Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Sony Hints At Higher Priced Games 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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sony Hints At Higher Priced Games

Comments Filter:
  • by bailout911 ( 143530 ) on Thursday June 29, 2006 @04:02PM (#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.
    • by 26reverse ( 305980 ) on Thursday June 29, 2006 @04:12PM (#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".
      • by StarvingSE ( 875139 ) on Thursday June 29, 2006 @04:21PM (#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.
      • by bigman2003 ( 671309 ) on Thursday June 29, 2006 @06:00PM (#15632098) Homepage
        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 answer to that is, "geez dude, aren't you sick of that game yet?"
        • 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 f
    • by spun ( 1352 ) <> on Thursday June 29, 2006 @04:32PM (#15631139) Journal
      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.
    • Thats why the gamecube rocks, 5-25 dollar games right now and some nice graphics.
    • Not that I like to see the cost of games rise, and comparing playing games to spending time with friends and family is an apples-to-oranges situation, but if we go by sheer hours of time occupied? Your $60 gets you an evening of entertainment. It seems like video games have a pretty high hours to price ratio, assuming you pick your games accordingly. Many PS2 RPGs are 60-90 hours of gameplay for around $60. You would have to watch a $20 DVD 10 times or so (assuming a 2hr film) to come out ahead. I tend
      • Yeah, a good video game is a lot of value for the money. The only problem is that it's often a bit of a crapshoot, due to facts such as publishers willing to ruin promising games by forcing them out early, or review mags/websites giving higher than deserved scores in order to keep the pre-release games coming.

        If I knew that every time I was spending $70 that I'd get at least 50 hours of entertainment, I'd happily spend that money. But I've been disappointed enough times that I really think a purchase like t
  • Great idea (Score:5, Insightful)

    by KDR_11k ( 778916 ) on Thursday June 29, 2006 @04:03PM (#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.
    • by BigNumber ( 457893 ) on Thursday June 29, 2006 @04:22PM (#15631016)
    • by springbox ( 853816 ) on Thursday June 29, 2006 @04:29PM (#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.
    • I'm sure he was speaking to his shareholders.
    • RTFA? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Moraelin ( 679338 ) on Friday June 30, 2006 @04:07AM (#15634714) Journal
      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.
  • by gforce811 ( 903907 ) on Thursday June 29, 2006 @04:06PM (#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.
    • by Kazzahdrane ( 882423 ) on Thursday June 29, 2006 @04:23PM (#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".
      • 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.
    • by blueZhift ( 652272 ) on Thursday June 29, 2006 @04:57PM (#15631438) Homepage Journal
      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.
    • 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.

      • by The-Bus ( 138060 ) on Thursday June 29, 2006 @05:20PM (#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).

        • by Sycraft-fu ( 314770 ) on Thursday June 29, 2006 @07:12PM (#15632581)
          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.
      • To be fair... it has been debunked as being a video captured and played back. The console couldn't run it at the proper framerate so they ran it slower and played the video back at the right framerate. This happened before final hardware, but the makers of Killzone have done this kind of stuff before.
    • 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 exclusive

  • by Jerf ( 17166 ) on Thursday June 29, 2006 @04:06PM (#15630798) Journal
    The Sony Playstation S&M: Sony's got the "S" covered, guess where that leaves you?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 29, 2006 @04:07PM (#15630806)
    I don't expect it to be $100
    In marketing terms, this means some games will be $99.99. Screw that.
  • *KAPOW* (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 29, 2006 @04:08PM (#15630817)
    Do they have any toes left at this point?
  • Wow! Based on the E3 showing, I thought I'd only be able to watch the much-delayed worse-than-HDDVD [] 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.
  • Also (Score:5, Funny)

    by jayhawk88 ( 160512 ) <> on Thursday June 29, 2006 @04:11PM (#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.
  • 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".
    • 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?

      "$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 t
    • by Control Group ( 105494 ) on Thursday June 29, 2006 @04:47PM (#15631312) Homepage
      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.
      • 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.

        This is exactly what Nintendo's president is worried about here [], although he's even worried about 6 month or 9 month typical discounting. I agree with him on that -
      • You don't want people to get the impression that your stuff is "expensive". Expensive, in the consumer context means that they think your product costs more than it should. Doesn't matter what the actual price is, just that they believe it to be more than it ought to be.

        Well that impression can get formed on inital pricing, even if you lower it later. That was one half of the equation as to why MS kept the 360 price low, even though it's clear they could have gotten more. They didn't want people getting the
    • I was one of those 16-Bit RPG fans that paid as much as $79 back in 1989 on games such as Phantasy Star II.

      Unfortunately, the market dictates the price, and ultimately if the fans want it badly enough they'll pay.

      That doesn't mean this is a pleasant turn of events. People are used to the normal $49 pricepoint since the days of Atari, and even getting used to $59 will take some time.
    • Earlier this week a transcript of a Ninteno shareholders meeting was released, and this topic was discussed. You can read it here []. 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
  • by Rob T Firefly ( 844560 ) on Thursday June 29, 2006 @04:12PM (#15630873) Homepage Journal
    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.
  • 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 (Score:3, Interesting)

    by monopole ( 44023 ) on Thursday June 29, 2006 @04:15PM (#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.
    • 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.."
  • by Kohath ( 38547 ) on Thursday June 29, 2006 @04:16PM (#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.

