Sony's Hirai Comments On PS3 Game Prices

[Kentaro]

Interesting.

[DaJuice]

Errrr... idunno about anyone else, but I interpeted that as him saying that the games would NOT be a hundred bucks. I don't see how you could read it any other way, it wasn't cryptic or anything.

[dcndnts]

he says they wont be $100 dollars but they also wont be $59 either.
Id say these games are gonna be priced around $89.99..............
goodluck with that.
Id rather walk out of the store with an xbox360,wii, extra controlers for both and a few games to go with them for the price of 1 ps3 and 1 game and no extra controlers.

[sheppyboy2000]

Actually, he said $59.99 would be the optimum price range although he couldn't commit to that price range at this time. Sony was always good at bringing their games out for cheap but the third parties are where I'm worried.

[tozz]

Yes, another simple statement that people will force themself to misread and create false rumors from. It has already started in this thread by dcndnts :)

Once again, I could get a nice ice cream machine and a tv instead of a PS3, will that make me able to play PS3 games? Nope, neither will a XBOX or Wii. There's people out there that play other titles than those from EA, and those people get either console for their unique games, be it xbox, wii or ps3.

[pixelmonk]

Actually, he said $59.99 would be the optimum price range although he couldn't commit to that price range at this time. Sony was always good at bringing their games out for cheap but the third parties are where I'm worried.


Actually, if you read it, he said the consumer's expectation for disc based games are MAYBE $59.99.....

That doesn't mean HE said $59.99 would be the optimum.. he's just stating what consumers are thinking the price range should be. It's a shifty way of saying, "I'm not going to comment on pricing at the moment".

[DAZKevin]

It sounds to me like Sony would like to Charge $100 and thinks that they eventually can. He said that they can't just turn around and do it; but if they charge $65 for ther new games this year; it isn't too much higher... then $70 the next year, then $75 for regular games and $80 or $100 for "big name" titles... How many 14 year old boys wouldn't pay $100 for the next GTA?

I think Sony is making it clear that they will be trying to push the accepted price point up.

[Neil]

Well if a game is gonna cost $100, it better be a long game or have great replay value. I can't see paying that for a hack and slash game that you're done with in 8 hours.

[bale]

well if game prices do go up, I'll have to wait till the ps4 comes out to play ps3(I'm finally getting a ps2 next week). Then again I convinced my dad to buy me street fighter 2 for SNES when it first came out, and it was 115 Canadian at the time.

[amannin]

if PS raises their game prices more so than xbox, then i imagine more game developers going towards to xbox, since they will be more likely to sell (or so i would imagine).

PS keeps outpricing themselves, or at least for me --- i don't even care what games they have, since i can't / won't be able to afford them.

[Brettzies]

Well if a game is gonna cost $100, it better be a long game or have great replay value. I can't see paying that for a hack and slash game that you're done with in 8 hours.No kidding. I don't care how advanced game "hardware/which we've already paid for" is getting or even the software, $59 is already high in my mind. Maybe I'm old school, but $80 - $100 for a game just seems retarded. It's already started though, with the $59 x360 games and will only continue like DAZKevin points out.

[PyRoT]

...and somehow, PC game prices seem to rise slower...

[quyeno]

I don't see what you guys are complaining about, i would gladly pay $59-$70 dollars for a game. over here in the UK, 360 games are about £45-£55. I think the next gen games should be priced higher, the increase takes into account of higher development costs and also inflation. PS1 games were about £35, PS2 games were about £40, thats over a 12 year period. if you take any product and compare the prices over that period i think you will see a big price increase.

[havokzprodigy]

I'll never pay $100 a game I don't care if it cleans my house and washes my car as I play I'm not buying it.

[CupOWonton]

Wow.. its Rumor Generation in motion in this thread.

He states, he doesnt think it will go up to $100
He states that he thinks it would be foolish for the company to expect consumers to BUY more expensive games past $59.

It actualy seems he's trying to assure people theyre trying to keep it at or as close to the original pricing.

Nowhere in there is he stating deffinite higher prices.

However a company like Activision is stating it will cost more for them to produce a next gen game so theyre indicating near $10 more which to their numbers sends their prices from $54 to $59... OK?

[csmallfield]

Inflation is a good point, if you take a $50USD game from 12 years ago and multiply that by a 3% inflation rate a year, around $75USD. But many products do not increase at the general inflation rate (obviously different in each country) such as food products, or a better example movies. I remember buying VHS movies for $20, and I regularly buy DVD movies for $18 for brand new movies.

Ignoring hardware, because that's a crazy pricing game, games are making tons of money. The game industry surpasses the movie industry in terms of gross sales, at least I remember reading that somewhere. The budgets to make a game are far less in most cases and about the same in some as movie budgets, and the cost more per unit. Why should they go up?

Here is a question that some of you may know, but I don't. For Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo, where do they make their money? Probably not from hardware since they sell it at a loss, maybe in a couple years they start making money on that end. All of these companies make some of their own games, so that must bring in some revenue. And I'm sure they get a licensing fee from all the third party games, that is where I am guess the big money comes in. But that is all speculation. Anyone know for sure?

