Sony PS3 games to be 59.99-99.99? WTF???

[LinkinPrime]

PSM: Can we expect PS3 games to be priced in the same range as Xbox 360 titles?
Kaz Hirai: Generally Speaking, over the past twelve years or so, there has been a consumer expectation that disc-based games are maybe $59 on the high end to $39 on the low end. So, what I can say now is, I think it would be a bit of a stretch to think that we could suddenly turn around and say “PS3 Games now $99.99.” I don’t think consumers expect software pricing to suddenly double. So, the quick answer is that we want to
make it as affordable as possible, knowing that there is a set consumer expectation for what software has cost for the past twelve years. That’s kind of the best answer I can give you. So, if it becomes a bit higher than $59, don’t ding me, but, again, I don’t expect it to be $100.


http://www.xboxic.com/news/1175#more-1175

DaPhatty Edit: I changed the Sony Interviewee tag to Kaz Hirai to avoid speculation. Kaz actually said this.

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=9901

[botticus]

javery just posted this, but in another thread, so keep this one open.

http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1997192#post1997192

[Chacrana]

I love the games that Sony has on their systems... it's the only place to play Metal Gear Solid, Final Fantasy, and countless others... but I am starting to fucking hate Sony. They're pissing off a lot of the hardcore fans with their pricing and they'll eventually alienate casual consumers as well. They're fucking up like no other.

[itspaidgasterblaster]

It will not affect me because i don't buy new games that often. Most of the times i buy them 3 or 6 months after they came out.

[RedvsBlue]

:rofl:

So its pretty obvious that games won't be less than $59 for the system. At least with the 360, Microsoft has third party games priced at $50.

Sony, you're so silly!

[thagoat]

kinda like gas prices, if they hike up the prices too much people will find alternatives( aka nintendo )

[Puffa469]

sweet! Even less temptation to buy a PS3 when it first comes out. By time I get one, all those $70 games will be $10 anyway.

[mykevermin]

kinda like gas prices, if they hike up the prices too much people will find alternatives( aka nintendo )

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

More like, much like gas prices, people will continue to buy the shit out of it like sheep, while bitching about it like that's accomplishing something.

[Kuros]

:rofl:

So its pretty obvious that games won't be less than $59 for the system. At least with the 360, Microsoft has third party games priced at $50.

Sony, you're so silly!

Hell, some games come out at $40 for the 360.

[wubb]

Any idea who the Sony interviewee is? I don't think the linked article clarifies, so I guess not.

[jkam]

Maybe I'll finally finish my backlog while waiting for the PS3 and the games to drop. One can dream.

[Roufuss]

Well, I'm glad they won't be $100! Thanks Sony!

[dracula]

i will most likely wait a few years for a few price drops on the system at loads of GH games.

[hufferstl]

I would hold off bitching about this just because its in some article. Let's let Sony announce their suggested retail price and then start complaining.

[deadlite]

I've been telling my friends this for a while.

I thought sony was being awfully quiet on the game prices and seeing as how blu-ray movies are priced at $15 to $20 more than regular dvds I would expect games to retail for between $70 and $80.

I wouldn't be shocked if they went for more.

[botticus]

Any idea who the Sony interviewee is? I don't think the linked article clarifies, so I guess not.
Pretty sure it's Kaz. Javery said it's part of the same interview that had him bashing MS.

[Kaijufan]

Another reason for me to be a Wii60 owner.
I'm getting sick of Kaz Hirai's and Phil Harrison's smug attitude and I'm really starting to hope that Blu Ray and the PS3 fail and they both get fired and blacklisted from the game industry.

[chosen1s]

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!

[depascal22]

I'll wait 2 or 3 years to pick one up. I'll pick up Metal Gear and Virtua Fighter when they hit 10 or 20 bucks but I'm holding off on the actual system until the second price drop.

[chakan]

I haven't heard ONE thing from Sony since E3 that makes me want a PS3.

I'm not paying $670 to play MGS4.

To those who will dismiss me as a fanboy:I have twice as many PS2 titles as Xbox/GC titles.

[daphatty]

At this point, it wouldn't surprise me if PS3 games were more expensive.

Assuming that they will be, I can honestly say that I would rather spend another $400 to replace my (inevitably) broken 360 than buy a PS3. And for those of you who know my CAG persona, that is saying ALOT!

I was a PlayStation fanboy from PS1, through PS2 and PSP. I just don't see that trend continuing.

[BustaUppa]

I don't wanna jump to conclusions, but when they start off by saying "well, we won't DOUBLE the price..." you know that can't be good. Yikes!

So far I am really enjoying Sony's heel turn for this cycle of the console wars. Gimme some popcorn!

[LinkinPrime]

So far I am really enjoying Sony's heel turn for this cycle of the console wars. Gimme some popcorn!

Word.

[MSI Magus]

Sony can suck my fucking ass. Honestly, fuck them. I dont curse normally...but Sony has had me spouting a string of curses every day for a good 2 months or more now.

When Nintendo started acting this way back in the day I hoped for them to fail.....but Sony is getting so bad that I not only want them to fail i want them to fail so bad that the whole playstation brand dies and never comes back.

The one silver streak in all this is that maybe it will split the market in two. Idiots willing to bend over for Sony and take an unlubed reaming, and those who are smarter with their dollar and not spoiled brats who can afford to spend $1,000s of dollars on a system and a few games. Most people who seem to have a problem with this pricing are true gamers who grew up on the Atari and NES and are loyal supporters of not just EA and Square but also smaller companies like Atlus. Maybe with all of us refusing to buy PS3s and the market perfectly split it will mean not only does Nintendo thrive, but great 2D and innovative titles like Disgaea, Katamari Damacy and Bombastic will thrive too and at a cheaper price.

I hate Sony and want them to fall, but if they have to succede I just hope as I said we do see the market split that way. Nintendo and alot of great developers make games for gamers, and Sony and the Madden and graphic whore frat boys on the other.

[SpazX]

I can't possibly see them being so arrogant as to do anything that extreme. A much more expensive console as well as more expensive games, that's just fucking dumb.

[mykevermin]

Sony can suck my fucking ass. Honestly, fuck them. I dont curse normally...but Sony has had me spouting a string of curses every day for a good 2 months or more now.

When Nintendo started acting this way back in the day I hoped for them to fail.....but Sony is getting so bad that I not only want them to fail i want them to fail so bad that the whole playstation brand dies and never comes back.

The one silver streak in all this is that maybe it will split the market in two. Idiots willing to bend over for Sony and take an unlubed reaming, and those who are smarter with their dollar and not spoiled brats who can afford to spend $1,000s of dollars on a system and a few games. Most people who seem to have a problem with this pricing are true gamers who grew up on the Atari and NES and are loyal supporters of not just EA and Square but also smaller companies like Atlus. Maybe with all of us refusing to buy PS3s and the market perfectly split it will mean not only does Nintendo thrive, but great 2D and innovative titles like Disgaea, Katamari Damacy and Bombastic will thrive too and at a cheaper price.

I hate Sony and want them to fall, but if they have to succede I just hope as I said we do see the market split that way. Nintendo and alot of great developers make games for gamers, and Sony and the Madden and graphic whore frat boys on the other.

http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/835/42028m0ge.gif (http://imageshack.us)

[Moxio]

I haven't heard ONE thing from Sony since E3 that makes me want a PS3.