    • 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 anyon
      • 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.
      • by Ahnteis ( 746045 ) on Thursday June 29, 2006 @04:59PM (#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.
      • It's the "Look! Shiny!" complex. Apple makes hardware that's pleasing to look at. Whether or not it performs better is beside the issue. People look at something and if it looks good, they assume it is a good product, even if it's on a subconscious level. Same goes for Nintendo, with that nice little cube. Although, I have to say, no games on the other systems have come close to the fun value of Super Smash Bros. or Double Dash on the GameCube. Four wireless controllers, refreshments, and frantic, soc
  • 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
  • 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 t
  • Honestly... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Yomer333 ( 918394 ) on Thursday June 29, 2006 @04:25PM (#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.
  • by Control Group ( 105494 ) on Thursday June 29, 2006 @04:37PM (#15631187) Homepage
    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.
    • 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 [] (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.


    • by Chris Burke ( 6130 ) on Thursday June 29, 2006 @05:20PM (#15631717) Homepage
      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.
    • The counter to market inflation is production cost reduction, that is, the longer something is in production, the cheaper it should be.

      In a perfect world, inflation and cost reduction would cancel each other out for everything. For things like video games, it somewhat has; although the the development costs have skyrocketed up, the cost of the actual media, shipping, and distribution has become cheaper, and so with more gamers buying games the sale price changes little (percentage wise.)

      With commodities suc
    • Except that technology has, in relative terms, been getting cheaper year on year - and most people are well aware of this, as it's glaringly obvious any time they walk past a shop that sells electronics.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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
    • I agree, with one notable exception - any price is too high for a Sony product. I even turned down a pair of Sony headphones (which were a gift) because of their appalling business practices. And I'd bet London to a brick I'm not the only one here either.
    • Sure... but your advice is just like telling people not to "waste $10 or so for a movie ticket,when you can wait long enough and see that same movie a year later for as little as $3.99 in someone's DVD bargain bin!"

      We're all aware of that, and most of us do that from time to time. But there's also some value/enjoyment in getting your hands on something brand new, and getting to be among the first to experience it. It is, after all, entertainment - and not anything you HAVE to buy/own. If you get a kick o
    • You do have a point.

      I bought an XBOX in early '02, only because the "Buffy The Vampire" slayer video game had gone from multi-platform to XBOX exclusive. Up until then, there hadn't been a single game that interested me. I've never had any PS, and my last console before that was a N64 that I had sold to someone a few years back. I only gamed on the PC at that point (from a youth growing up playing Nintendo and Sega).

      Over the past four years, I've bought less than five XBOX games; frankly, most of them ju
    • Eventually EVERYTHING ends up in the $20 bin

      O rly? What about Rez and Chrono Trigger and Earthbound? Or by "eventually" are you talking about timescales longer than a human lifetime []?

  • 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...
  • by Greyfox ( 87712 ) on Thursday June 29, 2006 @05:11PM (#15631615) Homepage Journal
    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.
  • by One Louder ( 595430 ) on Thursday June 29, 2006 @05:15PM (#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."
  • This is the same company that allows pre-orders for an expansion that it knows is going to be rendered worthless with upcoming changes to the game, doesn't announce those changes until the credit cards are billed, and then claims that everything is okay despite emptying of their online servers. This is the same company who's BMG branch allowed rootkits onto our computers without express or even implied consent, increasing the security threat both from malware and allowing people to cloak hacks for games, a
  • So, let's see...

    £425 for PS3 console.
    Probably £60 for one game.
    Factor in the fact that you won't be able to buy just the console on its own for the first few months, and will be forced to buy a bundle with a load of crap you don't actually want - let's say that's another £50 of 'value added' material.
    Total: £535.

    As the saying goes, fuck that!
  • Won't it be hilarious when Sony suddenly prices the PS3 at $300 and floods the market with them.

    They must know that competing with PCs is a bad idea (with a $600 tag it is, anyway), and that set-top boxes are a losing industry. So what else can the PS3 be? A glorified modern-day Commodore?
  • Another article handpicked by Zonk attacking the PS3 and misrepresenting the price yet again. At least we know an easy way to get a story submission in.
  • by smash ( 1351 )
    PS3 = neo geo for the new millennium? :D

    Gradually starting to look that way - stupidly overpriced console, overpriced games, hype about being the best next gen platform around...

    I wish them the best of luck with that (this coming from someone who's been a massive ps1/ps2 fan over the years)...

  • There exists a strange group of people called "Early adopters" who will go to amazing lengths to have the latest and greatest. These folks will gladly shell out $600 for a console and $70 each for games. And, if your intial run of consoles is small enough, they will buy them all. Perhaps Sony knows this...

    Here's my take on Sony's strategy.

    I. Soak the early adopters for as much cash as possible.
    II. Follow the launch with a rapid and drastic price drop for both consoles and games.
    III. Profit.

    After all Sony ma

Today is the first day of the rest of your lossage.