbox 360 console: $299.96

quote:

---

> Xbox 360 games: $59.99

quote:

---

> North American release date: November 4, 2005

quote:

---

[vbcol=seagreen]
> Sadly, all next-gen games are gonna end up costing $60.

quote:

---

> Zackman wrote:
>
>
>
> It's not the first time. Remember the N64?

quote:

---

>
> "sonarrat" <sonarrat@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:6%MHe.1756$_41.1425@fe02.lga...
>
> Those were carts these are disc
>

quote:

---

[vbcol=seagreen]
> Nov. 4? They've got to be kidding. Three months from beta devkits to retail?
> I'll believe it when I see it.

quote:

---

> Yes, the N64 games did contain less information per dollar, which makes the
> newer multi-gig game disc at the same price an even better deal. But I had
> hoped prices would hover under the $50 range for a bit longer.

quote:

---

> In alt.games.video.xbox xTenn <xTennRemovePart@tds.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> I think his point was that carts require more material per copy, whereas
> it only costs pennies to press a DVD.
>
> Anyways, the price to GB of data measurement isn't as interesting as the
> price to playtime one. For instance, one of my favorite games that I've
> bought is still the original Masters Of Orion. It came on 4 floppy
> disks. Yet I've played it for 100s of hours. Compare this to, say,
> Onimusha, which has many times more graphics but after I finished it in
> about 20 hours, I never played it again. I paid the same amount for both
> games, yet, I consider Orion to be the better bargin...
>
> This is why I consider the "cost per hour", calculated by taking the cost
> of the item, divided by the amount of time you'll spend enjoying it. For
> example: If a movie ticket costs $9, and the average movie length is 90
> minutes, then you're paying about $6/hr.
>
> If a game costs $50 and you complete the game in about 15 hours, then
> you've paid about $3.30/hr.
>
> But if that game now costs $60, then your price goes up to $4/hr.
>
> Personally, I try to buy games at prices such at their cost/hr is $1 or
> less, with $2/hr being a hard maximum.
>
> Obviously this isn't a perfect system... I'm not about to play a horrible
> game for 100s of hours just because it was cheap. And at the same time, I
> recognize if that when I go to a concert of something, I'm paying much
> much more than what I'd pay to go see a movie. Still, it's an interesting
> measure.

quote:

---

> Highlander wrote:
>
>
> Nice, they're hitting the $300 price point after all. So I'm curious... this
> time next year when the PS3 launches and MS counters by cutting the Xbox 360
> price by $50, will the PS3 end up costing exactly twice as much as the Xbox?
> It's sounding that way. That'll really go over well with Joe and Josephine
> Consumer.
>
>
> Sadly, all next-gen games are gonna end up costing $60.
>
>
> Nov. 4? They've got to be kidding. Three months from beta devkits to retail?
> I'll believe it when I see it.
>
> -Z-

quote:

---

> Crimson Skies
> Halo

quote:

---

> "Jordan" <lundj@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:1123000536.832543.142640@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
> Both available on pc.
>
>

quote:

---

> Highlander wrote:
>
>
> I get it now.
>
> What MS is going to do is re-release the original Xbox with a 360 emblem
> on it.
>
> Since the 360 games don't look much better than standard Xbox games MS
> is going to re-release the Xbox with new versions of old games with
> slightly enhanced graphics. This way they charge $60 for each box of
> shit, get 100% backward compatibility, and still get killed by the PS3.
>
> Xflop Circle Jerks won't know the difference.
> Just like Burnout 3 and 4 have better effects on PS2 but Xflop fanXXXXs
> can't tell the difference.

quote:

---

> Velocity Girl wrote:
>
>
>
> Huh? 90% of multiformat games look better on the Xbox and GC than PS2.
> Just look at IGN's regular comparisons.
>
> The other thing is, are you a gamer or not. Console loyalty is really
> really stupid. Over the course of this generation, begining with the
> DC I have aquired all four conosoles as I want to play the best games,
> and am not letting something stupid like favouring an International
> corporation (I what the hell is point, where does it get you) get in
> the way of that (as long as I can afford it ).
>
> Finally, I dont think anyone that has managed to take control of 90% of
> the OS market on PC's will let anything be a flop. Bill Gates can
> probably aford to make massive losses for four or five generations
> until he gets his way anyway.
>

quote:

---

> In alt.games.video.xbox xTenn <xTennRemovePart@tds.net> wrote:
>
the[vbcol=seagreen]
had[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> I think his point was that carts require more material per copy, whereas
> it only costs pennies to press a DVD.

quote:

---

> Chronicles of Riddick was exclusive the last time I looked.

quote:

---

> FooAtari wrote:
>
> Well spoken, and exactly right.

quote:

---

> You know most PS2 exclusives are $40 instead of $50 to $54 on Xbox.

quote:

