×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Sony Hints At Higher Priced Games

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the looking-forward-to-eighty-dollar-games dept.

335

Sony's Kaz Hirai hints that, in addition to the $600 console, we may have even more expensive games to look forward to. From the Gamasutra article: "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."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

335 comments

Already too Expensive (5, Interesting)

bailout911 (143530) | more than 7 years ago | (#15630736)

Games are already too expensive as it is, which is one reason I quit playing them about 2 years ago. I can get a lot more enjoyment out of $60 doing something outside or with friends and family than I can spending hours in the basement mashing buttons.

Re:Already too Expensive (5, Informative)

26reverse (305980) | more than 7 years ago | (#15630879)

Agreed. That's the main reason I troll the "budget" software bins nowadays. There are a lot of great games out there if you're okay with "less than stellar" graphics. Graphics improve over time... but a good storyline is always a good storyline.

As such - I just (finally?) nabbed a copy of Baldur's Gate 2 with expansion for $10. Rise of Nations is also "budget" now... and their single-player mode really adds more than the typical "keep replaying random map".

Re:Already too Expensive (3, Interesting)

StarvingSE (875139) | more than 7 years ago | (#15630994)

I hear you brother. I never pay full price for games anymore. For the PC, I always wait for that magical $19.99 price point that seems to occur pretty much a year after release (unless it does exceptionally well). It also slows down that "I gotta upgrade" itch when you purchase a new release and it looks less than stellar on your machine.

I also troll the local gamestops for good used PS2 games. Recently purchased God of War for around $14.99 used. While I enjoy the game, I would have felt very disappointed if I had paid full price for it.

Re:Already too Expensive (2, Insightful)

voice_of_all_reason (926702) | more than 7 years ago | (#15631251)

Sir, you are a genius.

It's amazing how easy it is to afford 3 systems at once and new games 2 or 3 times a week -- if, at this point, you are just discovering Xbox and Gamecube (like me)

Re:Already too Expensive (1)

Lance_Denmark (985878) | more than 7 years ago | (#15631005)

I second that. A combination of endless turkeys and high prices resulted in me becoming a very casual gamer. I can't think of too many other successful products (natural resources excluded) that have managed to get more expensive over time. I still think Sony will shift a fair few PS3's to the fanboys and 14 year old crowd simply because 'it's Sony' and parents will buy them for Christmas, however those same 14 year olds may lose interest when they struggle to buy a game every 2 months without having to 'save'. Difficult to see the PS3 bettering either of the previous outings.

Re:Already too Expensive (3, Insightful)

spun (1352) | more than 7 years ago | (#15631139)

I just play two year old games I find in the bargain bin for under $30. Often they come with one or more expansion packs and are pre-patched. I don't have to spend insane amounts of cash on a gaming rig, either. And hey, the games are still new to me.

Great idea (5, Insightful)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 7 years ago | (#15630758)

When people are outraged at the price of your console, tell them you'll charge more for the games too. Sure. I'd like to know where that guy learned marketing.

Might be their perspective (5, Insightful)

springbox (853816) | more than 7 years ago | (#15631097)

I almost get the idea that in Sony's own world this is somehow being presented to "hype" the console. The wording of these articles are priceless since I was honestly expecting someone (from the article) to try and explain how this is a good thing. (as in: PS3 = Fancy resturant, games = fancy desserts.) I am not sure how continuing to leak information about the high cost of the system is going to help Sony.

Even so, it would seem as if there are some fans who would still buy the system and games even if they continued to raise the price.

Re:Might be their perspective (2, Insightful)

rtaylor (70602) | more than 7 years ago | (#15631686)

I am not sure how continuing to leak information about the high cost of the system is going to help Sony.

If everybody thinks it will be $600 then you can put it out at $500 (still most expensive) and call it 20% off.

Works for clothing stores (200% markup, 25% off sale moves product pretty quickly).

Re:Great idea (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15631390)

"I'd like to know where that guy learned marketing."

Where the people at Sony learned marketing?

Let's see, they have dimwitted little fanboys like yourself in a post/mod circle jerk with other fanboys screaming about high prices on console/computer discussion boards all over the Net.

And then November comes and the real prices show up.

You've been played you stupid bitch.

And not only are you not going to get paid for helping Sony sell millions more Playstations when the next gen starts in November, you aren't even going to get an 'atta boy dummy!'

Re:Great idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15631600)

This is the closest you'll ever get to sleeping with a woman (and I don't mean that in a good way) www.fleshlight.com

Now, when Microsoft said they were charging $100 more for their system and $10 more per game I (and most people I know) said that we were unwilling to pay that much for our hobby; Sony is asking $300 more for the system and at least $10 more per game, what do you think will happen to them?

That's right ... the same thing you'll never do with a woman.

What are they thinking? (5, Interesting)

gforce811 (903907) | more than 7 years ago | (#15630796)

Sony has stated they have no real answer for Halo 3. Sony's tech demos and specs were less than overwhelming. Even Microsoft, who seemed to enjoy rising with Sony to the top during the last console generation, has come out to say that they're siding with Nintendo (alright, not literally, but you know what I mean). Finally, sony announces that they will most likely raise prices a 'bit' above the already high $59.

Someone's smoking something, and if it screws up their logic this badly, I might just want some.

