Slashdot Mirror
Sony Drops Platinum Title Cost
Eurogamer has the news that Sony has lowered prices on Platinum titles. Selections such as Eye Toy Play 2 and Jak 3 will now retail for about a third less, or roughly $US 34.95. From the article: "The news is set to allow retailers to enjoy a bumper summer at a time when the supply of quality new releases has all but dried up - and consumers will be able to sample a huge range of titles at prices that won't break the bank."
Honestly, what's their strategy here? Even when the Playstation 2 was coming out, I don't recall the regular Playstation games having lower prices overall. I'm confused: what's Sony up to?
"...will be able to sample a huge range of titles at prices that won't break the bank."
Yeah, breaking the bank will be when NextGen consoles come out. I know I will get bombarded with, "every generation console is high priced when they first come out..." but, this round of NextGen I feel will be hitting in between $350 and $450 for console units. That to me is breaking the bank. Hell, a new cheap yet up to date computer with no monitor hangs aound the $350 price tage.
"I cannot think of any need in childhood as strong as the need for a father's protection." -- Sigmund Freud
So I can spend $35 on a 4-year-old game for the PS, or $20 for a 1-year-old game for the PC.
No sources, this is slashdot, but check the prices of just about every 2004 FPS.
Pulp Audio Weekly - Geek News and Reviews
I don't see any mention of the prices in the US. In fact, the article is about european prices.
I live over here in North America, and I've heard of Greatest Hits games (they have red bars on the boxes), and they come in at $20. I've never seen a Platinum title, nor do I know what it is. I would assume it was equivalent to the Greatest Hits collection here in North America, but, the fact that after a LOWERING of the price they still cost more than Greatest Hits kinda throws me off. What gives?
WASTE - The Secure P2P
Great, now I can look forward to €45 titles instead of €60 ones. This despite the favourable US/Euro exchange rate.
So instead of paying ~$71 for my games, I'll now be paying ~$53 dollars, which is still more than the $50 that is paid for games in the States!!!
Arrgghh!!
Thank you Sony. Thanks for nothing!!
May the Maths Be with you!
The article assumes you know about UK games prices, ranges etc., so if you don't know, here's some information other people have probably already posted whilst I dither over this message:
PlayStation Platinum is the European equivelant of PlayStation 2 Greatest Hits. They used to retail for £19.99ish (~$35) in the UK. (Xbox has Xbox Classics, GameCube has Player's Choice for their budget ranges, all usually at £20ish).
Full games usually have an RRP of £40 (~$70), but as the article states, are often found cheaper nowadays, although they're usually slightly above £30 (~$50).
£15 is nearer $25 than $35, but exchange rates fluctuate.
There are of course various offers and stuff, budget priced games (whever in a budget range or not) are often in 2 for £30 offers and stuff.
Yes, living in Europe sucks if you like videogames. We usually have to wait until last to pay the most for them.
10 PRINT "LOOK AROUND YOU ";
20 GOTO 10
Seriously, who considers $35 to be cheap? The game better be damned good for me to pay $35 when there are tons of $20 and $15 titles that would be just as much fun. And if these are games that have already sold enough to reach "platinum", I'd expect a drop in price at least this much.
But I should quit complaining, considering the next generation conosoles' games are going to cost an arm and a leg.
Here's a link to Sony's Greatest Hits games... I don't know if it's the same as the UK Platinum games, but I doubt they're too dissimilar.
"I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar."
-Hoban Washburn
Advertising for Nerds. Stuff that sells.
I spent $30 on the brand new Meteos game on the Nintendo DS. Great value!
What about paying 489€ for the MacMini? (about $100 dollars more)
Hosting 20G hd, 1Tb bw! ssh $7.95
I see you found its always good to start with troll bullshit?
As a Nintendo fan, I've made a lot of predictions about their return to dominance. None of them came true.
Right now the XBOX is definately not the top dog in the console world. They are barely beating the GameCube in the worldwide home console market, but that one victory needs some perspective. First, the PS2 is outselling it 4:1. Second, the XBOX is not a factor in Japan. Third, Microsoft has lost more than 2 billion dollars on the XBOX.
If you are talking about Home Consoles, the top dog is clearly Sony in both profits and sales. If you are talking all current systems, Nintendo is clearly the victor in both profits and sales.
Even if Microsoft were to turn their video game division profitable right now and achieve Nintendo levels of profitability, it would take more than 3 years for Microsoft to earn their investment back.
I'm not going to say Nintendo is going to lead this next generation. I know how many broken Sony systems consumers are willing to replace. I will, however, predict their sales and profits will remain healthy.
On the other hand, I predict that Microsoft will fall short of breaking even with the 360 no matter how many units they sell, but I'm sure they will be able to handle it.
Sony will probably lead the home console sales again, as long as they maintain their profits.
You're kind of right...but not completely. Yes, most people who own an Xbox and a PS2 go for the Xbox version if it's multiplatform. Unfortunately, there's still alot of games that are PS2 exclusive. MS might be making great strides here in America but it's only doing moderately well in Europe and HORRIBLY in Japan. I'd go as far to say that MS views the Xbox as a failure, and that's why their so eager to jump ahead into the next generation.
