Sony Hints At Higher Priced Games

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."

Re:Already too Expensive

[26reverse]

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".

No he didn't hint at anything

[Kohath]

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.

Re:Oh, give it to me, give it to me!

[Jerf]

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:What are they thinking?

[Kazzahdrane]

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?

[The-Bus]

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:Hit games shouldn't be expensive, except early

[computertheque]

Earlier this week a transcript of a Ninteno shareholders meeting was released, and this topic was discussed. You can read it here [nintendo.co.jp]. The points brought up are very clear. If you have a consistent pricing strategy involving an intially high price only to drop it a month or so afterward, the consumer will notice and start to wait. Now, Nintendo also opens the door themselves to a nonfixed pricing strategy, allowing higher budget games to increase their retail price with the opposite for lower budget games. The key is to avoid the price reduction predictability, or the price drop at all.

Consumer may not always be smart, but to assume that they will not pick up on an obvious system of getting high returns at product debuts is ignorant. Do you have any idea how many people know the pricing strategies at department stores? With the evidently increased cost for the next generation of gaming, the consumer will not be as willing to throw money into things that will quickly drop in price.

Re:Already too Expensive

[snotclot]

Haven't you gone to www.gamespy.com and taken a look at the online gaming stats?

Counterstrike still beats everything out there; even with counterstrike source (CS 2), at peak times around 45,000 play CS1 and 45,000 play CS2, while the 3rd game lags a distant 3rd (Battlefield 2) with not even close to half of those numbers.

So, yes many have sickened of CS, but there are still a whole truckload of ppl that play it (CS1 alone, not counting CS2).

RTFA?

[Moraelin]

Actually, the summary on Slashdot is highly incorrect. If you read what the guy says on Gamasutra, it's

A) in response to Activision's making a fuss that games should be more expensive, since apparently Activision's development costs are too high to be covered even by $59, and

B) all that the Sony guy basically says is along the lines of "well, we can't go much higher than $59, because people expect games to be between $59 and $39. We can't suddenly price a game at $99, because noone would buy it. Even if we could slightly increase the price, it would be at most a very small increase, not what Activision wants."

Basically that's all there. It's _not_ about Sony wanting to raise game prices, it's Sony telling Activision "dude, put down the bong, we _can't_ sell your games for $99." I.e., pretty much the opposite of what the Slashdot summary says.