Re:What are they thinking? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15630900)

Even Microsoft, who seemed to enjoy rising with Sony to the top during the last console generation, has come out to say that they're siding with Nintendo (alright, not literally, but you know what I mean)./blockquote
No, I have no idea what you mean. In what sense did Microsoft "enjoy rising with Sony to the top during the last console generation"? Microsoft were nowhere near the top. They didn't completely and utterly fail in gaining market share, but that's about the best that could be said for them. And in what sense have they even figuratively said that they're "siding with Nintendo"? What does that mean?

Re:What are they thinking? (1)

jschul (794880) | more than 7 years ago | (#15630981)

On the "siding with nintendo" comment. It was one of the lead Xbox 360 team said something to the effect of "We think a lot of households will own both a xbox 360 and a Nintendo Wii" implying that you could buy both systems for less than a PS3.

Re:What are they thinking? (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 7 years ago | (#15630998)

Sony has stated they have no real answer for Halo 3.

I don't think it hurt them this gen. MS has no answer to Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy, to pick an arbitrary example, so they even out (in fact I'd guess DQ and FF represent a lot more selling power).

Re:What are they thinking? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15631102)

Blue Dragon [ign.com] seems like a good answer to FF series. (Especially since it's made by the company founded by the same person.)

Re:What are they thinking? (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 7 years ago | (#15631317)

I'd doubt that. There are several games that are superior to the FF and DQ games in every respect but they don't sell better. Brand names are a big factor in this.

Re:What are they thinking? (4, Informative)

Kazzahdrane (882423) | more than 7 years ago | (#15631021)

I won't bother with converting the currencies but here in the UK new Xbox 360 games (with the exception of pretty much just Rockstar Table Tennis) cost £49.99 in stores. I work in a games store and we've been told that PS3 games are likely to cost "between 50 and 70 pounds".

Who do Sony think they're kidding? If a game costs as much as £70 I think a lot of people are going to look at our price of £99.99 for a DS Lite and a game and think "Woah, I'm being screwed".

Re:What are they thinking? (1)

kalirion (728907) | more than 7 years ago | (#15631728)

I won't bother with converting the currencies but here in the UK new Xbox 360 games (with the exception of pretty much just Rockstar Table Tennis) cost £49.99 in stores

Wow, $90 American (thanks google!) I'm damn glad I don't live in the UK. Of course I don't buy console games anyway, but I'm guessing these prices reflect on PC games as well.

Re:What are they thinking? (1)

ClamIAm (926466) | more than 7 years ago | (#15631371)

Sony has stated they have no real answer for Halo 3.

Halo 3 is not an "answer" to Sony, or anything else for that matter. This is one game series here, and a pretty niche one at that. Did Halo 1 & 2 make the Xbox profitable? No. Did they break new ground in the FPS genre? Not really.

Even Microsoft, who seemed to enjoy rising with Sony to the top during the last console generation

Let's look at the numbers. Microsoft moved a few more Xboxes than Nintendo did Gamecubes, yet they lost billions of dollars. I would not call that "rising to the top".

Re:What are they thinking? (3, Insightful)

blueZhift (652272) | more than 7 years ago | (#15631438)

At this point, they'd better not do too much air travel with that stuff in their veins or they'll be arrested. Seriously, Sony seems to be doing all they can to nuke the PS3 launch. Expensive console + expensive games + another confusing format war != success in the marketplace. Assuming they are not high or insane, then that just leaves full of hubris. They must really think they own the market and can do whatever they want. If so, they're about to find out that hype and fanbois/fangrrls cannot carry a console.

Re:What are they thinking? (1)

thatguywhoiam (524290) | more than 7 years ago | (#15631528)

Sony's tech demos and specs were less than overwhelming.

Um, what?! Whether 'rigged' or not, the Killzone demo was easily, easily the most impressive game demo at E3.

Re:What are they thinking? (3, Informative)

The-Bus (138060) | more than 7 years ago | (#15631711)

Sony showed a movie of Killzone over a year ago at E3 2005. The movie was so good it had many people wonder if it was pre-rendered; that is, not made on a PS3. This year, there was no new information, no playable game, no new footage, and Guerilla (the developer) didn't even mention it. Not in the pre-expo press releases, no on-floor demo, nothing behind closed doors. Killzone, if it exists, was nowhere to be seen.

Now as far as the grandparent post is considered, saying something like "Sony has no answer for Halo 3" is useless. Sony had no answer for Halo or Halo 2 and the PS2 was still the top console in this past generation. Which makes me think that no matter how great Gears of War is, it's not going to convert too many people since if you're a big FPS fan you already have or plan to own an Xbox or Xbox 360 (or you have a nice PC rig).

Re:What are they thinking? (2, Interesting)

happyemoticon (543015) | more than 7 years ago | (#15631672)

Basically, what they're doing is shooting themselves in the foot with good ol' fashioned Sony internal collusion coupled with braindead premises. They are falsely assuming that the success of the PS3 is not in question, and tying its success to Blu-Ray's on that premise.

The PS2's success, in my mind, was a factor of its large library of games, backwards compatibility, earlier launch date and relative cheapness compared to the XBox. The PS3 is more expensive, is delayed indefinitely, and does not exclusively hold the title to backwards compatibility. Given the fact that they put a freakin' 8-way CPU in there, they might have significant difficulty courting developers. I'm not a graphics guy, but you'd need a lot of Japanese hookers to convince me to write for that beast.