I'm not paying $670 to play MGS4.



Agreed. If that's what it costs to play MGS4, I'm sorry but that's totally not worth it. Final Fantasy XIII? Oops, there's more than 15 I can play as an alternative. God of War 50 billion? Not for $700.


But it's strange... Nintendo COMPLETELY has better cards on the table than Sony, which is scary. They were absolutely right in going down the "cheap but still fun" route because Sony's fucking things up so bad.

[camoor]

But it's strange... Nintendo COMPLETELY has better cards on the table than Sony, which is scary. They were absolutely right in going down the "cheap but still fun" route because Sony's fucking things up so bad.

Oooooh, I don't know.

Most game reviews I read for the DS are about how the "touching" gameplay is gimmicky, whether or not it deserves it, the Wii could get a similar reputation. Plus Sony is the master of the hype machine, they know "real-time weapon change" and "riiiiidge racer" aren't selling machines but they don't want to blow their wad too early - I'm betting they have some grade A cards up their sleeve.

People lined up to pay a premium for Kameo and a mediocre next-gen PD, if Sony does something like giving everyone at the next E3 a pair of 3-D glasses and rolling a Katamari over their heads, I'm sure all this talk will be forgotten.

However seeing as a I date your mom, I'm a sucker for "cheap but still fun" so I'm jumping ship for Ninty.

[psiufoxx2]

I love the games that Sony has on their systems... it's the only place to play Metal Gear Solid, Final Fantasy, and countless others... There's no guarantee they'll remain exclusives during this next generation, especially if the game publishers lose potential sales from a $79 price point... Only time will tell.

[LaraCroftsLeftBoob]

anyone else thinking that since normal game prices are going to be higher, that GH prices will be higher too? like $30 instead of $20.

[DomLando]

Well, I'm glad they won't be $100! Thanks Sony!
:rofl:
I think it's crazy that he can even come out and say they wont be $100. Current gen games were $49.99. Imagine Sony came out of the gate with PS3 games at $99.99. It's a stupid thing to say. They need to be competive with Microsoft. To me $59.99 is even much for new games.

[projecteightysix]

Ok I'm officially completely uninterested in the PS3 if this is true
.

[PINKO]

also you cant by used games

[wbc1228]

also you cant by used games

yes, you can.
that was a false rumor that Sony has already corrected multiple times.

[wbc1228]

anyone else thinking that since normal game prices are going to be higher, that GH prices will be higher too? like $30 instead of $20.

at this rate, GH games are going to be $49.99
lol
But seriously, I don't think Sony will charge more than $59.99 for a new game.

[MSI Magus]

yes, you can.
that was a false rumor that Sony has already corrected multiple times.

Pretty sure that while it is indeed a rumor as far as PS3 is concerned that Sony is looking into a way to make it possible in the future.

[Moxio]

Oooooh, I don't know.

Most game reviews I read for the DS are about how the "touching" gameplay is gimmicky, whether or not it deserves it, the Wii could get a similar reputation. Plus Sony is the master of the hype machine, they know "real-time weapon change" and "riiiiidge racer" aren't selling machines but they don't want to blow their wad too early - I'm betting they have some grade A cards up their sleeve.

People lined up to pay a premium for Kameo and a mediocre next-gen PD, if Sony does something like giving everyone at the next E3 a pair of 3-D glasses and rolling a Katamari over their heads, I'm sure all this talk will be forgotten.

However seeing as a I date your mom, I'm a sucker for "cheap but still fun" so I'm jumping ship for Ninty.

Wow, way to be an adult. "your mom" jokes just suck.


Of course I based what I said on my opinions of some Sony games.

Katamari Damacy? Not that great.

God of War Sequel? Okay, but not worth $700.
MGS4? Okay, but not worth $760.
Final Fantasy XIII? Okay, but not worth $840.
Resistance: Fall of Man? Looks good. Not worth $900.

$900? Just for the the FOUR games that I want at the moment? Not even including what tricks Sony has up its sleeve (as you say)? Is it just me or is that outrageous?

[Daddy]

People were understandably upset when companies decided next-generation meant charging everyone $10 more for their games -- especially when the price was applied to last-generation ports like GUN and Tony Hawk's American Wasteland. Nonetheless, most have sucked it up at this point, but no one anticipated Sony would actually up the ante when PlayStation 3 dropped in November.

Yet SCEA president Kaz Hirai isn't promising a $59.99 price tag for PS3 games this fall. In an interview with PSM, the Sony leader explained. So, what I can say now is, I think it would be a bit of a stretch to think that we could suddenly turn around and say "PS3 games now $99.99" I don't think the consumers expect the software pricing to suddenly be double," he told the magazine. "So, if it becomes a bit higher than fifty-nine bucks don't ding me, but, again, as I said, I don't expect it to be a hundred bucks."

In other words, consumers should expect PS3 games to cost somewhere between $59.99 and $99.99. He doesn't expect them to be a hundred dollars, but it's only a "stretch" to expect it. Have we moved back to the cartridge ages here? Wasn't disc-based media supposed to make everything cheaper? I don't want to remember how much my parent's paid for several of Square's older SNES releases during Christmas

[DomLando]

http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=98849

[VanillaGorilla]

I like how Kaz says "I don't expect games to be $99.99" then you paraphrase it as "Expect games to be $59.99 to $99.99". No chance in hell $100 games ever happen, especially when Microsoft is selling all their 1st party 360 games at $50 a piece. Paying $500 for a PS3 is one thing, but $100 for Katamari Damacy Blu Ray is another.

[Daddy]

Repost or not...I here that coffin closing on them

[Scorch]

No chance in hell $100 games ever happen

For any system or just PS3? I still remember seeing Virtua Racing for Sega Genesis for $110 when it came out.

[Quackzilla]

I would pay $100 for Katamari Damacy...

[Daddy]

For any system or just PS3? I still remember seeing Virtua Racing for Sega Genesis for $110 when it came out.


DAYYYYYUUUUUUUMMM!!!

[epobirs]

Hirai said much without really saying anything.

Don't make a mountain from a molehil. The only definite thing you can derived from his statements is that he isn't willing to go on the recording the issue at this time. He only really agreed that his machines games would be at least comparable in SRP to those on Microsoft's machine. I causes a silly panic every time a console company executive acts evasive just because they hate to commit any info in advance of need. He'd pretend the gender of his eldest child was still undecided if he thought there might be an advantage in not disclosing that detail.

Xbox 360 software pricing has already prepped the market for a $10 bump before Sony has announced a single concrete launch title. It's possible they'll drive away still more customers with high software pricing but until I have some real evidence rather than an evasive interview answer, I'll expect PS3 games to be $60 with some first/second party items and some bargain items running lower ala Table Tennis and XBLA stuff.

[slidecage]

hell people paid 99.99 for that car racing game on the 32x. Why not PS3 games : )


i would buy a xbox 360 for 99 game if bill gates delivered it to my house so i could kick him in the nuts.. LOL

[epobirs]

For any system or just PS3? I still remember seeing Virtua Racing for Sega Genesis for $110 when it came out.

SRP was $99 and Sega did that game solely as a PR stunt to blunt Nintendo's successes with building supplemental processors into game carts, notably Star Fox and Mario Kart.

Virtua Racing for the Genesis was a freak event, not the normal run of game pricing.

