Sony PS3 games to be 59.99-99.99? WTF???
- Thread starter LinkinPrime
- Start date
[quote name='slidecage']hell people paid 99.99 for that car racing game on the 32x. Why not PS3 games : )
[/QUOTE]
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.
[/QUOTE]
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
CAGiversary!
[quote name='VanillaGorilla']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.[/QUOTE]
HAha he can put it next to hais launch version of Steel Batallion with controller
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.[/QUOTE]
HAha he can put it next to hais launch version of Steel Batallion with controller
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
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 12 (100%)
They're most likely gonna be $70, which is 
ing outrageous.
Sony's the king of overpriced crap.
ing outrageous.Sony's the king of overpriced crap.
VanillaGorilla
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 18 (100%)
[quote name='Daddy']HAha he can put it next to hais launch version of Steel Batallion with controller[/quote]
"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?
"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?
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]
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.
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.
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]
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
[quote name='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?
[/QUOTE]
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.
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[quote name='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?
[/QUOTE]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.
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]
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.
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.[/QUOTE]
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.
[quote name='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?[/QUOTE]
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 beed 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.
Considering that games back in the mid 90's cost $60-$70 each, aren't we making out like bandits?
[/QUOTE]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
ed 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
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
$59 is no shocker, they ask for the same price for 360's horrid selection.
V
Virtua
Guest
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 mutherer. Less is what you want to emphasize.
Genious PR answer. Kaz is a slippery muther
er. Less is what you want to emphasize.
PrivatePixel
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 2 (100%)
[quote name='Vinny']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.[/quote]
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)
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.
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)
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.
[quote name='PrivatePixel']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).[/QUOTE]
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.
Sonyed up. They made a tarded 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.
(* flat fee that applies to each and every third-party publisher).[/QUOTE]
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
ed up. They made a tarded 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
CAGiversary!
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
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 8 (100%)
[quote name='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. [/QUOTE]
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.
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
.
Predator21281
CAGiversary!
I do to now.Reality's Fringe;2001690 said: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
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]
*Saves spot for future bitching when price point becomes official*
*Saves spot for future bitching when price point becomes official*
niceguyshawne
CAGiversary!
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
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 5 (100%)
[quote name='RedvsBlue']
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![/QUOTE]
Uh, Sony has $10 cheaper first party games also, the only company that doesn't is Nintendo...
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![/QUOTE]
Uh, Sony has $10 cheaper first party games also, the only company that doesn't is Nintendo...
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.
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.
yeldarb367
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 61 (100%)
I'm not surprised.
GuilewasNK
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 110 (100%)
[quote name='Scorch']For any system or just PS3? I still remember seeing Virtua Racing for Sega Genesis for $110 when it came out.[/quote]
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.
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
CAG Newbie
[quote name='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[/QUOTE]
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.....
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[/QUOTE]
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.....
[quote name='62t']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.[/quote]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
CAGiversary!
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
CAGiversary!
[quote name='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![/quote]
Agreed. I'd even venture forth it as being $60-70.
Agreed. I'd even venture forth it as being $60-70.
RegalSin2020
Banned
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.
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.
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]
*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.
*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.
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.
I didn't mean to digress this thread, but I see this claim everywhere yet it never actually happened, not where I lived anyway.
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]
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.
I didn't mean to digress this thread, but I see this claim everywhere yet it never actually happened, not where I lived anyway.[/QUOTE]
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.
[quote name='MSI Magus']*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.[/QUOTE]
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.
*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.[/QUOTE]
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.
V
Virtua
Guest
PS3 games won't cost me a dime, because i'm not buying any. Problem solved.
Quackzilla
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 5 (100%)
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).
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
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 5 (100%)
But seriously, you people need to shut the up and actualy read the shit you posted.
YOu are arguing like this is an epic battle that your lives depend on.
IT IS AING VIDEOGAME SYSTEM!
How pathetic do you have to be to wageing jihad over a videogame system?
Go to hell.
Especially "MSI Magus", you are the most pathetic one here. What the is your problem? Did Sony shoot your dad and ass-rape your mother?
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
ING VIDEOGAME SYSTEM! How pathetic do you have to be to wage
ing jihad over a videogame system? Go to hell.
Especially "MSI Magus", you are the most pathetic one here. What the
is your problem? Did Sony shoot your dad and ass-rape your mother?[quote name='MSI Magus']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.
Sonyed up. They made a tarded 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.[/QUOTE]
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.
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
ed up. They made a tarded 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.[/QUOTE]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.
bread's done