Why will revolution games be cheaper?

[bingbangboom]

They said that the cost for making revolution games will be alot less... but wasn't that the case with the Gamecube yet we still got the same prices across the board. It is really up to the publisher to decide on pricing. I still think Revolution games will be $50 a pop. Other console games will be more $60 - $70.

But just like we have seen with this generation, there are a ton of crappy games released for $50.

[Blind the Thief]

They said that the cost for making revolution games will be alot less... but wasn't that the case with the Gamecube yet we still got the same prices across the board. It is really up to the publisher to decide on pricing. I still think Revolution games will be $50 a pop. Other console games will be more $60 - $70.

But just like we have seen with this generation, there are a ton of crappy games released for $50.

It's true, the idea that Revolution games will be cheaper is a misconception. The real significance of lower development costs is that producing games on the system is far more profitable and attractive to third party developers. Plus, it makes it easier for a developer to decide to take a gamble on new/innovative ideas (which is what the system is all about).

[Reality's Fringe]

Yes, but in comparison they will be cheaper (if held at $50) since most Xbox360 games are $60 and there's a rumor floating around the Ps3 games will be $70 (which I doubt, but still). The lack of Hi-Def support from the Revo (480p excluded), the lack of a new proprietary disc format(BlueRay), and the fact that the development kits are similar to the gamecube ones should mean a reduced cost to developers. So, hopefully, that means devs will take chances with new/different games on the Rev.

[Scobie]

I don't expect to pay less than $50 for AAA titles, though it'd be nice. The thing that jazzes me about lower production costs is the potential for more price drops and more importantly, incentive for weird-ass games like Alien Hominid coming out in droves.

[Blind the Thief]

The lack of Hi-Def support from the Revo (480p excluded), the lack of a new proprietary disc format(BlueRay), and the fact that the development kits are similar to the gamecube ones should mean a reduced cost to developers. So, hopefully, that means devs will take chances with new/different games on the Rev.

From what I understand, the lack of HD having a significant effect on price/cost is a myth. Supposedly, adding HD-capability to a game isn't nearly as costly as people say it is.

[SpazX]

From what I understand, the lack of HD having a significant effect on price/cost is a myth. Supposedly, adding HD-capability to a game isn't nearly as costly as people say it is.

http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=87061

[PenguinMaster]

There hasn't been any official announcement that they will be cheaper. Nintendo has said first-party games will be $50, but so are first-party 360 games.

[SpazX]

There hasn't been any official announcement that they will be cheaper. Nintendo has said first-party games will be $50, but so are first-party 360 games.

Does Nintendo really have control over third-party game prices (other than licensing fees)? I'd think that those other companies would be free to charge about as much as they want.

[shipwreck]

Does Nintendo really have control over third-party game prices (other than licensing fees)? I'd think that those other companies would be free to charge about as much as they want.

Exactly, Nintendo announced that first-party games are going to be $50. They don't control what third-parties charge for the games. And I find it very hard to believe that EA would be willing to offer the Revo version of Madden for $50 when they are able to sell the 360 & PS3 versions (in much larger quantities) for $60.

[Scobie]

Exactly, Nintendo announced that first-party games are going to be $50. They don't control what third-parties charge for the games. And I find it very hard to believe that EA would be willing to offer the Revo version of Madden for $50 when they are able to sell the 360 & PS3 versions (in much larger quantities) for $60.

Assuming PS3 will be in Hi-Def like the 360 and the Rev won't, they damn well better not expect people to pay the same price for the Rev version of a given game.

If Nintendo's lower-development cost theory is true and EA has any bit of blood plumping through that darkened, evil heart of theirs, then the games shouldn't be more than $50, and could feasibly come in under that bar (witness EA's new $40 pricing structure on recent current gen releases.)

[wbc1228]

There hasn't been any official announcement that they will be cheaper. Nintendo has said first-party games will be $50, but so are first-party 360 games.

I agree.
People are mixing together rumors/official announcements.

[shipwreck]

Assuming PS3 will be in Hi-Def like the 360 and the Rev won't, they damn well better not expect people to pay the same price for the Rev version of a given game.

If Nintendo's lower-development cost theory is true and EA has any bit of blood plumping through that darkened, evil heart of theirs, then the games shouldn't be more than $50, and could feasibly come in under that bar (witness EA's new $40 pricing structure on recent current gen releases.)

Nintendo's development theory assumes that the developer initially develops the game for the Revo though. In reality though, most multiplatform games are either going to developed on the X360 or the PS3 and then ported over to the Revo. The third party sees no benefit of lower development costs and only sees that they aren't going to make as much per title if they only sell it for $50 on the Revo. And the fact of the matter is, that they also won't sell as many copies of the game on the Revo. So, if I'm a third party publisher, selling fewer copies at a lower price doesn't exactly appeal to me. I think this will cause third parties to decide not to port games over to the Revo in a lot of cases. Well, that and a lot of other factors.