So basically, the success of Blu-ray is entirely dependent on the number of brothels Sony owns.

Oh, give it to me, give it to me! (4, Funny)

Jerf (17166) | more than 7 years ago | (#15630798)

The Sony Playstation S&M: Sony's got the "S" covered, guess where that leaves you?

Re:Oh, give it to me, give it to me! (1)

Kookus (653170) | more than 7 years ago | (#15630876)

Me?

Re:Oh, give it to me, give it to me! (1)

Jerf (17166) | more than 7 years ago | (#15630942)

Ask your mom to explain "S&M" to you.

(Sorry, "your mom" jokes are like the lowest form of humor, but boy did you walk into this one.)

Re:Oh, give it to me, give it to me! (1)

jizziknight (976750) | more than 7 years ago | (#15630938)

Assuming S&M == Slave & Master, and preserving the left and right hand sides' roles, that makes Sony the slave and you the master, which I doubt is what you were going for.

Re:Oh, give it to me, give it to me! (3, Informative)

Jerf (17166) | more than 7 years ago | (#15630971)

Hmmm, is this a legitimate expansion of that acronym now?

I know it as "Sadism [www.m-w.com] & Masochism [www.m-w.com] ".

Re:Oh, give it to me, give it to me! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15631092)

I was thinking "sales" and "marketing". Well, they did screw up the marketing!

Re:Oh, give it to me, give it to me! (1)

jizziknight (976750) | more than 7 years ago | (#15631111)

Either is acceptable. That was me being an.. um... ass. Yeah, an ass. My apologies.

Re:Oh, give it to me, give it to me! (1)

Alzheimers (467217) | more than 7 years ago | (#15631684)

A Sadist and a Masochist are making love.

The Masochist moans, "Hurt me!"

The Sadist replies, "No."

Re:Oh, give it to me, give it to me! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15630990)

I think he meant it in the form of BDSM, so 'S' would be 'Sadism' and 'M' would be 'Machiosim'. Which are the enjoyment of giving and recieving pain, repectively.

Which works quite well in context...

Re:Oh, give it to me, give it to me! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15631108)

He was going for the obvious definition. Sadism, Masochism. And to be blunt: If you didn't know that you schould go back to school. If that was a joke you only have to redo the "how to be funny" courses.

Marketer speak (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15630806)

I don't expect it to be $100
In marketing terms, this means some games will be $99.99. Screw that.

Wait, you mean it will play GAMES, too? (1, Troll)

Rimbo (139781) | more than 7 years ago | (#15630845)

Wow! Based on the E3 showing, I thought I'd only be able to watch the much-delayed worse-than-HDDVD [thedigitalbits.com] Blu-Ray and download from the currently non-existent online service on it!

Wow! I really do get to pay more to do less with Sony! I can't wait.

Re:Wait, you mean it will play GAMES, too? (5, Insightful)

Volante3192 (953645) | more than 7 years ago | (#15630960)

Well, since you read TDB, I'm sure you caught this comment ( http://www.thedigitalbits.com/mytwocentsa122.html# comp [thedigitalbits.com] ) where they found out it's the HDMI interface on the Samsung that causes the problems; switching to component placed Blu-Ray nearly on par with HD-DVD.

Hopefully they'll get that fixed before companies start enforcing the downsample flag...

Re:Wait, you mean it will play GAMES, too? (1)

Rimbo (139781) | more than 7 years ago | (#15631153)

Actually, I'd missed that; thanks for pointing it out!

Also (5, Funny)

jayhawk88 (160512) | more than 7 years ago | (#15630858)

When you buy a PS3, someone from Sony will come and kill your puppy or kitty. If you do not have a puppy or kitty, one will be assigned to you, and then it will be killed.

Re:Also (2, Funny)

TheUnknown (90519) | more than 7 years ago | (#15631676)

May I choose which one? I would like the kitty to be killed. At least the puppy might be useful when it's older :-)

Hit games shouldn't be expensive, except early (3, Insightful)

192939495969798999 (58312) | more than 7 years ago | (#15630861)

If it's a super hit game, then charging $100 on the first day or for pre-release is only good economics -- if there are people willing to pay that much, why not? You can always drop the price later, while increasing it later will definitely sting more. Granted, I would prefer to not see any games over $50, I know that the market is just so high now that if a console is $600 when it used to be $100, then games are probably pushing $100 or even $150 for it! Now if you're dumb enough to buy madden 20XX supreme ultra plus edition for $100, then you deserve to be disappointed if it turns out to be "Yet Another Football Game".

Re:Hit games shouldn't be expensive, except early (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 7 years ago | (#15631224)

Game prices are fixed for the most part. Prices don't vary based on the quality of the game so you'd see 100$ for both the super hits and the total crap. In fact I'd say that in many cases the publisher itself doesn't know that the game isn't a top-level title. Also considering the usual price decay times a game would be completely irrelevant by the time it drops below those 100$. As a result I'd expect a severe drop in software sales should a price in the 70-100$ range become the norm. 60 is too much but I think people will be able to get used to that. OTOH, I'd say 50 is too much as well and games should get in line with the other forms of media and charge 20-30$ a piece new. After all movies manage to make a profit at lower prices despite much larger budgets.

By the way, home consoles were never below 200$ at launch. Later drops, sure but not from day one.

