Playstation 3 games to cost up to 100 us Dollars!

[TopHat]

Please tell me this is a cruel joke to gamers with a limited budget (me)!http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_3

Nope, its all true games will be priced from 60-still more than the standard 50 in my mind! To a whopping 100 dollars!
Supposedly it is justified the cost for the system because stand alone Blu-Ray players can cost up to 1000 dollars (US).



Please post your comments

Positive or Negative I don't give a hoot.

 

[Solid Lifters]

Please tell me this is a cruel joke to gamers with a limited budget (me)!http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_3

Nope, its all true games will be priced from 60-still more than the standard 50 in my mind! To a whopping 100 dollars!
Supposedly it is justified the cost for the system because stand alone Blu-Ray players can cost up to 1000 dollars (US).

No, it's true. Sony wants to send your ass to the poorhouse.

Click on the link in my sig "I don't want potential..." to hear yourself scream about it.

 

[TopHat]

I hate Sony to no end when it comes to PRICING! OH DEAR GOD!!!


HEAD- HIT- KEYBOARD

 

[DuckRacer]

Get a grip. Games won't be priced $100. The absolute maximum realistically, would be $70.

@ Solid Lifters - I haven't heard the official price of games, so if you found a press release or something that details it, post it up.

 

[Jedi2016]

I think you're taking it slightly out of context by reading it on only one website. Whenever you read something on the internet that you find hard to believe, it's generally a good idea to verify it somewhere else before taking it as hardcore fact.

Now, as far as fact goes, Kaz did say that the games are likely to cost $50-60, like the Xbox360, but that the price hasn't been finalized yet. As part of the interview, he said something to the effect of "We're not pricing ourselves out of the market.. it's not like the games are going to cost a hundred dollars or anything."

Now, someone, probably an Xbox fanboy, took that statement, which equates to "Games will NOT cost a hundred dollars" to mean "Games WILL cost a hundred dollars".

The moral of the story? Don't believe anything you read. And only half of what you see.

Don't complain about the prices of games until you actually see them in the store for more than you want to pay. Then.. well, just don't buy them.

 

[TopHat]

Yes but just put it in google, you will find it on many other websites!

 

[Tornado]

Bad information spreads. The only reson it got into people's heads was that it was just some stupid thin the Ken said off-hand, and people ran with it.

 

[Law93]

if the games are $100, forget about buying them, thats just not worth it

 

[Kylehnat]

They can't cost $100, because nobody will buy them. Sony HAS to take the financial hit in order to sell them for $50-$60. It's smarter to lose profit on each game than to not have it sell at all.

 

[Robin]

If the games cost $100 then 360 will rule the world!!!!

 

[godzilla_GTR]

lol go the 360...even thow i have always liked sony more.Until TDU and forza 2 came along

 

[TopHat]

Good point about sony having to lose money, which they have done with the sales of the PS2, but make it up with game royalties.

Nintendo, despite having the least market share, always makes the most money, because they have the lowest manufacturing costs.

 

[Jedi2016]

Here's a shocker for you.. Sony won't be losing money on $60 games.

Unless you people really think that a single Blu-Ray disc costs over $50 to manufacture... In which case you really need to stop smoking whatever it is you're smoking, go to the corner store, and get a clue.

 

[Dave A]

First of all, Sony don't choose the prices shops charge customers for a game, the publishers influence it, but Sony isn't always the publisher, but the shops stick that price sticker on the box, not Sony, not Microsoft, not Nintendo. Secondly, Kaz Hirai was asked about the prices of PS3 games, and he said just that, that Sony don't choose the price, he also said it would be unreasonable toimagine having to pay such a large ammount for a game. But he couldn't come out and say game will not cost that much, because in Brazil for example, games cost an arm and a leg, almost literally. And he can't say if shop A, decides to try and extort a few customer in the first month of the PS3's launch by sticking an extra $10 on top of the rrp.

 

[speed_demon]

it probably says $100 us because they may sell in other countries such as in england and europe for around £50 and this then exchanges to around $100 us because last time i checked current exchange rates £:$ was about 1.89......

 

[KENJIusa]

Are we going back in time?

 

[Tenacious D]

What the four above me said. Good grief Matt, this is WAY old news from spring. Do you check the dates that these net items have in their headings??

 

[YSSMAN]

Thank God for the internet and the way rumors spread faster than California wildfires, or maybe even Sharon Stone's legs. Yes, the rumor still is alive and well, but that doesn't mean it is completely true either. The Comcast-owned G4 often points to that being the biggest negative of the PS3, the possibility of game prices higher than that of the current $60 standard set by the 360, but even then, they acknowlege that they can't be certain.

My opinion:

Sony isn't dumb enough to charge more than $60 for a game, I think that is pretty obvious. But if production costs are as high as some publishers say, who is to guess that EA or THQ wouldn't push out a $70 or $80 title? They did it back in the day with the N64 (among other classic consoles), so it could happen again.

It isn't the end of the world, as there are plenty of people who aren't even going to be able to buy the PS3 to begin with. Given that even Mr. Harai has admitted that PS3 production has not yet offically begun (this was of last Tuesday, the 22nd), and the fact that they want to have two million PS3s on the market by January 2007, I belive that we can expect shortages for the PS3 on a larger scale as compared to that of the 360 uppon launch.

...But back on topic:

I wouldn't be surprised to see SCE titles go for $50 or so, while other titles would sell between $60-70 alike the 360 titles.