-Chris

[strosek]

as long as we got dvd coper program and playstation mod chips were ok. price it to 200$ were still safe. They are just pushing them selfs in a corner. Just like hoyl wood and nixflix and DL dvd burners. Its only going to get worse now that you can rent even games online like nixflix

[dcndnts]

Yes, another simple statement that people will force themself to misread and create false rumors from. It has already started in this thread by dcndnts :)

Once again, I could get a nice ice cream machine and a tv instead of a PS3, will that make me able to play PS3 games? Nope, neither will a XBOX or Wii. There's people out there that play other titles than those from EA, and those people get either console for their unique games, be it xbox, wii or ps3.

ice cream machine sounds good! Maybe if i sold enough over priced ice cream to my nieghbors i could afford a ps3. And if im lucky i'll even be able to buy a game to play too.
But id probably just end up eating all the ice cream and work it off while playing wii.

Hirai continued his answer by saying, “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.”
To me that is saying games are not going to be $59 with out actually saying it. He is protecting his own ass when games come out for 89.99 and he can say hey i told you so before.

[BigJay]

Sorry I just had to do this. Havok nor Hiari actually said anything like this

havokzprodigy: I'll never pay $100 a game I don't care if it cleans my house and washes my car as I play I'm not buying it.

Hirai: Would you,could you buy it on a train would you, could you buy in the rain?

havokzprodigy: I would not, could not Hirai I am! I would not buy it on a train, I would not buy it in the rain, I will not buy your ps3 Harai I am....



Sorry I've been reading too much Dr. seuss to my daughter.

I got a PS2 at christmas and will definitely wait till the price is more reasonable. I just can't see paying these prices unless the game is twice as long or twice as big or something. charging $50 for 8 hrs of game is bad enough.

[sheppyboy2000]

No kidding. I don't care how advanced game "hardware/which we've already paid for" is getting or even the software, $59 is already high in my mind. Maybe I'm old school, but $80 - $100 for a game just seems retarded. It's already started though, with the $59 x360 games and will only continue like DAZKevin points out.

If you were really old school, you'd remember that the Playstation Era brought game prices down, not up. Maybe you don't remember too well Mr. Old-School but most Nintendo games were $60 or higher. Especially first party games. SNES RPGs were especially bad. And N64? Mortal Kombat Trilogy was $85. Which I thought was too much after paying $75 for KI Gold.

Facing facts, game prices on the rise again doesn't shock me. We had a great period where games were affordable for the everyman and that's what allowed the growth outside the hardcore gamer markets. Xbox 360 and PS3 are both targeting the hardcore gamers and as such, are trying to steer back towards premium pricing. Am I happy about it? Not really, but consider this. As much as you WANT to complain about US prices and $60 Xbox 360 games, just be glad you are not in the UK or Aus regions. Hell, even Japan had to pay $90 for Dragon Quest VIII.

Now as I stated before. Sony has remained very fair in their pricing schemes on first party games. They are not my concern. Activision, a studio with a public record of stating higher game prices are needed worries me. Especially considering what those "necessary priced games" turned out to be on Xbox 360s launch.

Companies will price games at what you will allow them to price it at. Take EAs recent blows for an example. Due to poor sales throughout the holiday season, several games saw early price drops just to make money while they could. Three short years ago, Madden would have remained $50 until 3 months before the next years Madden was getting ready to ship.

You, as the consumer, have the ultimate control in pricing. If it is too expensive, do not buy it. You'd be suprised how quickly companies get the hint.

[Brettzies]

You, as the consumer, have the ultimate control in pricing. If it is too expensive, do not buy it. You'd be suprised how quickly companies get the hint.You're right. I saw FSW:10 Hammers for $20 PC over the weekend. I would have gladly paid full price for it if I had the time to play more games. I'm guessing it's due to bad sales. The games is about 3 months old?

However, I really do think games are over priced to begin with. Personally, I think they should be around $50, a little above or a little below. Anything with a 9 in it says marketing, and it works. $59 is really $60. So the price point for x360 games is $60, that's easy for me to afford, but I don't think it's right or worth it at all for the extra $10. But what's worse is you can see they want to raise the bar again with PS3 games. Read the whole article and you'll see between the lines.

I just don't think games are worth more money. Sorry. They aren't really any better then they were 10 - 20 years ago, just better looking. That doesn't mean the artists are any better either(but I'm sure everyone improves), just working with better hardware. So they are not so limited with poly count or texture res any more? So what? It was probably more difficult to make limited graphics look good back in the day.

I'm not saying games are not good anymore or don't look great. They most certainly are. I just don't think going past the $50 mark into the $60 mark and beyond is good. It's more the "principle" of the matter and really not good for the industry. The higher they make prices the more selective people will be with their choices and I think overall you'll see a decline in sales, probably more pirating, and a lot more renting.

Look at UMD movies. If they were $10 instead of Dvd price, they'd be flying off shelves. For an extra $10, I'd buy them if they were bundled with new Dvd releases. The quality of UMD movies is actually very nice, but who wants to pay $20 for a movie you may watch once on an airplane at a credit card size when you can transfer your own to mpeg4? As a result, unless I'm wrong, aren't they being discontinued by most studios?

I doubt PS3 games will have that type of battle, but if they're much higher then $60 which is the console bar right now, gaming will become for the rich and hardcore only. Everyone else will be waving the Nintendo wand thing around.