[VanillaGorilla]

For any system or just PS3? I still remember seeing Virtua Racing for Sega Genesis for $110 when it came out.
Yes, for the Playstation 3. Game companies sell the most units during the holiday season. Who do they sell those games to? Idiot parents and grandparents who, most of the time, would rather buy little Billy 3 games for $20 a piece than 1 game for $60. Now, if Sony had $100 PS3 games, in the same market as $50 and $60 360 games (and even some $40 games, if 2K's current pricing continues) what do you think those fat wallet parents would do? They would go cheap.

And to the guy who said he would pay $100 for Katamari Damacy, if you wanna spend that much on a hardcore novelty game, that's just great. You better put it right in the front of your collection so you can make sure all your buddies know how hardcore and non-mainstream you are when they see it.

[Daddy]

hell people paid 99.99 for that car racing game on the 32x. Why not PS3 games : )



Where is 32x now...hmmm...i do remember that Star wars game on that system...lol...fish eyed guy said the same thing over and over on the death star level

[epobirs]

hell people paid 99.99 for that car racing game on the 32x. Why not PS3 games : )


No, that was for the Genesis. The 32X could do the same game at a normal price since it didn't need an expensive chip in the cartridge to handle the 3D work. You'd already bought the chip when you bought the 32X. Nintendo was planning to do a similar thing in the SNES-CD. There would be an updated version of the FX chip (used in StarFox and others) built into the CD add-on so that games could use the chip at no added expense for the game publisher. Konami had a completed version of their shooter Xexex ready to go with polygonal objects in the game but Nintendo killed the SNES-CD after seeing how much trouble Sega was having selling their Sega CD add-on.

As it was, the FX chip was too expensive for a third party game to use unless they cut back on the cartridge memory. So you ended up with games that did impressive 3D for that era but they ended quickly or had little variety because they were only 4 megabits when most games were twice that or more.

[Daddy]

Yes, for the Playstation 3. Game companies sell the most units during the holiday season. Who do they sell those games to? Idiot parents and grandparents who, most of the time, would rather buy little Billy 3 games for $20 a piece than 1 game for $60. Now, if Sony had $100 PS3 games, in the same market as $50 and $60 360 games (and even some $40 games, if 2K's current pricing continues) what do you think those fat wallet parents would do? They would go cheap.

And to the guy who said he would pay $100 for Katamari Damacy, if you wanna spend that much on a hardcore novelty game, that's just great. You better put it right in the front of your collection so you can make sure all your buddies know how hardcore and non-mainstream you are when they see it.


HAha he can put it next to hais launch version of Steel Batallion with controller

[whoknows]

Ok, so all he is saying is that the games *MIGHT* be more than $60, and everyone is acting like its the end of the world and Sony is the anti-christ and must be destroyed. Until official game prices are announced I dont see what all the bitching is about. The games MIGHT be more than $60, it's not 100% certain yet.

[I AM WILLIAM H. MACY]

They're most likely gonna be $70, which is fucking outrageous.

Sony's the king of overpriced crap.

[VanillaGorilla]

HAha he can put it next to hais launch version of Steel Batallion with controller
"Dude, check out my awesome, $200 Steel Batallion game. Isn't it great?"

No, Steel Batallion sucked.

"Yeah ok, then what about this Limited Edition copy of Katamari Damacy 3 for the PS3, paid $100 for this baby."

You paid $100 for the chance to roll $hit into balls while pre-school music plays in the background?

[Melhavic]

I paid $89.99 for Phantasy Star 4 for the Genesis when that was released......Yo Sega, this aint over.

[MSI Magus]

Ok, so all he is saying is that the games *MIGHT* be more than $60, and everyone is acting like its the end of the world and Sony is the anti-christ and must be destroyed. Until official game prices are announced I dont see what all the bitching is about. The games MIGHT be more than $60, it's not 100% certain yet.

Normally I would agree but

1. Sony has kinda lost alot of face with alot of people. Many people dont trust them anymore and wouldnt be suprised to see them charge more then $60 for games.

2. $60 is too much, games should be freaking lowered before raised. If Sony would have just freaking used these over Blu Ray maybe we wouldnt have to pay extra for games.

[suffah]

$69.99 is too low I hope they aim for $79.99 at a minimum.

[Scahom1]

Guess I'm going to be the one who throws this out...

Considering that games back in the mid 90's cost $60-$70 each, aren't we making out like bandits? ;)

[Vinny]

Ok, so all he is saying is that the games *MIGHT* be more than $60, and everyone is acting like its the end of the world and Sony is the anti-christ and must be destroyed. Until official game prices are announced I dont see what all the bitching is about. The games MIGHT be more than $60, it's not 100% certain yet.

I agree... the guy really didn't say anything near 'the games may be higher than $59.99" but instead said that he doesn't know and don't blame him if they're not 59.99.

But at the same time, it's not to reassuring too hear that statement.:-k

Guess I'm going to be the one who throws this out...

Considering that games back in the mid 90's cost $60-$70 each, aren't we making out like bandits? ;)

The thing is, this isn't the 90s. Games have become a mass market good, it's not a niche like it was back in the day. Sure costs may have gone up but people now are more conscious about price with everything costing more.

[hufferstl]

Until I see a $80+ price on amazon.com or some legit retailer, I am going to assume that we will see $59 games and $69 special editions.

[mforge]

Hirai said much without really saying anything.

Don't make a mountain from a molehil. The only definite thing you can derived from his statements is that he isn't willing to go on the recording the issue at this time. He only really agreed that his machines games would be at least comparable in SRP to those on Microsoft's machine. I causes a silly panic every time a console company executive acts evasive just because they hate to commit any info in advance of need. He'd pretend the gender of his eldest child was still undecided if he thought there might be an advantage in not disclosing that detail.

Xbox 360 software pricing has already prepped the market for a $10 bump before Sony has announced a single concrete launch title. It's possible they'll drive away still more customers with high software pricing but until I have some real evidence rather than an evasive interview answer, I'll expect PS3 games to be $60 with some first/second party items and some bargain items running lower ala Table Tennis and XBLA stuff.

The comments aren't really that evasive, but they are parsed very carefully. Even at a glance it's obvious he's couching his comments to brace consumers for software prices higher than $59.99. Mentioning the $99.99 price point is the "overstatement" strategy Sony likes to use to lessen the blow of the lower (but still premium) actual price. If the software was going to be comparable to or lower than 360 games, well, that's what he'd say instead of this song and dance. Or he'd simply refuse to comment.

Everything about this system so far leads one to believe that Sony simply let development costs get way out of hand and are trying to push the price envelope as much as is humanly possible to recoup.

[MSI Magus]

Guess I'm going to be the one who throws this out...

Considering that games back in the mid 90's cost $60-$70 each, aren't we making out like bandits? ;)

The market is strong and gamers have options now. We also have DVDs and CDs which provide a MUCH cheaper form for developers to put theig games on. No, we are not making out like bandits, we were getting a fair deal. Now we are going to be fucked up the ass again only this time there isnt a single legitamate reason for this shit. Making out like bandits would be the companies doing the smart thing like Nintendo is and then deciding since they are cutting huge costs lowering prices $5-$10.