Re:Hit games shouldn't be expensive, except early (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 7 years ago | (#15631240)

If it's a super hit game, then charging $100 on the first day or for pre-release is only good economics -- if there are people willing to pay that much, why not?

Because it colors the perceptions of those who think $100 is a ludicrous amount, so that even after you lower the price they won't buy your product because you've already turned them off?

Like-a-so:
"$100 for a game?! No way!"

"Hey, remember that $100 game? It's now only $70!"
"That's still expensive, not that I care. I bought a 360."

But other than that, no reason not to have $100 games at all.

Re:Hit games shouldn't be expensive, except early (4, Insightful)

Control Group (105494) | more than 7 years ago | (#15631312)

You have to be real careful with this sort of thing.

You really don't want to train people to know that you're going to drop the price of something within a few weeks. It's one thing to know that you could wait a year and spend $30 to get the game you're about to spend $50 on. It's another thing entirely to know that you could wait a month and spend $50 to get the game you're about to spend $80 on.

A lot more people will be willing to wait month to save $30 than a year to save $20. All you're going to do, ultimately, is drive down sales within the first few weeks of release.

It would probably work for the first couple games they did it with, sure...but even the American buying public would catch on to quick follow-on price drops. Note how, even today, MS denies that they have any plans to drop the price on the 360 when the PS3 launches, despite the fact that it's so painfully obvious that anyone with two neurons firing in synch is pretty sure they will.

But you never, ever, want people to believe (much less know) that the thing they're about to buy will be cheaper just a little bit down the road.

The Mystical Marketing Gun of Sony (4, Funny)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 7 years ago | (#15630873)

Description: This cursed weapon deals +3 damage against wielder's own feet.

Price: Credibility and market share.

Weight penalty: Ponderous, especially to those with foot damage.

Thanks for clearing that up. (1)

jizziknight (976750) | more than 7 years ago | (#15630884)

So somewhere between $59 and $100. Gotcha. Seeing as games have pretty much gone up by $10 or so every generation or so, I'm betting the PS3 games will be somwhere around $70 to $80. Unless there's twice as much gameplay in those games as every other game being released (doubtful), there's no way a single game is worth that much money.

Re:Thanks for clearing that up. (1)

Gr33nNight (679837) | more than 7 years ago | (#15631083)

This is a load of crap. Games most certainly have not gone up $10 every gen. I remember purchasing Final Fantasy for the NES for $50, plus a load of other games. The SNES brought more expensive titles like Phantasy Star 4 which was $80. PSX and N64 were all $50-$60, and then the PS2/XBox/GC were all the same. This is just another money grab by Sony.

Re:Thanks for clearing that up. (1)

aichpvee (631243) | more than 7 years ago | (#15631172)

Phantasy Star 4 (like all the Phantasy Stars) was made by Sega, and it was released for Genesis. But your general point is still valid. I believe Chrono Trigger was 80$ when I bought it. There were a lot of 60-80$ games on SNES.

It's also arguable that the prices have gone up since then, though. Since Nintendo (and probably Sega too, though they don't have nearly the reputation for doing it) jacked up the prices on the cartridges. I believe it was reported that it cost like 20-30$ PER UNIT to publishers just for the hardware. A DVD game costs what, a dollar to print and package?

Re:Thanks for clearing that up. (1)

falcon5768 (629591) | more than 7 years ago | (#15631311)

Nintendo and Sega never jacked up the prices of those carts by their own free will. Carts cost a LOT of money to make. Game Over estimated it cost manufacturers almost 3/4th of the price of the game on the cart it was loaded on alone, the other 1/4 being game development and profit.

This price was why even Nintendo was looking to CDs (with Nintendos Play Station, what ended up becoming Sony's Playstation when nintendo dropped the project) Nintendo never followed through till the GC simply because it didnt feel CD tech had gotten far enough to make seemless play, which it was truthful about, other than audio carts WHERE better graphically and eliminated loadtime.

Re:Thanks for clearing that up. (1)

aichpvee (631243) | more than 7 years ago | (#15631465)

Nintendo turned a profit on the cartridge hardware. If they'd allowed publishers to produce carts themseleves it would have lowered the prices on third party games.

And I think you mean "WERE". Load times were a clear advantage with cartridges, but they didn't enhance the games "graphically".

Re:Thanks for clearing that up. (1)

Cadallin (863437) | more than 7 years ago | (#15631627)

Technically they did on N64. Largely because accessing a cart is so fast, you can treat it as a somewhat lower speed texture cache. See "Indiana Jones and the Infernal Machine" for an example of this.

Re:Thanks for clearing that up. (1)

jizziknight (976750) | more than 7 years ago | (#15631205)

There's always a few exceptions, jenius (mispelling intentional). I also said every gen OR SO, which would imply a skippage of certain gens. I also remember the N64 games being $40-$50, not $50-$60. Perhaps my memory is fuzzy, but I do remember games increasing in price with each new system I bought. Of course you could take inflation into account, blah blah blah. Whatever.

However, I do agree it's a money grab unless the blu-ray media really is going to cost $20 more than DVDs. Note that I am not defending Sony. I'm a Nintendo fanboy at heart, and as such, I'll be completely ignoring the PS3, mostly ignoring the 360, and buying a Wii.

You know... (1)

lpangelrob (714473) | more than 7 years ago | (#15630903)

...to give them just a little bit of credit, it's better to find this out now than to see the must-have launch title magically appear on the shelf for USD$79.