I too believe MS has put the Xbox360 in a very competitive position. They'll be the first out the gate, and unlike Sega before them...actually have the money to over market/advertise Sony. From what we've seen of the PS3 and Xbox360 so far they look to be on fairly equal footing. PS3 might have a little more graphical horsepower, but it's starting to look like the 360's triple core processor might allow for better gameplay and physics than the much overhyped Cell. The fact that the first couple sweeps of the Xbox will only be available with a harddrive will ensure a large enough base, so that developers actually care as where the PS3 will probably not be as fortunate. I think Sony was way too cocky last gen, and they gave MS the chance to gain some serious ground on them...if they keep up their ways of the past they may very well find MS getting a larger portion of the pie this go round.
As for Nintendo, they're always a wild card...there's a chance they could suprise everyone and take first place this next generation. It's not likely...but you never know. Being that the Revolution will probably come out at least $100 less than the 360 (and I guess $200 less than the PS3?) they can aim for a different audience than MS and Sony will be battling for...so I don't even bother comparing them with the other two usually...
"A truly wise man realizes he knows nothing."
As a Nintendo fan, I've made a lot of predictions about their return to dominance. None of them came true.
Okay, but you were obviously wrong about Nintendo first time around. So why does that now give weight to your opinion that Sony is going to continue to dominate?
Right now the XBOX is definately not the top dog in the console world.
So why to people prefer Xbox versions of games? I'm not talking about absolute sales figures (I do not question the PS2 selling more units than the Xbox), I'm saying that the Xbox has won the crown as "most desirable console". If you ask people who own all three consoles "which is the best", they will answer "Xbox". The specific example I tried to use was Grand Theft Auto: several hardcore gamer friends of mine have traded in their PS2 version in exchange for the Xbox version. It is better, they prefer it. They are buying Xbox not PS2. If both the Xbox 360 and the PS3 were out tomorrow, they would choose the 360.
Second, the XBOX is not a factor in Japan.
That's partly because of Japan's xenophobic attitude towards American products, and because Microsoft didn't know how to succeed in Japan. They got their asses kicked. Having learned their lesson, they have now gone to Japanese talent for 360 games rather than trying to import titles that didn't work for the market (just like the Japanese companies like Sony have development studios in the US).
However, the Japanese market is tiny compared to the American market. Titans live and die here - not in Japan.
Third, Microsoft has lost more than 2 billion dollars on the XBOX.
Microsoft never cared about making the Xbox profitable. They're in it for the long-haul, their gameplan was never to make money on the Xbox 1. They have more than $40 billion dollars - cash - just sitting in the bank. They do not care if the Xbox lost them $2 billion - they aren't going to pay that full value anyway. Large companies get massive tax advantages if they have a "struggling" business unit that made a loss (oh look our poor division lost money so we have to pay $2 billion less taxes - boo hoo).
MSFT made $8 billion profit last year vs SNE's $0.8 billion - I don't think MSFT is hurting. Losing money won't hurt Sony in the short-term either, but I see Microsoft on the up while Sony is stalling out (Sony made less money in 2004 than in 2003).
Sony will probably lead the home console sales again, as long as they maintain their profits.
I agree that they're in a better position than Nintendo - but - Microsoft can afford to lose with the 360. Sony can't afford to lose with the PS3 as it'll be a turning point for them. This is a war of attrition measured in decades, the individual battles are of less consequence.
No I don't think so. They are retailing at $29.95 in Australia (normal platinum is $50 and new games $100), which would be something like $15 US.
Which for a game like jak 3 is a pretty darn good deal
I'd go as far to say that MS views the Xbox as a failure, and that's why their so eager to jump ahead into the next generation.
But in some respects, Microsoft did far better with the Xbox than they were expecting. Several pieces of the Xbox empire (like Xbox Live) have done tremendously. Launching the first global online console gaming platform is no small feat. Microsoft knew that they were in for a tough fight. Their worst-case scenario would have been "get eaten alive by Sony" - and that didn't happen (although it came close in Japan - Japan is a tiny market).
As for Nintendo, they're always a wild card
True, but that means they don't have a focus. Nintendo's street image is "handhelds for kids". Their Gameboy and DS are doing too well to allow them to win on the console front. Companies can only push one type of product at a time - otherwise their products compete against each other, the marketing message turns muddy and people stop listening.
(This muddying of the message is partly how the Nintendo 64 came unseated by it's own Gameboy - and is now Sony's problem. For Sony fans, the PSP is far more exciting than the PS2 - yet true fans of handhelds are more interested in Nintendo's DS as they already had a Gameboy.)
(And this is also why car manufacturers often have several brands to help them sell different products to different markets. Even Toyota's done it with their Scion and Lexus brands that have laser focus on markets (in this case: gen-Y'ers and luxury) that would normally exclude Toyota).
The only way I can forsee myself buying another Nintendo product is if it really is light years ahead of anything else.
Still, it'll be interesting to see what happens next.
Gamers that have both platforms are buying Xbox versions of titles (ie: the Grand Theft Auto series) instead of Playstation 2 ones.
Despite the PS2's (minimum) 8 month lead time for that series? I smell a troll...