If Sony does come out with games it wouldnt be a bad move for Nintendo to try lowering the price on theirs a little bit and then advertise such in commercials and magazines. Imagine kids asking for a new console at Christmas and the parents then see an ad on TV by Nintendo talking about how their system is 1/3rd the cost and their games are a third or more cheaper too.

[Metal Boss]

$59 is no shocker, they ask for the same price for 360's horrid selection.

[jer7583]

I love the left-handedness of that comment, where instead of answering the real question, if games would be more than $59.99, he answers that games will be assuredly less than $100.

Genious PR answer. Kaz is a slippery mutherfucker. Less is what you want to emphasize.

[gunm]

Well, it's not like they haven't already priced me out of a PS3 with that $600 price tag, so who cares if the games are $99? I'm not going to be able to afford the system anyways....

[PrivatePixel]

I agree... the guy really didn't say anything near 'the games may be higher than $59.99" but instead said that he doesn't know and don't blame him if they're not 59.99.

If the games are priced higher than $59.99, it's not Sony's fault; the developer / publisher of the respective title is, as they're the ones setting the price point for their product. Other than the licensing fee* that Sony collects per software unit sold, that is the extent of Sony's involvement in affecting the eventual MSRP set by the game publisher. If production costs on a given title run higher than expected, they will be passed on to the consumer. I'm sure that developers are doing what they can to minimize costs, in an effort to keep PS3 software MSRPs in line with the 360's; all the interviewee is saying is that one shouldn't be too surprised if some PS3 offerings, particularly exclusives, happen to command a slight premium.

(* flat fee that applies to each and every third-party publisher)

The thing is, this isn't the 90s. Games have become a mass market good, it's not a niche like it was back in the day. Sure costs may have gone up but people now are more conscious about price with everything costing more.

People have always been price-conscious about items that aren't considered necessities; gaming is no different. Video gaming, as a recreational activity, may be more accessible to a larger audience when compared with a decade ago, but this has little bearing on the rising production costs which developers have little control over. From the licensing of multiple game engines (which can easily run hundreds of thousands of dollars) to increasing staff requirements (consider that at one UbiSoft location, ~300 people are assigned to six separate projects; that's roughly 50 people per endeavour) to lengthier development times (more time to create in-game models, more lines of code to write, more testing, etc.), developers assume a larger financial burden and risk with every successive generation of hardware, all in an effort to appease consumers who demand so much more out of their gaming experiences. Gamers want more detailed, life-like environments, better physics, more aggressive and reactive AI - all of these take more time (and money) to deliver. Good middleware tools can make things more manageable, but it still comes down to proper planning and execution; that requires time, and time = money. You need people with specialized skills sets in development and management; they are few in numbers and they don't come cheap.

I'm not saying that every PS3 title should and does deserve a small premium over a comparable 360 title just because it's on the PS3. It could very well be that, when the launch comes, retailers price PS3 software in the same range as the 360 and Wii, which would make this discussion moot to begin with. With the exception of a few, we've come to accept $60 as the de facto standard for next-generation software pricing. I think this topic should be revisited after the PS3 launches and we know what's the standard MSRP for a typical PS3 title.

[MSI Magus]

If the games are priced higher than $59.99, it's not Sony's fault; the developer / publisher of the respective title is, as they're the ones setting the price point for their product. Other than the licensing fee* that Sony collects per software unit sold, that is the extent of Sony's involvement in affecting the eventual MSRP set by the game publisher. If production costs on a given title run higher than expected, they will be passed on to the consumer. I'm sure that developers are doing what they can to minimize costs, in an effort to keep PS3 software MSRPs in line with the 360's; all the interviewee is saying is that one shouldn't be too surprised if some PS3 offerings, particularly exclusives, happen to command a slight premium.

(* flat fee that applies to each and every third-party publisher).

1. Its Sonys fault for picking the more expensive Blu Ray technology as well as making a system thats reportedly hard to develop for.

2. Sony a few years ago started pricing their titles at $40 and encouraged developers to do the same. Developers can try to keep costs down. What Sony is doing is opening the flood gates for developers to hike prices way the hell out.

Sony fucked up. They made a fucktarded system thats complicated and its tech is ahead of its time. As a result it is very expensive to produce and to even HOPE to make a profit they are now charging more then they should. They are probally getting nervous about the 900 million they are expected to loose launching the PS3 and the negative press and hiking prices of games in order to make this up.

[Predator21281]

There's one positive I can see out of this. Since developers are going to be spending this money to make games and such long development times, companies are going to be vying for the consumer's dollar, they're going to want a game that gives them that bang for that buck. So developers will try harder to make a better game witha better plot and gameplay. Something people will want. Plus, it will look pretty. Either way, that's too rich for my blood.

[Reality's Fringe]

There's one positive I can see out of this. Since developers are going to be spending this money to make games and such long development times, companies are going to be vying for the consumer's dollar, they're going to want a game that gives them that bang for that buck. So developers will try harder to make a better game witha better plot and gameplay. Something people will want.

I used to think that, but then I realized that they would go for the LCD to avoid losing money. I feel retarded for even giving the benefit of the doubt :cry:.

[Predator21281]

I used to think that, but then I realized that they would go for the LCD to avoid losing money. I feel retarded for even giving the benefit of the doubt :cry:.I do to now.

[KingDox]

Ok, so all he is saying is that the games *MIGHT* be more than $60, and everyone is acting like its the end of the world and Sony is the anti-christ and must be destroyed. Until official game prices are announced I dont see what all the bitching is about. The games MIGHT be more than $60, it's not 100% certain yet.


*Saves spot for future bitching when price point becomes official*

[Ecofreak]

It`s all smoke and mirrors - Sony is getting consumers ready for a high price tag. Then, when the PS3 is launched all games are $60. Suddenly, PS3 games are a bargin!

[cdeener]

All I have to say is that Sony is making the 360 and Wii more and more attractive with these antics that they are going through.

[niceguyshawne]

Many games this generation were unable to maintain the $50 price point. I really don't see what is going to change in the next generation to warrant all titles going to $60 and above. At this point I have decided to work on my backlog on Xbox, GC, and PS2 games and check CAG to monitor next gen price drops. When the game prices start dropping, I will jump to the next gen systems.

[Quackzilla]

:rofl:

So its pretty obvious that games won't be less than $59 for the system. At least with the 360, Microsoft has third party games priced at $50.

Sony, you're so silly!
Uh, Sony has $10 cheaper first party games also, the only company that doesn't is Nintendo...

[rlse9]

1. I disagree with whoever said the DS's touch screen controls have been viewed as gimmicky. Many games use the touch screen well (True Swing Golf, Brain Age, Bust A Move, Magnetica...) and the success of the DS seems to support the idea.

2. Someone on another board I post at said a Sony rep had told them to expect games to be around $69.99.

3. The only good argument in my opinion for games rising in costs is the fact that $50 back in the NES days is the equivalent of considerably more than that today. $50 in 1990 is the equivalent of about $78 today.

4. I still wouldn't pay $70 for a game and think it's foolish of Sony to think that they'll be successful compared to $60 games from Microsoft and $50 games from Nintendo when both of their consoles are considerably cheaper.

[erehwon]

Well, if that's true, I expect this site's membership to really grow.

[yeldarb367]

I'm not surprised.

[help1]

Wii60 = win.

[62t]

First of all misleading title
Second I would much rather pay $70 for a PS3 game than $60 for a X360 game. At least the cost is justify by the new media. X360 cost $10 more for no reason.

