PS3 games to cost $75 to $85 bucks??

[Knightshade Dragon]

From McGriddleSpyGN - http://ps3.ign.com/articles/734/734950p1.html

To most gamers, the most eye-catching part of the feature is a claim about game prices. Citing "multiple information sources," the article states that the price of PS3 games will be concentrated in the 8,800 to 9,800 yen range. The primary reason given is the rising cost of development.

8800 -> 9800 is 75 to 85 USD folks.   That'd be the nail in the coffin for me. 

[Turtle]

All release titles have been confirmed to cost $60, same as the 360.  Knightshade, I really expected more of you than this.

Simply put, it's all the rave nowadays to bash on the PS3 by overemphasizing little rumors that come from "well known sources" or "multiple information sources".

[semiconscious]

"To most gamers, the most eye-catching part of the feature is a claim about game prices. Citing "multiple information sources," the article states that the price of PS3 games will be concentrated in the 8,800 to 9,800 yen range. The primary reason given is the rising cost of development.

In Japan, the standard price of a PS2 game is 6,800 yen, with only the biggest titles like Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy rising to the 8,800 yen mark."

if the japanese price of dq & ff is currently 8,800, and the american price is currently 50, i'm not seeing how that translates into 75 to 85 - 50 to 60 would seem more like it?...

[Knightshade Dragon]

"To most gamers, the most eye-catching part of the feature is a claim about game prices. Citing "multiple information sources," the article states that the price of PS3 games will be concentrated in the 8,800 to 9,800 yen range. The primary reason given is the rising cost of development.

In Japan, the standard price of a PS2 game is 6,800 yen, with only the biggest titles like Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy rising to the 8,800 yen mark."

if the japanese price of dq & ff is currently 8,800, and the american price is currently 50, i'm not seeing how that translates into 75 to 85 - 50 to 60 would seem more like it?...

Simply quoting.  I didn't do the conversion.  Still, it is cause for worry that the launch titles are confirmed, but no word whether this'll be a standard price.

[The Grue]

Simply put, it's all the rave nowadays to bash on the PS3 by overemphasizing little rumors that come from "well known sources" or "multiple information sources".

Yeah, not sure why people do this when Sony gives us plenty of ammunition straight from their own mouths.

[Turtle]

Then it sounds like that article was skewed then.

As above, some japanese titles are already priced as such but the american game is only $50-60.  Also, I heard the yen had fallen a bit as of late so the conversion would be off by even more.

[CeeKay]

Also, I heard the yen had fallen a bit as of late so the conversion would be off by even more.

FXTrader, a currency converter, says:

Sunday, September 24, 2006

9,800 Japanese Yen = 84.11807 US Dollar

Sunday, September 24, 2006

8,800 Japanese Yen = 75.53459 US Dollar

Sunday, September 24, 2006

1 PS3 Fanboy= pricele$$

 

[Misguided]

Well, they don't have to sell the system for the same price in both regions....

[semiconscious]

"To most gamers, the most eye-catching part of the feature is a claim about game prices. Citing "multiple information sources," the article states that the price of PS3 games will be concentrated in the 8,800 to 9,800 yen range. The primary reason given is the rising cost of development.

In Japan, the standard price of a PS2 game is 6,800 yen, with only the biggest titles like Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy rising to the 8,800 yen mark."

if the japanese price of dq & ff is currently 8,800, and the american price is currently 50, i'm not seeing how that translates into 75 to 85 - 50 to 60 would seem more like it?...

Simply quoting.  I didn't do the conversion.  Still, it is cause for worry that the launch titles are confirmed, but no word whether this'll be a standard price.

again, i see only one real 'conversion': 8,800 yen dq = 50 dollar dq. if that conversion holds, the currency aspects are kinda irrelevant...

[Kevin Grey]

Activision confirmed last week that their PS3 pricing would be the same as their 360 pricing: $60. 

Sounds like much ado about nothing to me. 

