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."

Already too Expensive

[bailout911]

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.

What are they thinking?

[gforce811]

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.

Stands to reason

[monopole]

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.

Sony repeating Neo*Geo's history again...

[onlysolution]

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:Already too Expensive

[StarvingSE]

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.

Honestly...

[Yomer333]

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.

Too expensive for rental places to stock

[MintMMs]

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...

Re:Sony is trying hard to lose the console war

[stratjakt]

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.

Re:What are they thinking?

[happyemoticon]

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.

Re:Already too Expensive

[bigman2003]

For me the biggest problem with 'budget' software that it is old, and in many cases (not all...) the on-line play suffers. (I don't play RPGs, so don't tell me how wonderful Everquest or World of Warcraft, or whatever is...)

When a game has been out for a long time, and you just jump in, the on-line experience usually sucks.

1- There is a good chance that many of the players have been playing for years. They know every trick, every little nuance. You don't have much of a chance to beat them. If a good player takes you under their wing (fat chance in a competitive game) you won't get to discover the game yourself, and learn things that very few other people have discovered.

2- Possibly the game wasn't too popular, but it is just something that people throw in when they're bored. They don't care about the game. They are much more likely to be griefers.

3- Maybe nobody plays anymore.

For a person who does about 80% of their gaming on-line, used budget games aren't a very good option.

Yes, of course some people are still playing Counterstrike, or Quake...my answer to that is, "geez dude, aren't you sick of that game yet?"

I think the percieved problem

[Sycraft-fu]

Is that Halo 3 will launch when the PS3 does. Now that may not happen, 2007 is the stated launch date, but I could see it. There's been quite a bit of time to work on it, I'd say there's a reasonable chance it could be made ready to release on short notice. So suppose MS does do that, the PS3 launches or is about to launch and they go "Hey guess what? We decided to drop the 360 price... Oh and look what we found in our back pocket, it's Halo 3 and it happens to be on sale now." That would be a major blow to the PS3 launch. Sony would need a game to compete, so to speak, the killer game that people are waiting for that makes the $500-600 worth it. Otherwise, maybe they decide a 360 and Halo 3 are more worth it.

The problem isn't if they have something specific as a Halo 3 response, the problem is if Halo 3 (and the Wii launch) are able to take enough of the wind out of their sales and really cripple PS3 adoption. Consoles are very much a feedback cycle. The more people that own them, the more interest there is in making games for them (because of mroe sales). More games drives more ownership and so on.

Already the game industry is a bit skeptical of the PS3. Between the shifting information, the delays, the price, and the slow dev kits, there's concern about it. If MS and/or Nintendo successfully deal a major blow to the launch, that could really screw them over all because it could convince devs that the PS3 isn't worth porting to, or at the very least isn't worth going exclusive on. That alone could be enough to ensure that it isn't all that successful, and given the amount of R&D dumped in it, they need a deceant success to see black on the project.

This isn't a doomsday scenario or anything, but it's a real concern. MS is not stupid and they know a thing or two about crushign competitors. Don't put it past them to go full court press and try to fuck over Sony's launch in every way possible.

Yet another reason not to buy the PS3 on arrival..

[daniel422]

Sadly, it appears I have another reason not to buy a PS3 on arrival -- and maybe ever. Weve already seen an increase in next gen games prices with the 360 -- I would expect similar from Sony, but even TALKING about it seems to imply a greater increase than what we currently have -- and nobody is happy about those costs either. Games are getting too damn expensive -- this will only feed the rental market.
Who do they think is going to buy this thing and its associated games? Im in my early 30s, with lots of disposable income and a gaming appetite Ive fed since I was four, yet I will NOT be buying this. Kids are going to suck $60-$100 a pop for games? In an industry that is exceeding the revenue of the movie industry? Yeah, right. We are now approaching the cost of a full system for a single game. Remember when Nintendo was $100? How about the Atari 2600? We are now approaching that cost for a single game and I FINALLY ask myself: Is it worth it? From what Ive seen -- NO. Theres nothing out there coming out that impresses me that much. NOTHING. And there is too much other content out there competing for my time and dollar. Its got to be pretty seriously special to command that kind of scratch.
As a audio-video phile I love the whole Blu-Ray concept, but this is just too much. Sony is offically on my shit list. Ill wait for the $149.99 version with the $20 games. Not that Im cheap, but the price is right.

Re:Already too Expensive

[Fordiman]

I dunno. I'm loving playing StarCraft with my friends across my PvPGN server. All out eight-player war across the city? Carrier fleet v. Battlecruiser fleet v. Devourer/Guardian fleet?

I love my StarCraft. Like more than a friend. No seriously. I actually made a live linux CD with little more than X, wine, sound drivers and StarCraft.

I'm picturing an advert:

Picture a guy with all-too-white teeth, a condescending voice, and a propensity for giving the "Thumbs Up". Like a used car salesman without the frazzled mustache.

"Computer down? Don't frown! It's the StarCraft boot disc.
System crashed? Don't gnash! It's the StarCraft boot disc.
Yes, with the StarCraft boot disc, you can avoid all that mucking about in obscure OS issues, and get to what's really important: Playing StarCraft.
Windows tweakin'? Don't be freakin'! It's the StarCraft boot disc."

I have four words for you:

[John Pfeiffer]

_I_ _own_ _Steel_ _Battalion_

For the uninitiated, it's a $200 game you basically justify by telling yourself (Or significant other...but who am I kidding?) you're paying for the controller it comes with (Which consists of a three-foot-wide control panel with 44 buttons, 5 toggle switches, two joysticks, a radio tuner dial, a gear shift, and let us not forget the three foot pedals...also, most of this is lighted), and not the game.

I, however, despising the Xbox entirely, was forced to grudgingly buy one JUST for Steel Battalion.

So, I'm not really bothered by this, despite being broke most of the time. I mean, they're going to be GREAT goddamn games. A quantum leap in graphics and gameplay. And frankly, if the profit-per-unit goes up, chances are more developers are going to be able to take risks on edgy or niche titles.

Look at Steel Battalion. It cost $200, and is really a game only a mecha otaku could love. But they took the chance and made it because it was manufactured in limited quantites, and sold for a shitton.

Even without a fancy controller, I'd gladly pay upwards of $100 for a great game that hits my strikezone dead center, something that really resonates with my interests. At $60, it might not be reasonable for a game to be made for such an audience, see what I'm getting at?