[GuilewasNK]

For any system or just PS3? I still remember seeing Virtua Racing for Sega Genesis for $110 when it came out.

Not to mention Phantasy Star IV ($99.99), Steel Battlion (with a huge ass controller which was the reason for the cost), or Neo-Geo games which were $300. Neo-Geo could get away with that though due to the games generating arcade revenue.

Hell, I remember when SNES games were $74.99 (Chrono Trigger, Street Fighter II). If a few games hit the $99.99 it may still turn out ok, but if the majority end up being like that then Sony is screwed when you consider there are so many different ways to get a gaming fix now.

[friedram]

hell people paid 99.99 for that car racing game on the 32x. Why not PS3 games : )


i would buy a xbox 360 for 99 game if bill gates delivered it to my house so i could kick him in the nuts.. LOL

Thats funny- considering if you were offered enough money from Bill, you'd probably be willing to give him a blow job and say that you hated sony on Fox News for enough money.....

[Z-Saber]

Second I would much rather pay $70 for a PS3 game than $60 for a X360 game. At least the cost is justify by the new media. X360 cost $10 more for no reason.Because we all know that Xbox360 games are created for the same amount as current and previous generation games. Shame on them for bumping up the price for no reason.

[hiccupleftovers]

This system is sounding better and better. I just can't wait. $99 and I'm so there. This is just the announcement I have been waiting for.

[hiccupleftovers]

It`s all smoke and mirrors - Sony is getting consumers ready for a high price tag. Then, when the PS3 is launched all games are $60. Suddenly, PS3 games are a bargin!

Agreed. I'd even venture forth it as being $60-70.

[Kayden]

Raising game prices AND going with micro transactions. This generation is just getting better all the time.

[RegalSin2020]

LOL the thing is back in the days during the 90's games was like 60-70 and sometimes 30 but never 40-50. Today games being priced the way they are now is a blessing to be taken advantage of compared to then. I mean man oh man I remember when Donkey Kong Country and Chrono Trigger was like 90- 100 dollars.Yesterday I was a buyer, today I am a seller, and tommorow I will be a creator.

[b3b0p]

It's not the blu-ray that is expensive to develop for. After all, blu-ray is just a storage medium. However, what Sony charges for the dev kits, licenses, and other various fees/costs, not to mention the cost of a reasonable developer, tools for each developer (hardware, software), and time it takes to develop a professional quality game is what makes the costs of games so much greater.

[MSI Magus]

It's not the blu-ray that is expensive to develop for. After all, blu-ray is just a storage medium. However, what Sony charges for the dev kits, licenses, and other various fees/costs, not to mention the cost of a reasonable developer, tools for each developer (hardware, software), and time it takes to develop a professional quality game is what makes the costs of games so much greater.

*looks at the time between KD and We love Katamari*
*looks at their prices*

Bzzzzzzt wrong. Sony picked an expensive media and built an expensive system and now they are trying to make us pay for it. It doesnt take 50 months, 50 million dollars and 50 million people to make a game. Developers lead by Sony have just choosen this stupid expensive road and think every game must be epic nowdays.

[Blues]

I don't understand all this talk of "16 bit games were $70!!!" I've been a gamer since I got my NES in '88 and every retailer around here always charged $49.99 for new games just like now. The only times I ever saw a skyrocket retail price was Virtua Racer for Genesis which was 119.99. I own a ton of big name SNES games too that I bought just after release, first and third party.

I didn't mean to digress this thread, but I see this claim everywhere yet it never actually happened, not where I lived anyway.

[MSI Magus]

I don't understand all this talk of "16 bit games were $70!!!" I've been a gamer since I got my NES in '88 and every retailer around here always charged $49.99 for new games just like now. The only times I ever saw a skyrocket retail price was Virtua Racer for Genesis which was 119.99. I own a ton of big name SNES games too that I bought just after release, first and third party.

I didn't mean to digress this thread, but I see this claim everywhere yet it never actually happened, not where I lived anyway.

Prices did go up for awhile, but thing is I think it was only on certain games and only slightly. I think another large part of the problem is people are rembering used game prices of RPGs which were crazy. Games sold out fast and then you had to buy used copies, since the games were rare and gamestop/ebgames were jackasses from day one the games cost $60-$100. I can rember buying Lufia 2 for around $50 when it first came out and for some reason I had to rebuy it a year or so later and the damn thing cost me like $80 used.

[b3b0p]

*looks at the time between KD and We love Katamari*
*looks at their prices*

Bzzzzzzt wrong. Sony picked an expensive media and built an expensive system and now they are trying to make us pay for it. It doesnt take 50 months, 50 million dollars and 50 million people to make a game. Developers lead by Sony have just choosen this stupid expensive road and think every game must be epic nowdays.
Sorry, guess I'm thick, because I don't understand what you are trying to imply about Katamari and their prices and how they relate to Playstation 3 and Blu-ray.

Wasn't Katamari just a pet project done by a few developer(s) in spare time or something? That would explain it's affordable costs compared to most games. Much less time spent developing it. Hardly a media problem.

Blu-ray is more expensive then DVD, of course. However, when DVD first came out, it was also more expensive.

I stand by the idea that the games are not more expensive because of the media chosen. Have you not seen blu-ray disks for sale at stores yet? Hell, Circuit City is even giving away 4 with a player purchase. Also, the MSRP of current blu-ray titles are not that far off from the MSRP of normal DVD titles.

Most of the blu-ray titles on Amazon are about $24.98 with 28.95 MSRP/List price. The list price of the DVD equivalents are anywhere from 14.98 to 19.98 or more.

And when the disks and players are more abundant and the technology has improved, they will be cheaper (duh!).

The cost of what Sony charges for developing for the system and the cost of a decent developer (a decent developer is hard to find and expensive) far out weigh any media costs. The media costs is probably the last thing on the minds of publishers when considering the costs of making a game.

The reason for the costly investment and time for games now is because of supply and demand. As games have become more popular and systems have improved people have demanded much more from them. Which takes more developers, more time, state of the art hardware and software. Just because a game takes time and requires lots of people doesn't mean it is an overpriced epic. A game is a very fragile, large, complex, and difficult process that takes great patience and time.

From reading all of 2 of your posts, I would guess you are not a developer.

I'm done and I'm not going to argue about this. It's a waste of my time. All we can do as measly little consumers is guess at why costs have increased unless we are told otherwise by credible sources. Which I could have sworn was said to be because of rising costs of licenses/software/hardware/developers and the increased amount of time it takes. Guess I'm reading and hearing things. Not once have I read/heard anything about the media being a problem. Oh well, no big deal. No lives lost. I'll be on my way now.

[jer7583]

PS3 games won't cost me a dime, because i'm not buying any. Problem solved.

[Quackzilla]

The material cost of a game (box, disc, etc) is only going up a little from around 30 cents to maybe 70 cents to a dollar as a result of using blu-ray.

I don't know what the hell people are bitching about.

More polygons, more physics code, and more higher resolution textures means more time, money, and skill/education...

Believe it or not, it actually takes more time to make large levels and high poly models than it does to make small levels and low poly models.

Hell, the Half-Life 2: Episode 1 development team had over 70 people!
Add to that liscensing, lawyers, marketing, manufacturing, inflation, etc. and you have a lot of money down the drain.