Stands to reason (2, Interesting)

monopole (44023) | more than 7 years ago | (#15630909)

Given their grave concern that the PS3 isn't expensive enough, it's a short jump to being concerned that the games don't cost enough either.

So, two games will buy a Wii, one and a half get a DS lite. Apparently Sony has taken the "There is only one PS3" slogan to heart, literally. If they sell one I'll be astounded.

Re:Stands to reason (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15631196)

They're going to sell at least one, unless they've flat-out lied about the capabilities of the machine. That said, it's looking questionable whether I'll be buying any actual games for it, which (if rumor of the PS3 selling at a loss is correct) wouldn't exactly do them any favors.

Re:Stands to reason (1)

Zardus (464755) | more than 7 years ago | (#15631552)

My wife and I were in Bookman's yesterday and we saw a 3DO for $45. She was amazed they even sold one, considering the console's initial price. I can't help but think (and hope) that that's what will happen to the PS3. Very much looking forward to seeing a PS3 up there in 10 or so years and thinking "Oh wow, I remember how stupid THAT company was.."

No he didn't hint at anything (3, Informative)

Kohath (38547) | more than 7 years ago | (#15630920)

This article is flat-out misleading.

He was asked about prices going higher. He didn't bring it up. He didn't say they would go higher. He didn't hint they would go higher. He meerly refused to rule it out as a possibility in an uncertain future.

Oh yes he DID, girlfriend! (1)

fujiman (912957) | more than 7 years ago | (#15631130)

The proper PR response to that question (which is the gaming equivalent of "Are you still beating your wife") -- Is to say NOTHING(TM).

If you say the games will cost between 60 and 100 dollars, guess what the "take away" from that statement is.

Of course in a day or two, Sony will realize they should have said nothing, and do some damage control.

Yellow Card, Sony. PR foul.

Re:No he didn't hint at anything (1)

fistfullast33l (819270) | more than 7 years ago | (#15631136)

And you didn't come to expect that Slashdot would spin it this way already? There are two things that are absolutely sacred right now on this site: Apple and Nintendo. Criticize either and you're automatically modded flamebait or troll. Compliment either and you're +5 Interesting and Insightful. And god forbid we talk about their rivals in a good way. Sony has definitely screwed up with their pricing, but I've seen people say the PSP is dead when it's far from it. I've also seen them who attack anyone who claims the Apple Intel offerings have problems (which they do [slashdot.org] ). Personally, I'm sick and tired of the fanboys. Let's not analyze each and every statement that comes from some Sony shill as the second coming of the apocolypse, okay? Sony isn't going to offer every game at $90 a pop. They may be cocky, but they're not stupid.

Re:No he didn't hint at anything (1)

Kohath (38547) | more than 7 years ago | (#15631215)

And you didn't come to expect that Slashdot would spin it this way already?

No surprise.

It's still worth pointing out that the article is essentially dishonest.

Re:No he didn't hint at anything (-1, Offtopic)

SpectreHiro (961765) | more than 7 years ago | (#15631449)

There are two things that are absolutely sacred right now on this site: Apple and Nintendo.

About that... I don't have anything against either Apple or Nintendo, and in fact, I think both companies market some pretty nice products. They're not products that I particularly want to buy, but I could definitely see how someone else would.

On the other hand, if someone happens to be a die-hard fan of Apple and Nintendo, I'm pretty sure he's gay. I don't mean that in the pejorative schoolyard way, but in the honest-to-goodness "sleeps with men" way. *shrug*

When someone starts going on passionately about Zelda or his MacBook, am I the only one that starts suspecting he might be a little light in the loafers?

Make the comparison then (3, Insightful)

Ahnteis (746045) | more than 7 years ago | (#15631472)

Nintendo has specifically said that they are aiming for a $50 price ceiling for games. When asked.

Sony? "Well, we doubt they'll get up to $100".

There's a reason people are fed up with what's coming out of Sony currently.

Re:No he didn't hint at anything (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15631257)

Your mom was flat-out misleading.

Re:No he didn't hint at anything (-1, Troll)

thatguywhoiam (524290) | more than 7 years ago | (#15631562)

He was asked about prices going higher. He didn't bring it up.

Doesn't matter. Zonk sez PS3 = bad.

He didn't say they would go higher.

Doesn't matter. Zonk sez PS3 = bad.

He didn't hint they would go higher. He meerly refused to rule it out as a possibility in an uncertain future.

Maybe you are not understanding properly. ZONK. SAYS. PS3. BAD. What is with this critical analysis? You must be new here.

Logical Course for Sony (1)

Dr. Eggman (932300) | more than 7 years ago | (#15630930)

Considering they will be selling the PS3 at a loss, as is the case with most any console, they must make it up with accessories and games. Blue Ray technology will be very costly to the console, especially early on while its still new tech, assuming ~$1000 for a player based on Samsungs, thats $500-$400 gross loss on the Blue Ray alone. And who knows how much the Cell processor maybe costing them? The cost of the Blue Ray medium itself may even contribute to a price increase.

I admit, I laughed when I first saw rumors of $80 PS3 and dismissed it as Xbox fan's reacting to the new $60 games. Today, seeing near final specs on the PS3, I would not doubt $70 games, though $80 still seems a bit farfetched for anything but the mega-big games. Perhaps as technology improves, the higher cost of games will come down, or maybe Sony will keep them high. But in the beginning, I would be surprised if they keep all their games below $60.