[tozz]

Alot of people are talking about Nintendo, since when did they have low prices on games? Nintendo has been leading the "Highest priced games" list since the NES.
When I got Legend of Kyrandia at around $30, a Nintendo game was twice that or more, and it haven't really changed. It got better with the GameCube but still $60-$70 for a game translated from swedish currency. If I remember correctly the Nintendo publisher/distributer here in Sweden got sued for it, can't remember how it all played out though, probably someone here who does or care to dig it up.

It seems most people are just pissed they can't afford a PS3. Just don't buy one, it's not that hard to not do something, is it? Sure, if you have to motivate yourself by imagining things then please do so, I sure love the read :)

"You, as the consumer, have the ultimate control in pricing. If it is too expensive, do not buy it. You'd be suprised how quickly companies get the hint."
That's why CD's are getting more and more expensive even though the lack of sales? ;) I do believe you have a point, but it's not valid for everything, a market with a solid history won't change very quickly (or at all). If people stoped buying games for 5years or so, then perhaps the industry would catch on, until then they'll just blame everything else.

[Brettzies]

Alot of people are talking about Nintendo, since when did they have low prices on games? Nintendo has been leading the "Highest priced games" list since the NES.Mainly because in the current console battle(x360, ps3, wii) they have the lowest and cheapest specs from what I understand. They've also been quoted as countering this by saying they want to make a system everyone can afford. I can only assume that will carry through the games, but their history, I suppose, contradicts that.

[stallion151]

in australia we already pay $100 average for games, and xbox 360 games are $119.

so in us$ for an xbox game thats US$89

quit your yapping you bunch of pansies

[Brettzies]

in australia we already pay $100 average for games, and xbox 360 games are $119.
so in us$ for an xbox game thats US$89
quit your yapping you bunch of pansies
So if the price goes up around $20 here you could be paying:

$109 US or $147 Australian. :shrug: So what?

The point is whatever you're paying now it's going to go up. Economies are different, taxes are different. I'm not going to research why you pay "so much," but I'm guessing it's not as simple as using a conversion calculator. And if it is, then you're getting screwed. Sorry guy.

[DaveKW]

When downloadable content/games becomes even more popular, I can see games actually getting cheaper, not more expensive. Not to mention the inclusion of advertising to drive the prices down.

[tozz]

Mainly because in the current console battle(x360, ps3, wii) they have the lowest and cheapest specs from what I understand. They've also been quoted as countering this by saying they want to make a system everyone can afford. I can only assume that will carry through the games, but their history, I suppose, contradicts that.
Lets wait and see, I think Nintendo is just as eager to make a big buck as anyone else, like Sony and Microsoft they're here to make money, nothing else. As for the system being cheap, it really doesn't say much about the games.

[dcndnts]

I believe it was stated that the pricing on games was going up because of the next gen technology.
Nintendo bowed out of that race this time around.. so if they raise the prices of thier games i wouldnt be very thrilled about that.

[Dija]

Everytime I read news about the PS3, it reminds me more and more of the good old NeoGeo. Overpriced, powerful and with expensive games.

[UrbanFuturistic]

Every time I read news about the PS3 or Wii it reminds me just how brain dead people can be, it's like the dumbass assumption when it was reported Sony <i>could</i> have locked PS3 games to a single console and the spokespeople stopped just short of replying with "don't be *&@#ing retarded".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.”What does it say? They don't want to price themselves out of the market and will be aiming for a price point of $59 best as they can.

STOP MAKING ASSUMPTIONS AND PAY ATTENTION ONCE IN A WHILE

[Brettzies]

Every time I read news about the PS3 or Wii it reminds me just how brain dead people can be, it's like the dumbass assumption when it was reported Sony <i>could</i> have locked PS3 games to a single console and the spokespeople stopped just short of replying with "don't be *&@#ing retarded".


Originally Posted by Hirai
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.”

What does it say? They don't want to price themselves out of the market and will be aiming for a price point of $59 best as they can.


STOP MAKING ASSUMPTIONS AND PAY ATTENTION ONCE IN A WHILE
LOL > You quoted the very line where he lets himself off the hook if the price goes above $60.

"So, if it becomes a bit higher than $59, don't ding me,..."

There's not much room to assume there, other then the price will be "a bit higher then $59."

What's the difference though? Any price hike is just that, a price hike. Most marketers like to use 9s, so a $70 game priced at $69 will be a $60ish game in the consumer's mind even though it's just $1 away from 70.

The whole problem with this is, what makes a game worth $59 in the first place? Or the theoretical, "bit higher then $59" Ps3 game? I know there are games that you get hours of enjoyment out of and others you play for 20 minutes. Or games that are just beautifully rendered and animated. Some that are insanely addictive and others that are basically the same thing over and over...Madden01, 02, 04, 06, 07, yet still fun.

I just don't think games are worth more then $50. Of course, I pay more when I have to, and I definelty appreciate the work that goes into making them, but for some reason it just doesn't feel right, and it's not a big deal for me to pay $59 or more at all right now. I just dont' think it's good for the overall industry. If they aren't doing well, it's not because the games are too cheap.

