Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
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".
stuff |
Well, since you read TDB, I'm sure you caught this comment ( http://www.thedigitalbits.com/mytwocentsa122.html# comp ) where they found out it's the HDMI interface on the Samsung that causes the problems; switching to component placed Blu-Ray nearly on par with HD-DVD.
Hopefully they'll get that fixed before companies start enforcing the downsample flag...
What made Sony popular was the cheap price of CD games on the PSX compared to the higher priced N64games. Now that there are tons more games available compared to those days. A lot of games are cheaper but now Sony wants to change that by charging more? The price is simply to pay for the BluRay technology which will crash and burn in the mainstream movie media market, as well as HDDVD. They are all stupid. Boycott them all!
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 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.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
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.
Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
Sir, you are a genius.
It's amazing how easy it is to afford 3 systems at once and new games 2 or 3 times a week -- if, at this point, you are just discovering Xbox and Gamecube (like me)
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.
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
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.
When did Sony get bought by Games Workshop?
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.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
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, and a host of other problems I'm sure. This is the same company that treats its customers like idiots - and then feigns ignorance when people stop plopping more money down. I do have to admit - I'm curious to see which PR guy they send out to handle this, and how they spin things going forward.
"To work for libertarianism -- to oppose the growth of government and aid the liberation of the individual -- used to be
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 may have made it's share of mistakes, but they've had one or two small successes as well.
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 to only buy 3 or 4 brand new games a year (bargain bin and rentals for the rest). If they go from $60 to $70, I don't think this behaviour will change too much. I don't think I'll be shelling out $600 for new console, however. Nintendo may win a spot in my living room for this generation of consoles.
"Now gluttony and exploitation serves eight!" - TV's Frank
Great, another "I don't play games, I go outside and have friends." post. Goes well with a "I don't have a TV, I go outside and have friends." post.
Good for you! But we really don't care. And you can lose the passive-aggressive implication that those of us who do play games don't go outside, don't have friends, and spend "hours in the basement."
The wheel gets reinvented so much because it has a low risk factor value. Graphics are what keep raising the developing costs for a game, I think it costs millions these days to be able to get a game out the door that meets the "standard" of a good game with good graphics. And since people want games with better and better graphics, I figure either companies have to cut costs somewhere or raise the cost of a game. I blame the general public for the state that games are in.
Its because of the high development costs that publishers are only willing to foot the bill for a game they are sure will produce revenue. Read, a sequal, or a flagship title. Gods only know what HD Graphics are going to do to development costs in the next generation games.
It's also intsructive to note that the Killzone screenshots etc looked awesome. A few rational people queried how such graphics would actually move, given it was a PS2 game, but they were largely ignored. Then again, screenshots always look better when you render them at 4x actual game resolution, if you know what I mean.
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 that through. And of course, as the price increases, the consideration increases, all lessening the chances I'll walk out of the store with that game.
Interestingly, there's another dynamic that's starting to come into play in my life. Namely, getting 50 hours of entertainment out of a game is likely going to take me months, because I'm consistently finding myself with less free time as I get older. I'd rather spend $30 for 15-20 hours of playtime, because in as long as it'll take me to spend 20 total hours gaming, there will be something else out that will make me forget about the previous game.
Add in the fact that I've still got a handful of longer games that I've never gotten around to finishing, and I've got more than I can manage to play already without spending a dime. That, in a way, decreases the value of new games to me, and makes a high price tag that much less appealing.
One time I threw a brick at a duck.