 

[fasj6418]

First of all, Sony don't choose the prices shops charge customers for a game, the publishers influence it, but Sony isn't always the publisher, but the shops stick that price sticker on the box, not Sony, not Microsoft, not Nintendo. Secondly, Kaz Hirai was asked about the prices of PS3 games, and he said just that, that Sony don't choose the price, he also said it would be unreasonable toimagine having to pay such a large ammount for a game. But he couldn't come out and say game will not cost that much, because in Brazil for example, games cost an arm and a leg, almost literally. And he can't say if shop A, decides to try and extort a few customer in the first month of the PS3's launch by sticking an extra $10 on top of the rrp.

thanks for reminding me of my sad reality. almost a kidney i would say . no wonder why piracy is so big here. just to put in contex, i make 810 a month, and a single game can cost up to 300. so i could buy 2.5 games a month with my 40 hour/week job...

still with all that, micro$oft is going to release the 360 here in december... sony still haven´t said anything about the PS3...

anyway, this is all kind of off topic, but just a small rant

well, some shops already have the games listed at 59,99 so i doubt they will charge more. once BD production is in full scale, the disc itself will cost less than a dollar, just like the DVD right now

 

[Thiele]

Get a grip. Games won't be priced $100. The absolute maximum realistically, would be $70.

well, maybe, the newest Xbox 360 games were $119AU here so id imagine a ps3 game costing probably up to $150

ugh prices these days

 

[McLaren]

Way to exploit the Sony man's interview with PSM.

In the interview, he said the MIGHT, however, he was NOT confirming anything about them being anywhere near $100.

 

[lzybm22]

Ah.. Anyone else remember the ol' Neo Geo? The Playstation 3 might be joining that little relic of a console..

About the Neo Geo

The console was planned to debut at $599 USD and included two joystick controllers and a game (either Baseball Stars or NAM-1975). However, this plan was quickly scrapped and when the system had its national launch it debuted at $649.99 with two joysticks, a memory card, and a single pack-in game, Magician Lord (the early Neo Geo boxes had a gold sticker announcing the inclusion of Magician Lord over the initially planned choice of two games), this package was known as the "Gold System". The system was also released in a "Silver System" package, which included one joystick controller and did not include a game or memory card. Other games cost $200 and up — each. With these "premium" prices though, most gamers weren't able to afford the system and so the console was only accessible to a niche market.

From wikipedia.org

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Geo_(console)

 

[Dave A]

I remember some Neo Geo games costing upwards of £100 back in the day.

 

[DuckRacer]

well, maybe, the newest Xbox 360 games were $119AU here so id imagine a ps3 game costing probably up to $150

ugh prices these days

Oh. I had American dollars in mind.

 

[Tornado]

The Comcast-owned G4 often points to that being the biggest negative of the PS3, the possibility of game prices higher than that of the current $60 standard set by the 360, but even then, they acknowlege that they can't be certain.

The only thing on that entire network that isn't biased trash is X-Play. Pretty much everything they say I take with a grain of salt.

Sony isn't dumb enough to charge more than $60 for a game, I think that is pretty obvious. But if production costs are as high as some publishers say, who is to guess that EA or THQ wouldn't push out a $70 or $80 title? They did it back in the day with the N64 (among other classic consoles), so it could happen again.

Different reason entirely, but dually noted.

Ah.. Anyone else remember the ol' Neo Geo? The Playstation 3 might be joining that little relic of a console..

Yup. Launched in 1990, support ended in 2004. Sony could shoot for worse, such as any SEGA system that wasn't the Mega Drive/Genny.

 

[Jedi2016]

The thing about "higher production costs" is the extra cost has already been included in the price. Are you folks forgetting that, before the Xbox360 launch, all games were only $50 max?

A $60 game IS a game where they're factoring in "increased costs". Doing it again would be stupid. Why would PS3 games be more expensive to produce than X360 games? Makes no sense.

 

[Tornado]

A $60 game IS a game where they're factoring in "increased costs". Doing it again would be stupid. Why would PS3 games be more expensive to produce than X360 games? Makes no sense.

There is a difference. 360 games are $60 only because MS takes a bigger royalty cut to try to make money back on the 360 console. Sony could concievably charge $70 because at least there is a good reason for it, in addition to trying to balance out PS3 production costs. The excuse that MS gave was pure BS, and all of the launch titles proved it.

 

[Jedi2016]

As I recall, it was the developers complaining about increased production costs. Microsoft doesn't actually develop, they just publish.

And if MS's cut was so huge, how do you explain the $40 price tag of TDU? Cheapest 360 game yet. And probably bound to piss off a bunch of other developers when fans start complaining even more about overpriced games, especially since Atari's showing them that it is possible to release a low-priced 360 game.

 

[Tenacious D]

360 games are $60 only because MS takes a bigger royalty cut to try to make money back on the 360 console.

Actually you have it backwards. MS looses money on each 360 console, and they try and make it back on the game software. They understand that the 360 market isn't that large to start with, so they price for a combination of maximum profits and titles sold.

Atari pricing TDU at $39.99 is a bad sign of turmoil to come in the MS kingdom.

 

[Jeremy Ricci]

The only thing on that entire network that isn't biased trash is X-Play. Pretty much everything they say I take with a grain of salt.

Different reason entirely, but dually noted.

Yup. Launched in 1990, support ended in 2004. Sony could shoot for worse, such as any SEGA system that wasn't the Mega Drive/Genny.

Actually I take X-Play to be the *most* biased show on the network. They heavily favor certain um..."titles" for certain "systems"...and um...they are rarely level headed in their opinons. That entire show is drivin on the personal Bias of Adam Sessler, and Morgan just taggs along (she really doesn't know much about video games)