[heavyness]

i'm not going to join the feud here, but Sony really needs some PR people to talk for the higher ups over at Sony. with the price of the PS3 being high, they shouldn't even talk about game prices. why? because words get misread and misreported and blogged all over the internet [like this thread]. to some people, they will take this as PS3 titles being more expensive, so damage is done.

all game companies need to be careful what they say because to many fanboys will spin their words to what betters' their system of choice.

[CupOWonton]

Price of paying quality animators and programmers then vs price of paying quality programmers and animators now = price hike?

[strosek]

http://www.gamefly.com/ + mod chip $40 bux + http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=6683617&type=product&id=1083711426863

don't like something? don't bitch about it just find a way around it =D

[SheepFactory]

http://www.gamefly.com/ + mod chip $40 bux + http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=6683617&type=product&id=1083711426863

don't like something? don't bitch about it just find a way around it =D

Way to go supporting your industry. idiot.

[heavyness]

http://www.gamefly.com/ + mod chip $40 bux + http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=6683617&type=product&id=1083711426863

don't like something? don't bitch about it just find a way around it =D

and thanks to people like you, game studios loose money and go out of business. no surprise when studios want more money from their publishers so the publishers raise the cost of games.

[UrbanFuturistic]

LOL > You quoted the very line where he lets himself off the hook if the price goes above $60.

"So, if it becomes a bit higher than $59, don't ding me,..."

There's not much room to assume there, other then the price will be "a bit higher then $59."Still, it's hardly going to make them $89 or $99.99 which is what a lot of people are saying here. I think he's fairly clear that they're aware that if they go over $59 they may well price themselves out of the market.

Besides, by the time most of us can afford to buy a PS3 $59 might not seem quite so much, especially if you remember that this is the first price hike in 5 years while the general cost of living continues to rise at a steady rate. So, if you take a base rate of 2.5% for inflation, multiply that to a power of five and you're looking at a general price increase of 13.14% so despite the complete lack of change on price tag game prices have actually dropped in real terms to about 88.39% of their original price.

Now, let's look at the MSRP of a Sony title such as God of War, not the retail price which is often lower as Hirai is certainly also talking about the MSRP, which is $49.99 and add on that inflation which leaves it at $56.56 which leaves, in real terms, a difference between the launch price of PS3 games and what we could expect purely from a failry low rate of inflation of $3.43 which will be entirely cancelled out in about 2 years time, when most of us will actually be able to afford a PS3 :D

So, if they go a bit over? I guess that's the price you pay for higher development costs.

Edit: Perfect example, I know they're somewhat old games but both Jak and Daxter, and Beyond Good and Evil, continue to have MSRPs of $50. Anyone ever pay that for them? I'm guessing not. I'm still not likely to get a PS3, but the cost of their games is not the reason, I just don't fancy it much.

[Brettzies]

Edit: Perfect example, I know they're somewhat old games but both Jak and Daxter, and Beyond Good and Evil, continue to have MSRPs of $50. Anyone ever pay that for them? I'm guessing not.This is a funny example, only because I actually did pay full price for Beyond Good and Evil(PC) when it first came out. It was just a beautiful game in everyway. Not the longest or even the best, but well done overall. What makes it even funnier is that I got an email on friday from Gamespot or something saying I could download the "full" game for $20.

I understand about inflation though. I really do. If you wanted to go on inflation alone, then games should already be out priced. Each year they should be more and more expensive with no justifaction other then it's a new year. It's just that on principle, I don't think games are worth more then about $50, no matter what they look like, how long they are, how much they cost to make, etc. Personally, I'd rather pay more for the hardware up front then have the game prices increase. I know that games are "looking" better, but that's only because the hardware is getting better and the artist are not shackled by as many limitations.

So for me, saying a game is "next-gen" or whatever, so it should cost more, doesn't make any sense at all. Part of the problem for my thinking is that I'm coming from a mainly PC background where the games already looked good. Consoles are really just now getting on par in terms of resolution and eye candy with HDTV and the new systems. So they think they should raise the price of the games?

We're not going to change anything here, these are just my opinions. It will be interesting to see how PS3 and it's corresponding game pricing does. I know there will be a large percentage of people who are going to buy the stuff anyway, but I wonder what percentage won't because it's all just too far out of their price range.

[CupOWonton]

God I hope they make a sequel to Beyond Good And Evil..

[DaJuice]

I know that games are "looking" better, but that's only because the hardware is getting better and the artist are not shackled by as many limitations.

So for me, saying a game is "next-gen" or whatever, so it should cost more, doesn't make any sense at all.

Because creating ever more detailed and numerous content doesn't take more time and money at all, right? :rolleyes:

Jesus... :banghead:

[quyeno]

the increase in the price of games is really down to the consumer. as consumers we expect our gaming experience to improve, we want better graphics, better sound, etc...so hardware manufacturers cater for that. they make hardware which allow for this to happen, be it nvidia, ati, sony, MS or nintendo. in order to take advantage of the improved technology developers have to spend more to make such games. this now means there is an increase in team sizes, more time is required to develop games and better tools are required. this all adds up and the only way to make money on the games is to (unfortunately for the consumer) increase the price of games. the hardware is already sold at a loss (for consoles), so unless we want to pay more for the hardware so that the hardware manufacturers can make some profit, the price of games have to increase. I really don't think $69-$79 is too much for a game, in the uk we're already paying about £45-£50 for next gen titles (those who moan about weak economies, tell your president to stop making war , but thats another subject altogether :). the only way for the price of games to stay as they are is to stop piracy, f'cking a$$holes like Strosek who like to use pirate software only make matters worse. If you want cheaper games then you have to do your part to support game developers. If you don't like te price of next gen games, then don't buy a next gen console, stick with the current gen (PS2 will still be supported for the next 5 years).