---

> Actually, I do own a PS2 and there are a hand-full of games that are
> decent as long as you only compare them to other PS2 games. Once you
> start looking at them in the picture of this generation as a whole they
> are universally lacking.
>
> Much like the Saturn games of last generation. Sorry Saturn owners, but
> it had to be said.
>
> - Jordan
>

quote:

---

>
>
>
> Don't have broadband, dont like games like that.
>

quote:

---

> Stupid game
>
>
>
> What about the 100+ PS2 exclusives that are AAA?
> Ohh that's right your a Xbot you dont' have a PS2.

quote:

---

> Zackman wrote:
>
>
> I can play all my PS2 games on my PS3 in HDMI and possibly upscaned to
> 1080p.
>

quote:

---

> Velocity Girl wrote:
>
> not. How can you afford a PS3 corn pone. You don't even have broadband.

quote:

---

> babanoosh wrote:
>
>
>
> I guess.
> He tried with Dreamcast and it flopped.
> He tried with Xbox and it flopped. (4Billion in losses)
> He will try with Xbox360 and it will also flop.
>
> Stupid people keep doing things that don't work over and over again.

quote:

---

> then we have some dumb XXXXX (you) that is probably 12 and is desperate
> for attention.

quote:

---

> babanoosh wrote:
>
> Yes I do. I'm in a band and I'm broad in the shoulder area.
>

quote:

---

>
>
>
> Xbox 360 console: $299.96
> Xbox 360 games: $59.99
> North American release date: November 4, 2005
>
>
> sources:
>
> http://forum.teamxbox.com/showthread.php?t=363311
> http://news.gaminghorizon.com/media...23100.1797.html
> http://www.tinyurl.com/9hd2p
> http://ga-forum.com/showthread.php?t=57654
>

quote:

---

> Xflop Circle Jerks won't know the difference.

quote:

---

> You almost got it. It's xflop full circle jerks.

quote:

---

> You know Bligmerk is genuinely upset that he didn't think of that
> first, right?

quote:

---

> "Velocity Girl" <BuyMySkatePark@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:7fdd4$42f113ad$421392a6$31796@DIALUPUSA.NET...
>
>
>
> Fixed your post.
>
>

quote:

---

> What I'm a fan of is good gaming, and this generation the PS2 is not
> it.

quote:

---

> My Xbox just died. Should I buy a new one or will the the 360 run my old
> games?

quote:

---

> Mattinglyfan wrote:
>
> witty

quote:

---

>
>Jordan wrote:
>
>
>Funny, own the PC version.

quote:

---

> In alt.games.video.xbox xTenn <xTennRemovePart@tds.net> wrote:
>
>
> I think his point was that carts require more material per copy, whereas
> it only costs pennies to press a DVD.
>

quote:

---

> intersting point of view I must say.

quote:

---

> But if you based on "cost per hour" isn't it doesn't justifiable?

quote:

---

> eventually games like The Sims, GTA, they all has open end. which means it
> will never end. so the formula will be infinate devided by hour? I am
> not sure how to devide infinate.

quote:

---

> anyway, A good game does not justify by "cost per hour".

quote:

---

> Since you are an old timer, so let's talk about old time game.

quote:

---

> Awesome games like Full Throttle, Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis,
> Day of the Tentacle, Monkey Island. They are story based game, your game
> ends when the credit starts scrolling. Perhaps it only take perhaps 20
> hours to complete the game. Finished the game and you praised the game is
> well designed.

quote:

---

> so $60/20 hours = $3 per hours I assumed.

quote:

---

> then, a less interesting game perhaps that you bought $60 and you spent 40
> hours to finish the game.

quote:

---

> based on your theory, it will mean $60/40 and you get $1.5 per hour. So
> your theory tells you the less interesting game is a better game or better
> bargain?

quote:

---

> For me, I will definately the $60 i spent on Full Throttle for only 20 hours
> is far better deal.

quote:

---

> It could be said that the delivery mechanism to get the data to the consumer
> is inconsequential when compared to the data itself, since it is of no use
> to the consumer other than transport. But as for the cost per hour of
> enjoyment, I have to agree that, since Video Games are more mainstream now,
> such a baseline with other forms of entertainment should be taken into
> consideration. And cost per hour is about as good as any I have seen IMHO.

quote:

---

> My Xbox just died. Should I buy a new one or will the the 360 run my old
> games?

quote:

---

> If he/she were, I bet she's brutal. When I think of hot chicks, gamers
> and usenet posters don't come to mind.

quote:

---

> In alt.games.video.xbox babanoosh <snoopdizzel@dodgeit.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> I've known some gamer chicks. Never met anyone in person from usenet
> though.

quote:

---

> Doug Jacobs wrote:
>
> I noticed you didn't say hot.
>

quote:

---

[vbcol=seagreen]
> I noticed you didn't say hot.

quote:

---

> In alt.games.video.xbox babanoosh <snoopdizzel@dodgeit.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> I thought chick implied hot? Some of them were very cute, though that's
> just me...
>
> Many gaming females I've known weren't "chicks", nor were they cute or
> hot.