Plus, though I hate paying a lot for games, you can't overlook the fact that $50 in 1980 is $70 today, so $60 games for the 360 and PS3 aren't *that* bad (especially when you remember that first party games cost $10 less).

[Quackzilla]

But seriously, you people need to shut the fuck up and actualy read the shit you posted.

YOu are arguing like this is an epic battle that your lives depend on.

IT IS A fuckING VIDEOGAME SYSTEM!

How pathetic do you have to be to wage fucking jihad over a videogame system?

Go to hell.

Especially "MSI Magus", you are the most pathetic one here. What the fuck is your problem? Did Sony shoot your dad and ass-rape your mother?

[Graystone]

No desire in my body exists for a PS3 especially after the price announcement at E3.

[epobirs]

1. Its Sonys fault for picking the more expensive Blu Ray technology as well as making a system thats reportedly hard to develop for.

2. Sony a few years ago started pricing their titles at $40 and encouraged developers to do the same. Developers can try to keep costs down. What Sony is doing is opening the flood gates for developers to hike prices way the hell out.

Sony fucked up. They made a fucktarded system thats complicated and its tech is ahead of its time. As a result it is very expensive to produce and to even HOPE to make a profit they are now charging more then they should. They are probally getting nervous about the 900 million they are expected to loose launching the PS3 and the negative press and hiking prices of games in order to make this up.

1) Blu-ray has nearly no bearing at all on software pricing. The actual premium for the disc itself is about a buck and that will decrease over time. For the developers it's just a bigger bit bucket, as DVD and CD were before it.

2) Sony charged $10 less for their first and second party games primarily because they weren't charging themselves the royalty fee third party publishers pay on disc manufacturing. Sony was not first in this regard. Nintendo and Sega frequently charged less for a game than a third party game using a ROM of the same capacity and cost. It all came down to that roaylty and that is what makes strong third party support so lucrative.

Optical discs meant that media costs were no longer a major factor in the price of a game. But the leap in technological capability quickly made sure that development costs could make up for that savings. The difference is that development costs occur only once on the project. The media cost is for every unit produced. This is why we now commonly have a Greatest Hits sort of product line for each optical disc based console. Once the development costs are paid off the game can be at a far lower price and still be profitable.

Nintendo had Player's Choice in the SNES days but it took a major drop in ROM cost before a game could get revived that way. For instance, SNES Sim City ws out of print for several years until it came back as a Player's Choice version for a reduced price. That was notably a mere four megabit cartridge at a time when most major new titles were 16 Mb or larger.

3) Sony is following the formula that gave them a decade as the world's #1 game console maker. Further, they're also building on the tactic that broke the market resistance to DVD in Japan. Like Nintendo with the N64, they may have hit a wall with their formula but that remains to be proven.

If Sony can ship the PS3 and ultimately continue their dominance, albeit at a lesser marketshare, it would seem the PS3 was exactly in its time. Everything is 'ahead of its time' until it actually hits retail. A year later it's old news. Sony knew this was going to be an expensive box going in, but their read of the market told them it was viable. If they fail the reality test it's no loss to me or anyone whose living isn't dependent on Sony's game console business. If they succeed te issue becomes when I can afford one of my own.

On that basis Sony is free to do whatever they want. They owe me nothing and vice versa.

[kscripter]

Sony is certainly going to make this next-generation console war interesting.

[Ivanhoe]

I guess everyone should run and start pre-ordering games that are listed at 59.99 right now.

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?navLevel=5&type=category&navHistory=cat00000%2Bcat02000%2Bcat02119%2Bpcmcat 91400050028&id=pcmcat92300050000

http://www.ebgames.com/search.asp?sortby=default&searchtype=quicksearch&searchcount=12&Keyword=ps3&platform=0

[Tromack]

"Dude, check out my awesome, $200 Steel Batallion game. Isn't it great?"

No, Steel Batallion sucked.

"Yeah ok, then what about this Limited Edition copy of Katamari Damacy 3 for the PS3, paid $100 for this baby."

You paid $100 for the chance to roll $hit into balls while pre-school music plays in the background?

Hey, Steel Battalion rocked. I have never played a more realistic simulation for something that doesn't exist.

[arthurRWD]

God of War Sequel? Okay, but not worth $700.
MGS4? Okay, but not worth $760.
Final Fantasy XIII? Okay, but not worth $840.
Resistance: Fall of Man? Looks good. Not worth $900.

$900? Just for the the FOUR games that I want at the moment? Not even including what tricks Sony has up its sleeve (as you say)? Is it just me or is that outrageous?
If you're speaking of God of War II, unless something has changed, that game is for PS2, not PS3.

[mtxbass1]

Why can't this and the original thread be merged? http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=98849

[MSI Magus]

The material cost of a game (box, disc, etc) is only going up a little from around 30 cents to maybe 70 cents to a dollar as a result of using blu-ray.

I don't know what the hell people are bitching about.

More polygons, more physics code, and more higher resolution textures means more time, money, and skill/education...

Believe it or not, it actually takes more time to make large levels and high poly models than it does to make small levels and low poly models.

Hell, the Half-Life 2: Episode 1 development team had over 70 people!
Add to that liscensing, lawyers, marketing, manufacturing, inflation, etc. and you have a lot of money down the drain.

Plus, though I hate paying a lot for games, you can't overlook the fact that $50 in 1980 is $70 today, so $60 games for the 360 and PS3 aren't *that* bad (especially when you remember that first party games cost $10 less).

While it is true that it is costing more to make games it is because Sony is pushing for more graphically intense block buster titles....and developers are following.

Maybe if companies would make a game with good but not over the top pushed to the limit graphics and tech they would cut back on these expenses and release games at a cheaper price.

Gaming isnt just my hobby its my passion in life and I love it more then anything cept my fiancee. I hate to see a company like Sony raping my passion in this way and thus I am outspoken. I am not waging a Jihad, I am powerless to change things. But I am going to be outspoken about them being such asshats and pushing the industry to be expensive block busters over creating innovative fun games that are cheaper...and could probally be made for UNDER $50

As a gamer I want to see games like God of War and Final Fantasy coming out, but I dont want every freaking game to be a clone of them and cost me $70. I would rather see these games coming out and then developers focusing on great games like Katamari or the DS titles which are just as good and cost 1/3rd the price.

[I AM WILLIAM H. MACY]

Woo hoo!

$70 games for my $600 system!!!

Hopefully I can pay $60 for Sony's "revolutionary" new PS3 controller! And $100 for a 8MB memory card!

The future for Sony looks bright!

[Zoglog]

my nipples retail at $70 each and are worth at least 3 times a ps3 game in market value. I'd say that you're better off with me.

[Moxio]

If you're speaking of God of War II, unless something has changed, that game is for PS2, not PS3.

Well I was just posting games I'd get for the PS3. If GoW makes it there.

[psiufoxx2]

On topic:

Could anyone recommend some good loan services to help me secure around $1000 come mid-November? Ugh.

[sarausagi]

If it wasn't for the fact that CAG has a majority of Nintendo fanboys, Daddy would be considered a "troll" at the least, anyways..

Phantasy Star 4 - $99
Shining Force 2 - $79
Virtua Racing - $99

It wasn't unheard of for first party SNES titles to retail for $69.99, most stores priced them at $59.99. Donkey Kong Country, Yoshi's Island, and Kirby come to mind. Several first generation PSX and Saturn games were $59.99 as well.