[Brettzies]

Because creating ever more detailed and numerous content doesn't take more time and money at all, right? :rolleyes: All I'm saying is the artist, aka "talent", had the ability to create beautiful content before-and has, just not the hardware to display it on.

It does take longer and hence cost more to make more detailed content. But why does that mean the price should be more? Is HL2 more detailed on the PC then Quake 4 on the x360? Does it cost more, did it take longer to make? Is the quality and overall experience better? Is Quake4 on the PC better and cheaper then on the x360?

The argument the games should cost more because more resources and time are put into them is logical and ideal from a developer standpoint, but that doesn't mean the consumer has to accept it, or that games are even worth it. I understand what you are saying, even in your sarcastic "this is so obvious you must be stupid" writing, but I still think it's weak.

What if Hollywood used this model? That would mean films like Cars, LotR, Superman, StarWars, or any other big budget/next gen film could cost $20 a screening and a movie like Hoodwinked or some run of the mill comedey could be $8? Ticket prices have gone up of course, but not to the point where I feel like it's "expensive." Games on the other hand...their cost to make vs price vs worth? I don't know. Don't take it personally just because I don't think games on any system are worth more then $50. This is a philosophical belief of the game itself, not the technical, game cost x dollars to make, y dollars to manufacture, z dollars to market.

For those of you who think artists will get paid more because games cost more to make. Wake up. You'll get paid what you negotiate for, they'll just hire more people to help if that's what it takes.

I fully support the gaming industry and I have no problem paying full price for most games. I just think they're whole pricing system is screwed. I said it before, I'd much rather pay for the hardware what it's worth then jacked up game prices.

[CupOWonton]

All I'm saying is the artist, aka "talent", had the ability to create beautiful content before-and has, just not the hardware to display it on.

It does take longer and hence cost more to make more detailed content. But why does that mean the price should be more? Is HL2 more detailed on the PC then Quake 4 on the x360? Does it cost more, did it take longer to make? Is the quality and overall experience better? Is Quake4 on the PC better and cheaper then on the x360?

The argument the games should cost more because more resources and time are put into them is logical and ideal from a developer standpoint, but that doesn't mean the consumer has to accept it, or that games are even worth it. I understand what you are saying, even in your sarcastic "this is so obvious you must be stupid" writing, but I still think it's weak.

What if Hollywood used this model? That would mean films like Cars, LotR, Superman, StarWars, or any other big budget/next gen film could cost $20 a screening and a movie like Hoodwinked or some run of the mill comedey could be $8? Ticket prices have gone up of course, but not to the point where I feel like it's "expensive." Games on the other hand...their cost to make vs price vs worth? I don't know. Don't take it personally just because I don't think games on any system are worth more then $50. This is a philosophical belief of the game itself, not the technical, game cost x dollars to make, y dollars to manufacture, z dollars to market.

For those of you who think artists will get paid more because games cost more to make. Wake up. You'll get paid what you negotiate for, they'll just hire more people to help if that's what it takes.

I fully support the gaming industry and I have no problem paying full price for most games. I just think they're whole pricing system is screwed. I said it before, I'd much rather pay for the hardware what it's worth then jacked up game prices.

Wow, they could have created this kind of work back in the late 80's? WHAT THE HECK WERE THEY DOING TILL NOW?:rolleyes:

Artists do make more in the game industry than they use to. But a price hike is realy to cover things like, new manufacturing machines, covering the cost of developement, etc.

[PyRoT]

I don't buy this whole next-gen games costing more to make stuff. I mean, yes it costs more but I don't see the justification for higher prices. I don't see the best PC games costing as much as xbox360 games. Look at FEAR, it costs $99 AU. The top xbox360 games however cos $119. I would assume that Callof Duty 2 costs more on xbox360 than on PC2. How can this be explained?

Anyway, I am glad that PC games are cheaper as I'm not a console person... though the Wiimight get me back into them. I bought Blood Omen 2 for $4 just a few days ago! That is unbelievably cheap. I have never seen console games get anywhere close to that kind of price. Why?

Tomek

[Brettzies]

Wow, they could have created this kind of work back in the late 80's? WHAT THE HECK WERE THEY DOING TILL NOW?:rolleyes:
Artists do make more in the game industry than they use to. But a price hike is realy to cover things like, new manufacturing machines, covering the cost of developement, etc.
Price of paying quality animators and programmers then vs price of paying quality programmers and animators now = price hike?
So which is it, artists or manufacturing development? If I thought the money was going straight to the artists or designers, I'd be more ok with price increases, but I'm pretty sure it's not.

As for being able to create content equal to the "next-gen." You're missing the point. There's been no breakthrough in 3d creativity between xbox1 and xbox360 or ps2 and ps3 for that matter. Just look at the cinematics for games over the years. Obviously people have been able to create gorgeous visuals for quite some time...maybe not late 80s, but late 90s for sure. Artists know what they are doing, the hardware is just catching up where they can exploit this in the game engine.