Re:Logical Course for Sony (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 7 years ago | (#15631282)

And who knows how much the Cell processor maybe costing them?

IBM does, IIRC they quoted a figure of ~70 bucks.

Re:Logical Course for Sony (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15631731)

Watch that $70 come down to ~$20 for orders of a million or more.

Re:Logical Course for Sony (1)

MarkByers (770551) | more than 7 years ago | (#15631505)

Considering they will be selling the PS3 at a loss, as is the case with most any console

Erm... most consoles are sold at profit. Well that's the idea anyway.

Microsoft sell XBox at a loss but they have a monopoly in another market and are rolling in loads of cash. They can afford to take a huge loss if they think they can believe they can get close to 100% market share. At which point the price will skyrocket due to lack of competition and they will be making more profit than you can ever dream of.

So... no. In general consoles are sold for profit.

Sony repeating Neo*Geo's history again... (2, Interesting)

onlysolution (941392) | more than 7 years ago | (#15630946)

So not only are they charging through the roof for their technologically "superior" console, like SNK before them with the Neo*Geo, but they are going to charge more than their competition for the games as well! Admitedly, even without adjusting for inflation they don't sound like they are going to go the 100+ dollar extreme that we saw with the Neo*Geo home system (at least the NG carts cost almost made some sense due to the relative high cost of making the boards). Is it just me, or is the PS3 starting to seem more and more like some kind of bizzare temporal echo of the failed business and technology mistakes of yesteryear?

Re:Sony repeating Neo*Geo's history again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15631456)

The Neo Geo was a completely different case, SNK intended it to be the rich man's console. They never expected it to really compete with the other 16 bit systems, it was supposed to be something that only most dedicated gamers or richest gamers could own and charged alot for it and the games. I would say that they didn't fail in this in that they kept publishing software for the system for ~15 years and selling it for between $200 and $350 a game up until 2004 when Samurai Shodown 5 Special game out for the system. The Neo Geo was never a mainstream success, but it wasn't a failed business mistake by any means as it was never meant to be widely accepted.

There is a max (1)

MojoBox (985651) | more than 7 years ago | (#15630965)

To what I'll pay for a game. The economics of making the game don't effect my decision to buy it, it's the publishers/developers job to find better, cheaper ways to make games that sale, it's not my job to cover there bloated budgets. I'd only pay over $40 for a game if I'm REALLY looking forward to it, and NEVER OVER $60. There is a point when I say, you know, I should find a cheaper hobby.

quality? price? (1)

Soham (772377) | more than 7 years ago | (#15630983)

Sony's games are great. But a consumer buys on price, however much s/he talks about quality. Add this to the fact that a large mass of game players is kids, teenagers and students, who typically dont have that much dough to spend.

Sony is trying hard to lose the console war (0, Flamebait)

Pluvius (734915) | more than 7 years ago | (#15631009)

The funny/sad thing is that their competition is pretty inept, so chances are they'll still win this generation anyway. They'll probably be fucked next generation, though.

God, I hope this generation turns out to be a lot better than it's looking so far.

Rob

Re:Sony is trying hard to lose the console war (5, Interesting)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 7 years ago | (#15631621)

I object to PS3 and XBox 360 being termed "next generation". They're exactly the same as what we have now, just at higher resolutions. Resolutions hardly anybody has. Most people I know think they have HDTVs, and then I point out that they have merely EDTV, or a HD-Ready TV. I tell them to truly experience the XBox 360, they have to drop some serious $$$ for something that does 720P and a DTS system. Then they can go spend another $$$$ on a BluRay or HD-DVD player, and basically gamble whether they're getting another BetaMax.

High Definition is such a stupid direction the industries taking. People don't care, they aren't flocking to Best Buy to upgrade. I'm a geek who's into and actually understands all this crap, HDMI, 1080i vs 1080p, and so on, and I don't care. I really don't give a rats ass about high-definition anything, it doesn't improve the experience of TV, movies or console video games.

So Sony and MSFT have hitched their wagons to the HDTV "revolution" that isn't going to take place. They can only force upgrades, a la "buy a PS3 because we aren't making PS2 games anymore".

Now, Wii is different, watching the videos of the guy playing Red Steel, made me wonder "why didn't we have that before?" It looks like such a natural way to play an FPS, it looks like it may even be SUPERIOR to a keyboard and mouse. I'll have to wait and see. It seems like more of a gimmick, and something that will be here to stay. The first time I saw the NES control pad, I thought it was a cheesy gimmick, and could never replace the Wico Command Control I used with my C64. Games are played with joysticks, not stupid little boxes with buttons to move, I thought. I was wrong.

Wii and it's wii-mote are something different, and flunk or fail, actually innovative.

Of course it's all about the games, and a "killer app" can change everything overnight. Halo was MSFT's crutch for the XBox, but that seems like a fluke. It won't happen again with Halo 3. So far I see nothing coming down the pipe from Sony or MSFT that piques my interest. But damnit, I want to play some FPS with that pointer, and I want to be able to cheaply download some of nintendo's past hits. Right up my alley.

IMO, Wii is the only truly "next generation" system. It actually offeres something evolutionary over the last generation. All PS3 and XBox 360 seem to have is high prices, faulty hardware, and "new features" that would cost me 5 grand to be able to use.