Still though, I can't see PS3 games going past $59.99, I really can't. Sony will try to be competitive with Microsoft, and I can actually see some titles being $39.99. Sony pretty much invented the Greatest Hits pricing point, I can't imagine the first year of the PS3 not having a few budget PS3 titles.

You know what I think is a joke? $34 for DS titles, and the fact that Nintendo barely dropped some Gameboy Advance games to $19.99. Your best selling console and you can't even give it a proper discount line? And what is up with old titles being $29 on Gamecube..Animal Crossing has a memory card..but 1080 Avalanche and Smash Brothers for $30? You've got to be kidding me.

[camoor]

You know what I think is a joke? $34 for DS titles, and the fact that Nintendo barely dropped some Gameboy Advance games to $19.99. Your best selling console and you can't even give it a proper discount line? And what is up with old titles being $29 on Gamecube..Animal Crossing has a memory card..but 1080 Avalanche and Smash Brothers for $30? You've got to be kidding me.

Tendo is on record for wanting to smash the decreasing game price model. The customer will decide their success...

[MSI Magus]

If it wasn't for the fact that CAG has a majority of Nintendo fanboys, Daddy would be considered a "troll" at the least, anyways..

Phantasy Star 4 - $99
Shining Force 2 - $79
Virtua Racing - $99

It wasn't unheard of for first party SNES titles to retail for $69.99, most stores priced them at $59.99. Donkey Kong Country, Yoshi's Island, and Kirby come to mind. Several first generation PSX and Saturn games were $59.99 as well.

Still though, I can't see PS3 games going past $59.99, I really can't. Sony will try to be competitive with Microsoft, and I can actually see some titles being $39.99. Sony pretty much invented the Greatest Hits pricing point, I can't imagine the first year of the PS3 not having a few budget PS3 titles.

You know what I think is a joke? $34 for DS titles, and the fact that Nintendo barely dropped some Gameboy Advance games to $19.99. Your best selling console and you can't even give it a proper discount line? And what is up with old titles being $29 on Gamecube..Animal Crossing has a memory card..but 1080 Avalanche and Smash Brothers for $30? You've got to be kidding me.

Nintendos pricing on games is unfair.....but come on you cant honestly think its as bad as Sonys....

[whoknows]

Nintendos pricing on games is unfair.....but come on you cant honestly think its as bad as Sonys....
How is Sony's worse? Its 10x better IMO.

Most first party games are $40 and 3rd pary $50 where they in a few months drop to the $20-$30 price point or even lower. Plus they have the greatest hits line. I dont see any PS2 launch game that still goes for fucking $30. Seriously, Nintendo is horrible at price drops.

If you are referring to PS3 prices...nothing has been officially announced yet!!

[MSI Magus]

How is Sony's worse? Its 10x better IMO.

Most first party games are $40 and 3rd pary $50 where they in a few months drop to the $20-$30 price point or even lower. Plus they have the greatest hits line. I dont see any PS2 launch game that still goes for fucking $30. Seriously, Nintendo is horrible at price drops.

If you are referring to PS3 prices...nothing has been officially announced yet!!

Yes, but system price is fucking $600 and come on games are all but confirmed to be $60 or more. $35 for a DS game is pretty fair given its a cart and a damn small one at that, and $20 for GBA again isnt that bad. And Nintendo does take too long to lower prices on their games and then to lower to $30 is a bit messed. But come on its a laugh to try and compare a $600 system with $60-$100 games to a $200-$250 one with $50 games(hell there are even rumors of games costing $40 on Wii).

[Z-Saber]

One of you is arguing that Nintendo's current pricing model sucks. The other is arguing that Sony's future pricing model sucks.

Sort it out, nubs.

[whoknows]

Yes, but system price is fucking $600 and come on games are all but confirmed to be $60 or more. $35 for a DS game is pretty fair given its a cart and a damn small one at that, and $20 for GBA again isnt that bad. And Nintendo does take too long to lower prices on their games and then to lower to $30 is a bit messed. But come on its a laugh to try and compare a $600 system with $60-$100 games to a $200-$250 one with $50 games(hell there are even rumors of games costing $40 on Wii).
I'd rather have $60 games that drop down to $20 after a few months than $50 or even $40 games that stay that price for over a year.

[MSI Magus]

One of you is arguing that Nintendo's current pricing model sucks. The other is arguing that Sony's future pricing model sucks.

Sort it out, nubs.

Ermmmm Nintendos is a minor problem though its nothing major. Sonys is a seriously major problem.

And whoknows that makes no sense. Honestly, think about it, if the gams raise in value by $10 chances are the greatest hit prices will to. That means $30 games. You will be spending $600 for your console while I pay $200 then you pay $30 for your used games after a years wait to drop in price.

Sounds good.

[sarausagi]

Yes, but system price is fucking $600 and come on games are all but confirmed to be $60 or more. $35 for a DS game is pretty fair given its a cart and a damn small one at that, and $20 for GBA again isnt that bad. And Nintendo does take too long to lower prices on their games and then to lower to $30 is a bit messed. But come on its a laugh to try and compare a $600 system with $60-$100 games to a $200-$250 one with $50 games(hell there are even rumors of games costing $40 on Wii).

I can buy a microsd card with 512 MB of space for $20, a 2 GB SD card for $40, the space to size ratio isn't an excuse for the price of DS games at all. Considering the low polygon counts on games, plus the length of most DS game, it's not worth it. There's still no "Pokemon" or "Zelda" that I can buy full price on release date and keep playing for the next year and a half.

That $600 system can still do MORE to ENTERTAIN me straight out of the box than the Wii can. Unless the Wii is magically going to play two generations of games, DVD's, Blu Ray's, and who knows what else without even being hooked up to the internet or purchasing accesories, then there's no logic to the Wii being better besides "Oooh, PS3 is $600!" A decent entry/mid level keyboard can cost around $1000, all it does is reproduce sounds and emulate instruments. A half way decent LCD monitor is still $300, maybe a little less. A complete outfit can cost me $600 if I splurge, and it's just fucking clothes and some make up and a cheap pair of earrings.

Wii sports and Super Mario Galaxy will still cost $30-50 three years from release. I'll probably be able to buy the entire PS3 launch library for $100 total about a year after. You can't say it's the quality of the games that keeps the prices high, because Mario Party 6 and Luigi's Mansion sure aren't worth anything more than the dozens of A list games available NEW for $14.99 and $19.99 on PS2. A newbie to the PS2 can still buy a system, spend $60 on games, and have more than enough to play for the whole year.

[Z-Saber]

I stopped reading right...
Unless the Wii is magically going to play two generations of gamesthere.

[MSI Magus]

I can buy a microsd card with 512 MB of space for $20, a 2 GB SD card for $40, the space to size ratio isn't an excuse for the price of DS games at all. Considering the low polygon counts on games, plus the length of most DS game, it's not worth it. There's still no "Pokemon" or "Zelda" that I can buy full price on release date and keep playing for the next year and a half.