So what's the deal? People keep arguing that development costs are driving the price up. Are they losing money making these games? So, because there are so many mediocre "expensive to make" games out there or in development, all games have to cost more? People aren't buying enough of the crap games or what?

Even though I don't think games are really worth more then $50, I can kind of understand the $59(or whever you live) inflation/next-gen based xbox360 pricepoint if indeed development cost have ballooned that much. However, why PS3 thinks it can go even a little bit higher then that is beyond me. At some point, they're just doing it because they can.

(I still have a hard time believing a game like Splinter Cell costs more to make on the x360 then it does on the xbox.)

[the-negative]

Sony and Microsoft they're here to make money

Nintendo is too.
They're companies. (Duh!)

[quyeno]

pc games are cheaper than console games because console publishers have to pay a royalty to MS, Sony and Nintendo. There are no royalites to be paid on pc games.

What is so difficult to understand about greater development costs and the increase in the price of games? If a product costs more to make then to make the same amount of profit, the pirce have to increase, its is THAT simple.

Current and past gen games are lower resolution, they use only plain texture and alphas and have simple lighting.

Next gen games use alot more maps like normal maps, specular, bump, they also use complex shaders. Normal maps are extracted from high res geometry which an artist has to model. Specular and bump maps have to painstakingly painted/processed by hand. The colour maps are now higher res, as are specular and bumps maps. Characters now have more bones and require better animation, character models are now about 6-10x higher res, environments are now about 6-10 times higher res and much much larger. To create next gen game the pipleine has change which mean investing in new dev kits, middleware tools and creating new inhouse custom tools. Programming for next gen is much more complicated and lengthy.

Now compare current gen and next gen.....which do you think costs more to develop?

Incase you still can't understand, here's a very simple analogy. Consider eating a sandwich. You can go into a diner and order a club sandwich or you can order a club sandwich in a 5 star hotel. Now both sandwiches are essentially the same but the 5 star hotel offers much nicer surroundings, better service and a nicer sandwich. Which do you think costs more?

Mediocre games have nothing to do with next nor does it have anything to do with any gen, its just a case of crap game design.

Like i said before, if you can't afford next gen games or refuse to pay to pay the higher prices, then stick with current gen. there are alot of great current gen games coming.

[spikkel]

I'm not in the games industry so forgive my ignorance but what about Dev Kit prices? How does that affect prices?

[SteveB]

I bought a 2nd hand copy of NBA Jam for the snes many years back.. it still had its original price sticker on it from HMV - £84.99 uk pounds...

[quyeno]

in order to make next gen games, developers have to invest in xbox 360 and ps3 dev kits obviously. this means leasing dev kits (from Sony, MS and nintendo) for every programmer and test kits for artists, producers and other members of the development team.. i'm not sure how much the next gen dev kits cost but i heard the ps2 dev kits and debug kits cost about £20k to lease for one year and also the test playstations cost about £400. These kits are not owned by the developer but merely rented so to speak. As you can imagine, this all adds up and you haven't even started making your game yet! Plus if you're developing for multiple platforms then you will have to rent those platforms as well. I've heard that some smaller and even larger studios expect artists and non-programming dev staff to share test kits (to reduce the cost). also you have to consider software licensing and buying new workstation hardware as well. Software is usually bought on a per licensse basis but there some packages which you can buy bulk licenses but it still adds up. Making curent gen games is expensive, next games will have about 10 the art content and the cost of developing next gen games will increase accordingly. Unless publishers and developers want to earn less profit, game prices have to increase, or there will simply be no money to make more games and the industry will decline.

[tozz]

Nintendo is too.
They're companies. (Duh!)
Congratulations to the misquote of the year, next time just try to read and comprehend the whole post (like 4 rows of text) before trying to enlighten the world with your "competence".

"I think Nintendo is just as eager to make a big buck as anyone else, like Sony and Microsoft they're here to make money, nothing else."

It's a very basic sentence, doesn't leave much out for imagination, if you read it that is.

[PyRoT]

Congratulations to the misquote of the year, next time just try to read and comprehend the whole post (like 4 rows of text) before trying to enlighten the world with your "competence".

"I think Nintendo is just as eager to make a big buck as anyone else, like Sony and Microsoft they're here to make money, nothing else."

It's a very basic sentence, doesn't leave much out for imagination, if you read it that is.

Hahahaha Classic!
I second the "misquote of the year" nomination

Anyway, yeah I guess the huge devkit costs and royalties do justify the extra money it costs to buy console games. It also justifies me using a PC for gaming though. The advantages are known to many and these costs do add up over time.

It's like.. buy 4 games and get 1 free!

Tomek

[strosek]

and thanks to people like you, game studios loose money and go out of business. no surprise when studios want more money from their publishers so the publishers raise the cost of games.

One could also say that if they were not so greedy people would find it easyer to buy the games rather then burn them. If games were only $39.99 like they should be then they would make less per game but would sell a hell of alot more way more and make more $ for there company. People only burn games because the cost has goten so high that they no longer have the funds to buy the game.