[EddieA]

From what I understand, pricing in Japan is not nearly as standardized as in the US.  In the US, popularity isn't factored into a game's price (for the most part), but I believe it is in Japan.  I have little doubt that there will not be any PS3 games over $60.

[Kobra]

All release titles have been confirmed to cost $60, same as the 360.  Knightshade, I really expected more of you than this.

Simply put, it's all the rave nowadays to bash on the PS3 by overemphasizing little rumors that come from "well known sources" or "multiple information sources".

I believe he was quoting the article verbatim. In regards to the article though I DO agree with you, the Anti-PS3 crowd is really really getting old.. They need to find a new trick pony.  Prices don't mean squat in Asia compared to us, we know that now that the Wii is $179 range over there, and will be substantially more here.

[Tebunker]

yeah, you know that anti-PS3 article that was posted on PS3.Ign.com 

Look the PS3 bashing has gotten worse since this past May, but can you blame folks? Sony has taken care of us for almost a decade, and to a lot of folks they seem over cock-sure about themselves, so leave it up to the internet superstars to take it to Sony.

[Jumangi]

From what I understand, pricing in Japan is not nearly as standardized as in the US.  In the US, popularity isn't factored into a game's price (for the most part), but I believe it is in Japan.  I have little doubt that there will not be any PS3 games over $60.

Well I'll put in a prediction now that big games like FFX III and MGS4 will be over $60.

[Kobra]

Think about it, back in the 70's I was paying $50 for games like Space Invaders for the Atari 2600.  Many of the games back then had budgets of less than $10,000, and I know some of the big ones were well under 60K.

To put how much that was in perspective with todays money, I entered the numbers into a cost vs year calculator and;

1.  $149.74 in the year 2005  has the same "purchase power" as  $50.00 in the year 1978.

Stands to reason why around that time, I would be EXCITED to get 2-3 games PER YEAR.  So I can hardly complain about the cost of games today, especially give the lack of depth *ALL* of the games had back then.  Logically, games were TERRIBLY overpriced back then at $50 each, and probably should have been around $5-10 each.  So the market has never really corrected itself from that.

[metallicorphan]

From what I understand, pricing in Japan is not nearly as standardized as in the US.  In the US, popularity isn't factored into a game's price (for the most part), but I believe it is in Japan.  I have little doubt that there will not be any PS3 games over $60.

Well I'll put in a prediction now that big games like FFX III and MGS4 will be over $60.

i will wait until a platanium range then,as they are the only games i want if and when i do get the ps3..nothing else interests me in the machine


as for the price range,i heard ages ago(actually from here i think)that there was gonna be a hike in prices...with that and not being able to part ex them at the same time i think


this is from june28th
http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3151823

People were understandably upset when companies decided next-generation meant charging everyone $10 more for their games -- especially when the price was applied to last-generation ports like GUN and Tony Hawk's American Wasteland. Nonetheless, most have sucked it up at this point, but no one anticipated Sony would actually up the ante when PlayStation 3 dropped in November.
Yet SCEA president Kaz Hirai isn't promising a $59.99 price tag for PS3 games this fall. In an interview with PSM, the Sony leader explained. So, what I can say now is, I think it would be a bit of a stretch to think that we could suddenly turn around and say "PS3 games now $99.99" I don't think the consumers expect the software pricing to suddenly be double," he told the magazine. "So, if it becomes a bit higher than fifty-nine bucks don't ding me, but, again, as I said, I don't expect it to be a hundred bucks."

In other words, consumers should expect PS3 games to cost somewhere between $59.99 and $99.99. He doesn't expect them to be a hundred dollars, but it's only a "stretch" to expect it. Have we moved back to the cartridge ages here? Wasn't disc-based media supposed to make everything cheaper? I don't want to remember how much my parent's paid for several of Square's older SNES releases during Christmas.

