Forums

Topic: Ps5 game ten dollars more,70 dollars not happy with this?

Posts 21 to 35 of 35

blacklivesmatter

$70 is not unreasonable for a game they can cost millions to develop and offer many hours of enjoyment. If someone does not want to buy $70 games they buy games from indie studios which are cheaper.

blacklivesmatter

TheFrenchiestFry

As a Canadian this obviously sucks but it was kind of expected too

I guess it doesn't affect me as much on PS5 since I'm not buying this to play multiplats, only first and third party exclusives, so I won't be spending money on games as frequently.

TheFrenchiestFry

PSN: phantom_sees

rpg2000

By the end of 2021, $70 is going to be norm from most (if not all) AAA games (multi-platform and exclusives), no matter which platform you played on. Anyone thinking otherwise is just delusional. You can either whine about it until the end of days or deal with it...

rpg2000

BAMozzy

Console gamers already pay a premium on games because Publishers know console gamers will pay it - a legacy from the days of Cartridges and they know PC gamers won't so the prices are lower. That's without the PS+/Gold subscription premium on top as well. Regardless of whether games are more expensive to make or not, its still about making profit and more profit year on year without necessarily making more and more games.

Unless you are LOCKED into a system where the ONLY choice to buy games comes from the digital store, you are essentially locked to paying 'full' price, wait for a Digital sale or miss out. Sales or even the prices may not drop for a while but that's the choice for picking a 'digital' only console for 'convenience' or price...

For everyone else, retailers will be in competition with each other and as such will no doubt sell games a bit cheaper at launch. They mat still be 'more' expensive than we are used to BUT its still a saving. You also have shops that will drop the prices steadily after launch and if you are happy to wait, nothing says you must buy on day 1, you can wait for the price to drop down to a point you are happy to pay. There is also the used market too.

The best way to enforce a change is to vote with your wallets. Publishers want to be the 'best' selling game and the 'best' time to achieve that is at launch. If people are buying cheaper and or 'older' games, not buying the 'new' games until they drop below $50 for example, they will have to consider their pricing. They will have the metrics of pre-orders and sales on digital content too and if those with digital only consoles are still pre-ordering, buying at full price, they won't change their minds. It may actually supplement those who buy physical, enable them to drop the prices quicker having made more money through digital sales...

Point is, you do NOT need to pay full price or buy games at launch and the more you (and everyone else) waits until pricing drops, the less inclined publishers etc will be to set a high launch price!

A pessimist is just an optimist with experience!

Why can't life be like gaming? Why can't I restart from an earlier checkpoint??

Feel free to add me but please send a message so I know where you know me from...

PSN: TaimeDowne

Kefka2589

I'm not super cheesed about prices in the US. I can live with $69.99. But it's rare I buy a new game day one. It's gotta be something I really, really want. The EU price is the thing blowing my mind. But this day and age, there's always great content out there for a good price. I have plenty enough to stay busy while prices plummet.

Kefka2589

PSVR_lover

69 dollars was the norm for the Atari Jaguar and 3DO systems back in the day. PS dropped the price to 39 dollars on the average. The hardware is sold at a loss and development costs are thru the roof today. You can always wait until the price drops - which it always does.

The PSVR is the best VR system on the market today.

BAMozzy

Game development costs have gone up. They are taking longer to develop and the cost to keep a studio open (rents, electricity, insurance etc) and the staff salaries are all higher than they were 10yrs ago. If you are taking an extra year or so, that's an extra year or so of studio costs and staff salaries. No one is disputing that.

However, games are still 'profitable' after relatively 'few' sales. In most AAA games, Studio's are owned by Publishers who are paying their salaries and studio costs from income coming in from ALL game, MTX etc sales whilst they in development so game sales are all about covering the costs of development, paying all the publishers salaries, paying for advertising of upcoming games, paying for promotional events (like E3, Gamescom etc) and at the end of a financial year, showing financial growth in profit margins. As I said above, the general running costs, not just of the studio that made the game but all studios under the publisher and of course all the publishing staff costs, manufacture and advertising costs are going up. All of which means that for every 1m copies of a game sold, more of that is going into paying for the running costs meaning that they have 'lower' profits which doesn't look so good to shareholders and investors who want to see growth. If they are making 50m in a quarter, they want to see more next month, more the month after. If an investor puts 20m into a game, they want more than 20m back - depending on what has been promised by Publishers. If they promise 40m back for example, that means the game would have to sell twice as many copies to give the investor their payday.