[tozz]

One could also say that if they were not so greedy people would find it easyer to buy the games rather then burn them. If games were only $39.99 like they should be then they would make less per game but would sell a hell of alot more way more and make more $ for there company. People only burn games because the cost has goten so high that they no longer have the funds to buy the game.
Why should they be that?
It doesn't matter if games are sold for $10, people will burn them as long as it's cheaper. If you can't afford something, you don't but it, it's a simple as that. Games are not a human right or anything.

[Brettzies]

in order to make next gen games, developers have to invest in xbox 360 and ps3 dev kits obviously..........Unless publishers and developers want to earn less profit, game prices have to increase, or there will simply be no money to make more games and the industry will decline.quyeno explained it pretty good in terms of development costs and little extras to consider. You almost sold me ; ) However, I still have a hard time believing big companines like Ubisoft and EA are stuggling with dev kit costs and overall production costs. Even if they are, it doesn't matter. They're still just games. They only raise the price bar because they can.

Movie production costs have not gone down. Some cost $100 million to make and others $10 million. Some take 4 years like a cg film and others take 4 months like a cheesy horror spoof comedy. But they all cost the same to go see. Ticket prices have gone up, but the average price is still relatively cheap...$6.40. Six bucks! Fairly reasonable. Game prices are borderling ridiculous, imo.

I'm sure their development costs have increased to make the next gen style games. But not enough to justify these price increases. PC games are cheaper but definetly pave the way for what is "next-gen" when it comes to graphics and sound. The consoles look great right now, but it's nothing PC games haven't been or are doing in terms of content and assests. They may not have to pay for dev kits, but why does that get passed down to the user for console games?

Anyway, I've been trying to find some real world numbers on cost to profit but haven't found any yet. If anyone can, please post 'em. I think this guy said it best on another forum regarding next-gen pricing:

A product is worth exactly what the customers are willing to pay for it.
The one and ONLY universal marketing law.

If this wasn't true, game wouldn't depreciate so quickly. One week full price, the next, bargain bin.

[strosek]

Why should they be that?
It doesn't matter if games are sold for $10, people will burn them as long as it's cheaper. If you can't afford something, you don't but it, it's a simple as that. Games are not a human right or anything.

Your right. People want things for as little money as they can spend. Anything on a CD or DVD will never be safe from the Diehards that want to work the system. It will only get worse. It will get so bad that the people buying the product will be getting screwed more then the people riping the stuff. take dvd's I took my friends dvd's and riped them all about 20 or so and burned them back to 8.5GB dvd's because he said he was sick of the damn previews and FBI crap at the start of the movie. To each there own. My reasons for doing the things I do are differnt then his and most others.

[Brettzies]

http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/games/crash.html

Some of you may have seen this before. Interesting take on why the game market will crash, loses money, etc.

[tozz]

http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/games/crash.html

Some of you may have seen this before. Interesting take on why the game market will crash, loses money, etc.
Games will crash because he doesn't think the visual leap is as big as from atari to nintendo. Yeah, that makes sense, cause games are all about graphics... And to use a XBOX or PS3 you need a HDTV, not even close. Then 30million units sold in two years is proof of decline?

You can make everything look like a pink elephant if you try hard enough, this guy probably blew his brain pushing out this pile of crap.

[Brettzies]

Games will crash because he doesn't think the visual leap is as big as from atari to nintendo. Yeah, that makes sense, cause games are all about graphics... And to use a XBOX or PS3 you need a HDTV, not even close. Then 30million units sold in two years is proof of decline?

You can make everything look like a pink elephant if you try hard enough, this guy probably blew his brain pushing out this pile of crap.It's just commentary. Don't take everything so seriously. Even though he does make some good or at least interesting points. Like almost 70% of Ps2's being sold after they reduced the price to $199. So it's not just graphics, but the price vs innovation leap as well. He does sound like a frustrated gamer though. You should try reading the whole commentary as well, not just the first few paragraphs.

[quyeno]

movies have a worldwide audience, boys, girls, men, women, old and young. movies also make additonal money from dvd sales and licensed merchandise. video games have a much smaller audience.

[strosek]

The part about most games or more games going online for $$ makes since 60$ for the game and then $15 each month to play it. Blizzard is making some coin off that for real.

[quyeno]

yeah, MMO games are a real money spinner. the post development cost is not as much but it still rakes in the money. every big publisher will try and have a MMO game on their books.

[Brettzies]

movies have a worldwide audience, boys, girls, men, women, old and young. movies also make additonal money from dvd sales and licensed merchandise. video games have a much smaller audience.I know it's different, but there are a lot of similarities as well, especially with a full cg movie for instance. Just because you have a small audience doesn't justify jacking up the price though. I'm just saying that the price of a movie ticket, or even a dvd sale is not making most people think "that's absurd." People aren't seeing as many films because they have more options. However, the new HD dvds I think are going to run base line $30. Granted they are 1080p. So, there it goes again.

MMOs are another "thing" with me. I've always had a problem with charging premium for the full game and then $15/month just to play it? Maybe $30 for the game at that point, or $5/month. But people are buying it, the whole Consumer dictates the price rings true. World of Warcrack is an annomoly imo, not all MMO's will be that successful and several have already failed.

Anyway, as far as these PS3 games and systems costing more, only time will tell if it works.