Sony's cocky enough to price their hardware above the competition, but we don't seriously expect them to change consumer expectations for software prices. We hope.

and now the rumour has resurfaced.....only 2 months until we know

[-Lord Ebonstone-]

Sounds like much ado about nothing to me. 

Couldn't agree more.

You're talking about the PS3, right?

[Purge]

I'm thinking the cost of media will drive ps3 prices higher than 360 games; BR disks will undoubtedly cost more (factoring in both % failure as well as the media being less plentiful than the standard DVD disks ... there's also the factory upgrade losses that companies have to account for etc. etc. etc.).

That's not to say I won't buy a PS3 come launch day. Whether it stays in my home beyond a day or gets ebay'd has yet to be seen.

[corruptrelic]

Anyone remember CliffyB saying prices of video games needed to go down? That putting games at even $60 helps put it out of the reach of many gamers?
They had him quoted in the latest EGM (or one of those mags) where he said game prices were too high and then underneath "Right before MS announces a $60 price tag for gears of war!"

Whether the $75 to $85 is true or not, would anyone really be that suprised? It's more than just a rumour because Sony themselves said we shouldnt be suprised if game prices go over $60 for the PS3. (But we can rest comfortably that they shouldnt go over $100!)

With Sony saying things like that and treating their customers like we are all rich and need to get 2nd jobs to pay for their stuff, why shoudn't people be pissed?

In the past I used to defend Sony all the way, from the backwards compatiblity commitment, free online play, their web browsing, blu-ray and the amount of space it'll have, and the list goes on.
Then came the price announcement and Mr.Ken saying it was probably "too cheap".
That was the main turning point for me because I though spending $400 on my 360 was expensive, but now, $200 more? Just for a console?

I'm still interested in the PS3 and haven't turned my back on it entirely, but I definitely wont be purchasing one (not like I can anyway thanks to their delays and not making enough of them) until we see at least the first price drop.
The best article I read on it was that all of us who go out and buy the PS3 at it's $499 and $599 price tag are only sending a message to console makers that it's okay to charge that kind of money for a game console. We need to let them sit on store shelves and force Sony to bring the price down, letting them know that that kind of price is unacceptable to the average gamer.
And that's the bottom line IMO, we need to keep the "average gamer" in mind, I work hard for my money, pay my bills and put food on the table. $700 (the cost of a ps3 and only one game with taxes) is just too much money.

[Louis Cypher]

Haha, Cliffy B is such a character

[EddieA]

In terms of what you're getting, the PS3 is cheap.  For $500-$600, you get the equivalent of a $400 game machine and a Blu-RAY player, which is expensive in itself.  Of course, a lot of people (myself included) don't want a Blu-RAY player, and I really wish Sony had not gone that route with the PS3.  However, once Sony decided to make PS3 Blu-RAY only, they didn't have much choice in the price.  Given that the PS3 will be losing money (and probably quite a bit) for a while, and that the Wii will be making money out of the gate, in terms of what you're getting, the PS3 is actually "cheaper".  It's just too bad that what you're getting with the PS3 is more than most people want.

[Tebunker]

You know, I think that Lexus(Toyota) makes one helluva car, and you get what you pay for, unfortunately not everyone can afford a Lexus or wants to pay for one. The thing is, Lexus isn't trying to compete with Hyundai or even Toyota for that matter. They understand their market and the type of people they want to sell to(we're talking new cars only here) and their market allows them to price the way they do.

That's how I see the PS3 and how the competition is looking, sure it's a great value, it's also very forward thinking, however, I think Sony has over estimated the market's willingness to carry the burden of the pricetag. Especially since they're trying to sell a luxury vehicle in an economy and mid-class model market. It could also be why all three machines suceed intially.

Once we start seeing price cuts that bring the systems pricing in line to one another this aspect dissapears, but right now I think it's going to be a hard sell this market at that price because they have set it so that it makes them not cheap or affordable in the current Market; Value of the package be-damned(and I agree it's a top notch value if that's what you want). They've priced  themselves into the luxury market and they should expect luxury market type sales, while Nintendo and Microsoft enjoy more mass-market appeal intially.(just remember all pricing advantage dissappears once the systems come within 50 or so of the magical $200 mass market price.)