That $600 system can still do MORE to ENTERTAIN me straight out of the box than the Wii can. Unless the Wii is magically going to play two generations of games, DVD's, Blu Ray's, and who knows what else without even being hooked up to the internet or purchasing accesories, then there's no logic to the Wii being better besides "Oooh, PS3 is $600!" A decent entry/mid level keyboard can cost around $1000, all it does is reproduce sounds and emulate instruments. A half way decent LCD monitor is still $300, maybe a little less. A complete outfit can cost me $600 if I splurge, and it's just fucking clothes and some make up and a cheap pair of earrings.

Wii sports and Super Mario Galaxy will still cost $30-50 three years from release. I'll probably be able to buy the entire PS3 launch library for $100 total about a year after. You can't say it's the quality of the games that keeps the prices high, because Mario Party 6 and Luigi's Mansion sure aren't worth anything more than the dozens of A list games available NEW for $14.99 and $19.99 on PS2. A newbie to the PS2 can still buy a system, spend $60 on games, and have more than enough to play for the whole year.

1. Those $20-$40 cards store data.....DS cards play games. Big difference.

2. The Wii plays GC games out the box as well as DS/GBA games thus it plays 3 generations, 4 if you include Wii generation out the box. Plus if you think about it you can do virtual console which adds countless generations. Learn your facts.

3. Blu Ray is hicking up pricing. Pretty much when you buy a PS3 you are buying a Blue Ray player not getting one for free. So you saying it plays Blue Rays is kinda stupid. Besides who gives a shit outside rich preppy spoiled brats and the rare tech nut. Honestly DVDs are fine and Blue Ray might not even win the format war meaning your Blu Ray player is useless after a year.

4. I stopped reading when you started talking about how much you spend on stuff. Your just a spoiled rich kid who doesnt understand the value of a dollar or what money means to most people.

[whoknows]

Ermmmm Nintendos is a minor problem though its nothing major. Sonys is a seriously major problem.

And whoknows that makes no sense. Honestly, think about it, if the gams raise in value by $10 chances are the greatest hit prices will to. That means $30 games. You will be spending $600 for your console while I pay $200 then you pay $30 for your used games after a years wait to drop in price.

Sounds good.
Doesnt have to be a greatest hit to be $20, Perfect Dark Zero is $19.99 at many places now and its not a platinum hit right now, not even a year since it was released and a lot of 360 game go for $60. I wont have to wait years for the $30 pricepoint on PS3 games either, evey systems games drop fairly quickly except Nintendo's. I'll wont even have to wait a year for PS3 price drops while with a Nintendo console I would be waiting 2+ years for it to get on the Players Choice list and most likely with a $30 price tag.

[furyk]

Doesnt have to be a greatest hit to be $20, Perfect Dark Zero is $19.99 at many places now and its not a platinum hit right now, not even a year since it was released and a lot of 360 game go for $60. I wont have to wait years for the $30 pricepoint on PS3 games either, evey systems games drop fairly quickly except Nintendo's. I'll wont even have to wait a year for PS3 price drops while with a Nintendo console I would be waiting 2+ years for it to get on the Players Choice list and most likely with a $30 price tag.

But Perfect Dark Zero sucked. The 30 dollar price point will probably come on the most disappointing launch games. If you think MGS IV is going to be less then 60 in half a year though, you're smoking something. As far as Nintendo goes, their pricing structure sucks for games, but DS games drop in price like stones after they're released (even if it is Target, Circuit City, or TRU who's putting them on sale). Plus there's the whole thing that the console costs TWICE AS MUCH!!! And that's assuming the Wii gets the price of $250 and you pick up the game at "cheap" version. Also, you're not considering the potential added cost of downloads. Even at a $20 price point, a game like Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter or Elder Scrolls IV still has an extra 10-20 hidden in add-ons.

My guess is that the greatest hits line will be jacked up to $30 and included most of the stuff you'd typically pay for through the microtransactions to justify the price hike. You're kidding yourself if you think you're spending less money in any way by picking up the PS3 rather then a Wii.

[Z-Saber]

2. The Wii plays GC games out the box as well as DS/GBAWait, what?

[MSI Magus]

Doesnt have to be a greatest hit to be $20, Perfect Dark Zero is $19.99 at many places now and its not a platinum hit right now, not even a year since it was released and a lot of 360 game go for $60. I wont have to wait years for the $30 pricepoint on PS3 games either, evey systems games drop fairly quickly except Nintendo's. I'll wont even have to wait a year for PS3 price drops while with a Nintendo console I would be waiting 2+ years for it to get on the Players Choice list and most likely with a $30 price tag.


Yes.....and you are going by SECOND/THIRD party titles for a non Sony system. If you use your head and stopped being such a biased fanboy you would recognize that Nintendos FIRST party games are the only ones that have had this problem. Third and second party games have dropped very fast. Even some first party titles like Pikmin, Luigi Mansion and again all third parties dropped really fast, hell I often bought GC versions of multi console games like BloodRayne and Baldurs Gate DA because they were cheaper then counter parts on other systems.

Again try setting your bias aside. As someone else said you are going by Nintendo official prices and new games. If you freaking just look at third party games and retailers other then ebgames you will find Nintendos games just as cheap if not cheaper.

ZSaber - Nintendo said not long ago that the Wii will play DS games and actually be able to do it with the Wii controller. Maybe this will be via a add on to the system or something but it will apparently will be able to do it.

[hufferstl]

worst.thread.ever.

[Z-Saber]

ZSaber - Nintendo said not long ago that the Wii will play DS games and actually be able to do it with the Wii controller. Maybe this will be via a add on to the system or something but it will apparently will be able to do it.I'm going to ask for a link. I never heard anything about this and I've been following Wii news intently.

[MSI Magus]

I'm going to ask for a link. I never heard anything about this and I've been following Wii news intently.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060607-7009.html

Not exactly a reliable source but thats just a google check. I know it was at gamesarefun.com or magicbox.com a few weeks ago but Im not about to search through weeks of news to find it.

Edit - BTW I should clarify that in my origional post that I didnt mean to suggest that the Wii will play DS games without owning a DS. That obviously wont be the case but my post probally did sound like thats what I was saying.

[camoor]

LoL

http://angrysonyfanboy.ytmnd.com/

[mtxbass1]

LoL

http://angrysonyfanboy.ytmnd.com/

:rofl: :rofl:

[Kaijufan]

LoL

http://angrysonyfanboy.ytmnd.com/
:lol:
That's great.

[whoknows]

LoL

http://angrysonyfanboy.ytmnd.com/
Sounds like 90% of the people on this site.

[captainfrizo]

LoL

http://angrysonyfanboy.ytmnd.com/

That's classic.

I don't see Sony selling games for $100, it's unreasonable for the vast majority of consumers. I think games will be between $60 to $80 (for the "Limited/Special Edition" releases), and some "bargain" titles falling around $50 when they are released.

After a few months retailers will drop the prices like they always do and we'll start seeing games that the $40-$60 range and even cheaper down the road. No matter how high the initial price is it will drop over time.

[guthriekj]

100$ a game is pretty damn ridiculous. but... don't any of you remember how much nintendo and super nintendo games were when they first came out forever ago? they were around 100$ a game. soo.. you cant bitch too much. but it's totally not worth the money for just a video game when you could have just as much fun playing another game for another system thats 1/4 the price aka wii

[guthriekj]

everyone look at this it is very insightful

http://curmudgeongamer.com/2006/05/history-of-console-prices-or-500-aint.html