[strosek]

I know it's different, but there are a lot of similarities as well, especially with a full cg movie for instance. Just because you have a small audience doesn't justify jacking up the price though. I'm just saying that the price of a movie ticket, or even a dvd sale is not making most people think "that's absurd." People aren't seeing as many films because they have more options. However, the new HD dvds I think are going to run base line $30. Granted they are 1080p. So, there it goes again.

MMOs are another "thing" with me. I've always had a problem with charging premium for the full game and then $15/month just to play it? Maybe $30 for the game at that point, or $5/month. But people are buying it, the whole Consumer dictates the price rings true. World of Warcrack is an annomoly imo, not all MMO's will be that successful and several have already failed.

Anyway, as far as these PS3 games and systems costing more, only time will tell if it works.

I'm with you. carpayment insurance cable line phone bill ect ect to many monthly charges. ah well i guess.

[PyRoT]

With all the money that WoW is making, I am appaled they they don't let you download it for free with a trial. Paying so much for the box is a bad move IMO.

[CupOWonton]

Note to self, get in on the next big MMO....

[tozz]

It's just commentary. Don't take everything so seriously. Even though he does make some good or at least interesting points. Like almost 70% of Ps2's being sold after they reduced the price to $199. So it's not just graphics, but the price vs innovation leap as well. He does sound like a frustrated gamer though. You should try reading the whole commentary as well, not just the first few paragraphs.
I've read it all, and you're missing the point. The PS2 was introduced in March 2000 in JP, and then finally in November in EU, so even it out we can say 2years alive, and that 15million units every year. Then between 2002 and 2006 it sold another 70 million, that's 17,5million units every year. Now, that's nothing suprising at all, with a wider library of games and more mouth to mouth advertising you will sell more. Of course the price drop had some effect, but not that big as people want it to be, and including all the factors it's only 2.5million units more per year, correct me if I'm missing something.

And btw, if you read it you would see that the PS2 sales "point" is at the bottom...

[Brettzies]

I've read it all, and you're missing the point. The PS2 was introduced in March 2000 in JP, and then finally in November in EU, so even it out we can say 2years alive, and that 15million units every year. Then between 2002 and 2006 it sold another 70 million, that's 17,5million units every year. Now, that's nothing suprising at all, with a wider library of games and more mouth to mouth advertising you will sell more. Of course the price drop had some effect, but not that big as people want it to be, and including all the factors it's only 2.5million units more per year, correct me if I'm missing something.
How am I missing the point? Where does he make that point? Who says they sold 15million/year for the first two years and 17.5 million/year for the next 4? I know its a nice easy clean answer in terms of averages but I highly doubt they sold 17.5million ps2's in 2006. I suppose it's possible, but it seems kind of unlikely. The price of the ps2 decreased every year, and if you still think it's only part of the issue, look here to see how much impact price has: http://gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=3624

And btw, if you read it you would see that the PS2 sales "point" is at the bottom...I'm the one that brought that up in the first place, of course I read it. No doubt by now you have as well. It's still just commentary though. Who cares whether it makes sense or not? Are you scared it might actually crash or something? You seem hell bent on making this guy appear to be a jerk-ass but it looks like the opposite is happening.

[tozz]

How am I missing the point? Where does he make that point? Who says they sold 15million/year for the first two years and 17.5 million/year for the next 4? I know its a nice easy clean answer in terms of averages but I highly doubt they sold 17.5million ps2's in 2006. I suppose it's possible, but it seems kind of unlikely. The price of the ps2 decreased every year, and if you still think it's only part of the issue, look here to see how much impact price has: http://gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=3624

I'm the one that brought that up in the first place, of course I read it. No doubt by now you have as well. It's still just commentary though. Who cares whether it makes sense or not? Are you scared it might actually crash or something? You seem hell bent on making this guy appear to be a jerk-ass but it looks like the opposite is happening.
Thanks for proving the point, the stats he's providing is utterly useless since he doesn't base them on more than a single turning point, and still doesn't prove what he's trying to say by it. Who said price doesn't have an impact? I'm saying there's plenty more factors to look into when considering sales.

If you read it why do you ask if i just read the first few words when you should know it's one of the last ones, trying the old "make people look stupid by saying stupid things"? Do you make it a habit to paste links that you find irrelevant and stuff you don't care about? If you don't care if it makes sense, why botter defending it?

[Brettzies]

If you read it why do you ask if i just read the first few words when you should know it's one of the last ones, trying the old "make people look stupid by saying stupid things"? Do you make it a habit to paste links that you find irrelevant and stuff you don't care about? If you don't care if it makes sense, why botter defending it?You are right. I just think it's interesting stuff. The whole game industry and pricing. Plus I love playing games when I get the chance. I don't necessarily find it irrelevant or that he's right or wrong, just stuff to think about. I guess I just don't see it in black or white, so I can't say for sure he's full of himself(the game industry crash guy), well, he is but he also presents information at the same time. But none of that really matters. I suppose it's all related, but PS3 and it's new pricing for the system and games will definetly be interesting to watch. My own thoughts are that only the most hardcore are going to jump on it right away. Whether that's enough for them or they drop the prices remains to be seen.

[CGTalk Moderation]

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.