[The Grue]

Anyone remember CliffyB saying prices of video games needed to go down? That putting games at even $60 helps put it out of the reach of many gamers?
They had him quoted in the latest EGM (or one of those mags) where he said game prices were too high and then underneath "Right before MS announces a $60 price tag for gears of war!"

Anyone who thinks CliffyB is responsible for setting the price of Gears of War is a very misguided individual.  He can hate $60 games, have MS set the price of his game at $60, and still not be a hypocrite.

[denoginizer]

I agree with the poster above who said the cost of blu-ray media might impact the cost of PS3 games for a while.  Maybe not initially, but I think it could cause PS3 games to take long to get to the bargain bin.

On a side note.   I read on a creditable site that playing games on the PS3 may cause cancer.

[Louis Cypher]

Anyone remember CliffyB saying prices of video games needed to go down? That putting games at even $60 helps put it out of the reach of many gamers?
They had him quoted in the latest EGM (or one of those mags) where he said game prices were too high and then underneath "Right before MS announces a $60 price tag for gears of war!"

Anyone who thinks CliffyB is responsible for setting the price of Gears of War is a very misguided individual.  He can hate $60 games, have MS set the price of his game at $60, and still not be a hypocrite.

I think you are wrong...Im pretty sure CliffyB sets the price of every game, ever made...and oil...  I mean, he is a level designer at epic AND self proclaimed pimp, who looks like bud bundy haha

[corruptrelic]

Anyone who thinks CliffyB is responsible for setting the price of Gears of War is a very misguided individual.

Has anyone said they thought he was responsible for the pricing? I just found it funny that he didn't like video games coming out at $60 and then aftewards MS set the price of gears of war at $60.

[Turtle]

Wow, it sure didn't take long for people to throw around the word fanboy.  GT may start becoming more like OO with PS3 topics.

[The Grue]

Anyone who thinks CliffyB is responsible for setting the price of Gears of War is a very misguided individual.

Has anyone said they thought he was responsible for the pricing? I just found it funny that he didn't like video games coming out at $60 and then aftewards MS set the price of gears of war at $60.

And I was just pointing out that one has nothing to do with the other.

[pr0ner]

I agree with the poster above who said the cost of blu-ray media might impact the cost of PS3 games for a while.  Maybe not initially, but I think it could cause PS3 games to take long to get to the bargain bin.

On a side note.   I read on a creditable site that playing games on the PS3 may cause cancer.

I thought the PS3 was supposed to cure cancer by playing games on it.   

[Fellow]

So Sonystyle has some PS3 games for pre-order at $59.99. Guess that wraps that, at least for now.

[Jumangi]

You know, I think that Lexus(Toyota) makes one helluva car, and you get what you pay for, unfortunately not everyone can afford a Lexus or wants to pay for one. The thing is, Lexus isn't trying to compete with Hyundai or even Toyota for that matter. They understand their market and the type of people they want to sell to(we're talking new cars only here) and their market allows them to price the way they do.

Goog analogy. In the end price matters no matter what your company is offering.

[gellar]

So Sonystyle has some PS3 games for pre-order at $59.99. Guess that wraps that, at least for now.

Oh sure, like we can trust Sonystyle for accurate information on what they charge for a game.

* gellar trusts NO ONE.

[Roguetad]

I’m not pro or anti Sony, and I was seriously considering the PS3.  $60 games for the Xbox 360 had a big impact on how many games I’ve purchased since launch.  I don’t see the $60 price point by MS and Sony as a good thing, or something to be happy about.  My 360 library is anemic, mostly because I’m much more conservative when it comes to purchasing new games at $60.  The showstopper right now for me with the PS3 is the console price tag.  It’s just too expensive for me right now.  I would love to see game prices drop down to $49.99 again.