[Ecofreak]

Repost?

http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=89393

[rabbitt]

I've been hearing that Revo. titles won't look as good as 360 games. I'm wonder how big of a graphics-gap there will be.

[VanillaGorilla]

I've been hearing that Revo. titles won't look as good as 360 games. I'm wonder how big of a graphics-gap there will be.
Well, considering the Revolution will be about as powerful as the original Xbox (and I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt on this one), you can use that as your guide.

But as any Nintendo fan will tell you, it's not about the graphics, it's about the gameplay, and these Revolution games are gonna play brilliantly (just take their word for it, don't bother trying to argue that point).

[Reality's Fringe]

Well, considering the Revolution will be about as powerful as the original Xbox (and I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt on this one), you can use that as your guide.

But as any Nintendo fan will tell you, it's not about the graphics, it's about the gameplay, and these Revolution games are gonna play brilliantly (just take their word for it, don't bother trying to argue that point).

Yep! Especially if you:

1. Pull crap out of thin air.

2. Contradict yourself repeatedly, and then back-pedal to downplay your mistakes.

3. Insult everyone who finds holes in your logic without trying to clarify yourself.

4.Read a gaming blog and pretend like it's your own opinion.

5. Pretend like you're totally 100% objective all the time and everyone else is consumed by bias.


Otherwise rabbitt, feel free to express concern about the half-assed crap we're bound to see on the Revolution. We all know it's going to be there anyway(seriously). As for the graphics, I assume it's either going to be a pretty big gap or a moderate "eh, it's not that bad" gap(especially if you have a SDTV). Without the official specs, it's hard to tell.

[Vinny]

Wow... some of you are way lost on this pricing issue.

1. Nintendo never said that their games will be $50. Iwata said that he can't see Nintendo charging more than $50 for any Revo first party title (read: they could be priced as low as $40, possibly less but highly unlikely).

2. Development costs for the Revo will be lower, not production costs. So a small company could produce a game with a lower resources but their production costs will be similar to that of EA's or Activisions. But since they spent less developing games, the savings can be passed on to the consumer.

3. It's the publisher that controls how much to charge for a game. If Ubisoft wanted to, they could charge you $70 for all of their games right now. It'll be the same with Revo... they don't have to price their games differently than for it if they don't want to.

About HD, just think of it this way: Sony plans to put the Cell processor (with all 8 freakin' cores) in their future televisions and Blu-Ray players for awesome HD quality picture. Now, if it didn't require a lot of processing power to output in HD, then why would they put such an expensive processor into their products?

Now think of it another way: unlike the Cell processor in TVs/Blu-Ray players, if developers wanted to make their games HD, they'd have to have use that one processor to share all the processing tasks of the game (AI, graphics, etc.) and outputting the visuals in HD with just one Cel processor...

Does it sound cheap? I think not... not initially anyway.

I've been hearing that Revo. titles won't look as good as 360 games. I'm wonder how big of a graphics-gap there will be.

That's definitely right... or at least, that's the potential of the 360/PS3. Technically speaking, the 360 is about 10x as powerful as the Revo is. And the PS3 is around the same area. So, you SHOULD be expecting 360/PS3 games that'll look 10x better than the Revo. But then again, the Xbox was 2x as powerful as the GC but I doubt many Xbox games look better that RE4. But will we see games that are 10x as powerful as the Revo? Probably... but not until developers figure out all the bits and pieces of the new hardware.

Now, if the Revo is 2x as powerful as the GC, then imagine something that looks 2x good as RE4. All I can say is, that's not a bad jump at all...

But in the end, yes, the Revo will be nowhere near as powerful as the 360 or PS3.

[snipegod]

That's definitely right... or at least, that's the potential of the 360/PS3. Technically speaking, the 360 is about 10x as powerful as the Revo is. And the PS3 is around the same area. So, you SHOULD be expecting 360/PS3 games that'll look 10x better than the Revo. But then again, the Xbox was 2x as powerful as the GC.

That's definitely ... what's the word I'm looking for?

Wrong.

[Dr Mario Kart]

But as ANYONE will tell you, it's not about the graphics, it's about the gameplay
I hope that this alternative is in actuality, the case.

Does anyone really believe otherwise? Unless you only started gaming just recently, you mustve really hated the games you played growing up.

[AdamInPlaidum]

Something to think about as far as graphics go is that processing power isn't everything. Since developing for Rev is going to be so similar to GC, theoretically we could start out with games that look as fantastic as RE4 or Metroid Prime.

As far as the price of games goes, I'm hoping Nintendo starts some sort of program with indie companies being able to develop games and distribute them via the Virtual Console. Games could be mega-cheap this way.