I think Sony and MSFT going the high-end route is going to hurt them, and Nintendo just might rise back to the top. They seem most likely to put out the next "killer app" at this point.

Stupid... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15631047)

What made Sony popular was the cheap price of CD games on the PSX compared to the higher priced N64games. Now that there are tons more games available compared to those days. A lot of games are cheaper but now Sony wants to change that by charging more? The price is simply to pay for the BluRay technology which will crash and burn in the mainstream movie media market, as well as HDDVD. They are all stupid. Boycott them all!

Honestly... (4, Interesting)

Yomer333 (918394) | more than 7 years ago | (#15631048)

I'm as much of a gamer as most people, but honestly, who the hell are they marketing this towards*? The "my parents are divorced and one parent is over-compensating with insane toys" subsect of the market doesn't seem to be large enough to sustain a console. How many teenagers/college students can afford something like this? As a college student myself, I work more than I probably should, and I don't come close to breaking even after tuition and such. I purchased a PS2 not too long ago, and generally don't get any games that are much more than $20. If I ever purchase another console, it's probably going to be a Wii just from an economical standpoint. I don't care if Sony has the OMGLOOKATTHATZ polygons (which, from hardware comparisons, it won't) or if they have a GTA for every city in the country (which, since it's not exclusive to their console, everyone will)...with $600 + ~$80 per game, I could invest in Microsoft and Nintendo and watch Sony weep as their computer without a keyboard fucking tanks.

* -- Don't end sentences with prepositions, kids.

Solution!!! (1)

jonging (981292) | more than 7 years ago | (#15631137)

Get a Wii

Re:Solution!!! (1, Redundant)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 7 years ago | (#15631298)

Get a Wii

I've already got that! It's the socket the Wii plugs into that I need.

(Am I the only Nintendo fandboy who loves the name because of all the penis jokes?)

Re:Solution!!! (2, Funny)

Zardus (464755) | more than 7 years ago | (#15631610)

It's the socket the Wii plugs into that I need.

Man, if you're not liking the price of the PS3, just wait till you see the price of these sockets!

Let's not even mention "real dollars" (4, Insightful)

Control Group (105494) | more than 7 years ago | (#15631187)

Let me just head one line of reasoning off at the pass: I'm sure someone's going to start throwing around calculations involving inflation and real purchasing power. Which are right... ...but they don't matter.

People, by and large, do not factor the devaluation of money between then and now into their price comparisons. For example, consider gas prices - everyone complains about them, despite the fact that they're actually lower (in terms of real dollars) than they were 25 years ago.

Yet you'll always hear the stories about how "I remember when a gallon of gas was fifty cents!"

Video games are the same way. They've been in the $50 range for a long time, and people are therefore acclimated to that price point. It doesn't really matter that $50 for a game in 1995 was more money than $50 is now.

According to a calculator I found online (grain of salt, but it passes my smell test and I can't be arsed to really research this just now), $200 in 1985 translates to $363 in 2005. Which means that the premium XBox 360 is a whole $36 more expensive than the NES (and the core system $63 cheaper!), in terms of real purchasing power. This has not stopped plenty of people complaining about its price.

Of course, anyone who figures real purchasing power into the equation is right, when you come down to it...but it doesn't matter when it comes to what drives the purchasing public to either pull the trigger or not on a new toy.

Re:Let's not even mention "real dollars" (3, Insightful)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 7 years ago | (#15631597)

According to a calculator I found online (grain of salt, but it passes my smell test and I can't be arsed to really research this just now), $200 in 1985 translates to $363 in 2005.
A calculator you found online? I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you mean this little thing [eh.net] (which returns your answer as $363.01). So you have nothing to fear. From the source note:

The numbers since 1913 use the CPI compiled by the United States' Bureau of Labor Statistics and released by that agency every month.
These are as accurate as the CPI is meaningful. Thank you for using EH.Net.

Re:Let's not even mention "real dollars" (4, Insightful)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 7 years ago | (#15631717)

According to a calculator I found online (grain of salt, but it passes my smell test and I can't be arsed to really research this just now), $200 in 1985 translates to $363 in 2005. Which means that the premium XBox 360 is a whole $36 more expensive than the NES (and the core system $63 cheaper!), in terms of real purchasing power. This has not stopped plenty of people complaining about its price.

I don't see why they shouldn't complain if they want to, as far as the console itself goes. The cost of electronics has been going down steadily since the 80s, both absolute and inflation adjusted. This is because producing them has become cheaper. In the late 80s a PC would cost thousands of dollars; today you can get one for $500 at Walmart. A game console in 2005 costing the same as a game console in 1985 after adjusting for inflation isn't impressive in the least. So if people percieve the price of the 360 as too high, well, there's some basis for that. Personally I don't think it's bad.

For games it is easy to see that they have actually gone up in cost to produce, so it isn't surprising that their purchase cost has gone up. I think this gets to people because they have the reasonable expectation based on experience that technology should go down in price (or stay the same in absolute dollars and thus become cheaper due to inflation), and they see the games as being an extension of that technology. This is the acclimation you're talking about. Or maybe they're like me. I certainly appreciate that games cost more to produce, but honestly I don't care. Telling me how many millions a game cost to produce doesn't make the $100 or whatever price any lower, and doesn't make me want to pay that high a price either.