[Scobie]

And the fact of the matter is, that they also won't sell as many copies of the game on the Revo. So, if I'm a third party publisher, selling fewer copies at a lower price doesn't exactly appeal to me. I think this will cause third parties to decide not to port games over to the Revo in a lot of cases. Well, that and a lot of other factors.

Plausible, but it would be really interesting if Nintendo is able to come in first place in system sales by being a cheap second console for PS3 and 360 owners, which could conceivably happen. What would developers do then?

Would games still not get ported because of the assumption they'll be purchased on a system with better graphics? Or will the Rev versions get made and sell well because of unique play control?

Come to think of it, we might soon see the death of video games as we know them. I genuinely believe a lot of gamers are burning out on sequel-itis and want to move on to something completely different, in which case, the whole porting-to-Rev issue is moot.

There's also the Lego Star Wars model to consider. It was released on the GameCube months after it launched on other platforms where it sold briskly. In spite of being very late to market, the 'Cube version has sold over 300,000 copies. There's obviously a unique Nintendo-only market that should still be attractive to third parties next gen.

[VanillaGorilla]

Yep! Especially if you:

4.Read a gaming blog and pretend like it's your own opinion.



Sure, considering I had the same exact opinions about the Revolution when I made this post (http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=54181), some 10 months ago. And let's not forget about this thread (http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=67787)too, posted back in September. Yep, I just read IGN and then say that's what I believe. I'm starting to think you love ME more than Nintendo, since you get a hoot out of following me around the boards and complaining about eveything I post.

[Reality's Fringe]

Sure, considering I had the same exact opinions about the Revolution when I made this post (http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=54181), some 10 months ago. And let's not forget about this thread (http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=67787)too, posted back in September. Yep, I just read IGN and then say that's what I believe. I'm starting to think you love ME more than Nintendo, since you get a hoot out of following me around the boards and complaining about eveything I post.

I do love you. I love you most of all! Of course, none of those threads even relate to what I'm talking about, but if you must bring it up, then yeah, that's the same kind of thing I've read on IGN before. Gimmick games, that's pretty clever! I mean, hell, even the boys at MIT didn't think of that fishing thing...and the lightsaber comment, oh, the genius, no correspondent even mentioned that when the controller was first revealed! Hey, I know, maybe all of those gaming blogs are copying you! You should sue for infringement.

[VanillaGorilla]

I do love you. I love you most of all! Of course, none of those threads even relate to what I'm talking about, but if you must bring it up, then yeah, that's the same kind of thing I've read on IGN before. Gimmick games, that's pretty clever! I mean, hell, even the boys at MIT didn't think of that fishing thing...and the lightsaber comment, oh, the genius, no correspondent even mentioned that when the controller was first revealed! Hey, I know, maybe all of those gaming blogs are copying you! You should sue for infringement.
The internet sure is wonderful for sarcasm, isn't it. So I take it you're talking about me saying the Revolution wouldn't be as powerful as the original Xbox, because I read it on IGN. Well yes, I did say that, simply because I'm no technical expert, and would only assume IGN would know what they are talking about in that aspect. I guess if you now wanna debate how much IGN knows about all that stuff, then go ahead. I'm getting kind of tired arguing about the whole thing myself, so I won't bother to read your next oh so witty reply.

[snipegod]

Comparing clock speeds between two different CPU architectures based on Mhz #'s alone is folly

Smart man.

[Reality's Fringe]

The internet sure is wonderful for sarcasm, isn't it. So I take it you're talking about me saying the Revolution wouldn't be as powerful as the original Xbox, because I read it on IGN. Well yes, I did say that, simply because I'm no technical expert, and would only assume IGN would know what they are talking about in that aspect. I guess if you now wanna debate how much IGN knows about all that stuff, then go ahead. I'm getting kind of tired arguing about the whole thing myself, so I won't bother to read your next oh so witty reply.

Dude, the internet SUCKS for sarcasm! I don't know where you got that idea. Maybe you're just too much of a forward thinker? Just to let you know you're off again, but since you don't care because you're just too damn objective all the time, we'll all have a break!

[rlse9]

I think there's a decent chance we may see all Revolution titles priced at $50. Right now they're saying there'll be 20 launch titles and 6-7 will be from Nintendo. If you're one of the companies making those 13-14 other games, do you really think it'd be smart to release your game for more? Nintendo's games are already the best selling on their systems, pricing higher than their games seems like a setup for failure. But we'll see.

[wageslave]

Imagine this:

Small companies with only a few programmers are able to produce inexpensive games - maybe even old school 16 bit era or GBA type stuff - and sell them via the download service for like $10 a pop. That would be great for people who like that sort of casual stuff.