Development Model (1)

neonprimetime (528653) | more than 7 years ago | (#15631213)

The development model is totally screwed up ... for 99% of the games created, they're just reinventing the wheel and adding some shiney rims or something ... there is no way they need to charge more for video games than they already are ... if anything, it should be getting cheaper.

Well, back to the classics I go... (1)

Lord of Hyphens (975895) | more than 7 years ago | (#15631268)

Good thing I already have a PC that does whatever the hell I want it to. Hell, I'll dig out the "old-skool" games (you know, the ones that made up for limitations on eye-candy for gameplay) and play those. Personally, I've always seen the relationship of eyecandy to gameplay to be something of a zero-sum deal: you can't seemingly have both at the same time. If you have a lot of eye-candy, you see gameplay slip. Now, games such as the original Half Life (good gameplay and good eyecandy for the time) are an exception, as are titles like Halo, which is pretty ho-hum on both counts. Console games seem to be effected by this "Proportionality Rule" moreso than PC games, in my experience.

Why it won't work (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 7 years ago | (#15631336)

This won't work because I only have a fixed amount to spend on games. If games are more expensive I'll be buying less of them. You'll only get the same amount of money from me, and I'll be less happy with you if more expensive games don't deliver something more in the game play or length to justify the higher costs.

ps3 vs 360 vs pc (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15631349)

Soo... let's assume Madden 07 comes out - the same game on 3 consoles (pretty much all the same quality and all just ports of the same version)

PS3 - $75

360 - $60

PC - $30

What am I missing? How can these companies justify the higher console game prices claiming it's because they are 'next gen' but that next gen game can be 50% the price as itself, just on a different piece of hardware?

Here's a hot tip for price whiners (2)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 7 years ago | (#15631408)

Don't buy stuff on release day, or even release week or month.

If you can train yourself to not give a rats ass about hype, gaming is cheap, cheap, cheap.

Eventually EVERYTHING ends up in the $20 bin, maybe even in the $10 bin. I remember hearing what a great fantastical game MGS2 was for the PS2, well guess what, I saw it for 6.99 and picked it up. It's pretty good.

Sure I'm playing stuff thats months, and often years old, but fun games are still fun, and it saves me a ton of cash.

Browse the older pages on sites like 1up or whathaveyou, pick up old copies of game informer you see lying around. There's plenty of great old classic games, and just games that aren't brand new. I picked up Destroy all Humans for 14.99 the other week.

Works for consoles too. I completely ignore all the XBox 360 and PS3 hype (and that's all it is), and when I finally pick one up, it'll be for a third of what the early adopters paid.

Yessir, learned my lesson long ago. Paid full price for the dreamcast on 9/9/99, and full price for a couple of games. A year and a half later, the dreamcast was worth 20 bucks and the games were worth as close to nothing as you can get.

Especially ridiculous to me are those who need to have this years madden game. 60 bucks a year, for the same game as last year.

But, this is coming from someone who sort-of collects old consoles (like neo geo cd, saturn, 3DO, TG16) and has six old full sized arcade games, and would rather revisit XMen vs Streetfighter on his CPS2 system, than pay 60 bucks for Tekken A-Jillion.

Just one little bears opinion.

Too expensive for rental places to stock (2, Interesting)

MintMMs (909563) | more than 7 years ago | (#15631482)

I've stopped at a couple of video rental places looking to rent 360 games. Both places (a Movie Gallery and a mom & pop shop) have told me that they won't stock 360 games because the cost for them is too high. Now granted, I haven't done an exhaustive search and I'm not near a major metropolitan area, but it's not a good sign with the usual 360 $60 price point. I wonder if the PS3 games will be stocked at $70-$80...

Finally (-1, Flamebait)

Andrew Tanenbaum (896883) | more than 7 years ago | (#15631494)

PS3 is shaping out to be a true status symbol for those who are very well off. I earn a salary reaching 75k per year and that's without my annual bonus.

I'll be getting three PS3 systems (two for back up purposes). The games are rumoured to be locked $89 and upwards for each copy. The software price is expected to never go down over time ending the practise of consumers waiting for prices to fall. Each system can not play used, rented, or borrowed games.

Having said that, this is a dream come true. This is a true fan system for hardcore gamers only. No longer will I have to suffer being in the company of pretenders. Finally we'll have a system to be truly proud to say we own. Just like the Neo Geo, except successful.

For those poor people who cannot afford the ride, Microsoft and Nintendo will accommodate your needs.

For the rest of us that understand that you get what you pay for... I reckon we're going to be in for a ride of our life.

Count on it.

I just have one question (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15631592)

When did Sony get bought by Games Workshop?

The Higher the Price of the Game (4, Insightful)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 7 years ago | (#15631615)

The less likely I am to buy it on impulse. Most games suck, as simple as that. I'm willing to risk $20 against the chances that the game will suck. At the $50 I'm much less inclined to buy a game on the spur of the moment. At $70 almost all of the games would look unappealing given that I can wait a year, buy them used (In which case the publisher gets NOTHING) or both. At more than $70, I'd be inclined to chuck the console and find a different hobby.

He went on to say... (4, Funny)

One Louder (595430) | more than 7 years ago | (#15631650)

"Clearly, we're intent on preventing anyone from actually buying or using this product" he said, "but, just in case, we've also added a small amount of plastic explosive to the power supply and dipped the game controller in anthrax."
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...