All of that puts more pressure on studio's to make games that sell well in excess of what would be enough to cover the cost of developing the next 'game' for another 3-4yrs, return a decent 'profit' by any normal standards. Now have to sell enough to please the Publishers, the shareholders, the investors etc. Also if you (publisher) are not releasing a 'steady' flow of games, they are not getting a relatively steady flow of money coming in. Activision seemed to be relying purely on Cod and the seasons of DLC to keep ALL their studios open - although they have released a a few other games (Crash and Spyro) but nowhere near the number and range they used to.

EA stated that Mass Effect Andromeda was 'profitable', a game that had sold about 1m copies at the time and numerous other studios are happy with a 1-2m sales. However EA and Activision will come out and say a game like Titanfall 2 or Destiny 2 was 'disappointing' because they expected it to sell more, make 'more' profit than it did, promised investors money and probably got them to invest telling them it will make them 'x' millions as a % of the profits.

The reason MS can put AAA games on Game Pass day 1 is because they are getting money from subscriptions and sales of games through their store - more than enough to keep paying the staff and running costs of the studios. The games are already 'paid' for by the time they launch because the running costs and staff salaries are paid for and they have money coming in to keep paying them after release. Of course selling games too also helps boost MS's overall profits but having a constant stream of income that matches or exceeds the running cost of those studio's means they don't have to sell games to get in money to keep paying running costs whilst studios work on their 'next' games...

More and more are buying digital so so publishers are not losing as many sales to the used market, not losing as much money to manufacturing physical copies and distribution costs, not losing as much money to wholesalers and physical retailers. Its more about making more profit because they know they can and from fewer game releases too...

A pessimist is just an optimist with experience!

Why can't life be like gaming? Why can't I restart from an earlier checkpoint??

Feel free to add me but please send a message so I know where you know me from...

PSN: TaimeDowne

nessisonett

@BAMozzy Yep, people tend to not take into account the manufacturing costs being way higher for cartridges in the 90s. I don’t see why a digital game should be £70 when there are 0 overheads. And the Blu-Rays aren’t that expensive to produce either especially with the death of all the instruction manuals and the like.

Socks before or after trousers, but never socks before pants, that's the rule. Makes a man look scary, like a chicken.

Black Lives Matter. Enough is enough.

BAMozzy

@nessisonett That's a big reason FF7 released on PS - that and the size of storage they could fit on one cartridge. It was originally planned for N64 but the cost of cartridges was ridiculous. Its basically 'hardware' and were costing more than $30 per cartridge. Difficult to sell a game for $30 when its costing more to make

A pessimist is just an optimist with experience!

Why can't life be like gaming? Why can't I restart from an earlier checkpoint??

Feel free to add me but please send a message so I know where you know me from...

PSN: TaimeDowne

TheFrenchiestFry

@BAMozzy Even VII's marketing campaign took direct jabs at the N64 cartridges when talking about how many it would require to store the equivalent 3 discs of FFVII's story content. It's also why a lot of other major third party supporters for Nintendo's console jumped to Sony like Atlus for Persona and Capcom for Mega Man Legends as well as X4-6

TheFrenchiestFry

PSN: phantom_sees

BAMozzy

@TheFrenchiestFry If they had to put it on 3 Cartridges - that's nearly $100 just for manufacturing costs with the packaging too

It was too expensive or limiting to be worthwhile...

However, that 'legacy' of the Cartridge era is what is affecting prices today. Its more about sustaining and increasing profit margins rather than selling a game at a 'fair' price to customers...

A pessimist is just an optimist with experience!

Why can't life be like gaming? Why can't I restart from an earlier checkpoint??

Feel free to add me but please send a message so I know where you know me from...

PSN: TaimeDowne

TheFrenchiestFry

@BAMozzy I will say that we've gotten to a point especially with the Switch and other Nintendo handhelds where cartridges seem to actually be useful as physical game formats again, but late 90's Nintendo seemed to set into motion the kind of arrogance and higher plane mentality that eventually seeped into how both Sony and Microsoft conducted business. Especially Sony now since they seem to be back on that PS3 level of cockiness when it comes to stuff like game pricing and certain policies like cross buy games and backwards compatibility, but just so happen to still retain their aggressiveness towards securing software from the PS4 era

TheFrenchiestFry

PSN: phantom_sees

BAMozzy

@TheFrenchiestFry The difference now is that Solid state flash drives are relatively cheap nowadays - especially if you use a standard format - like SD cards - for your game storage. Its a lot cheaper than making a bespoke cartridge with its own circuit board and often even a battery built in for saving game states.

I don't want to bash Sony at all for their policies - in a lot of ways its 'traditional' console. Whether that's a bit dated in 2020, we will see but Microsoft really are NOT in the same situation as Sony - as much as the press and fanboys will try and pitch the two consoles against each other.

Xbox isn't just the console - its MS's entire gaming division and the console just so happens to be their own 'console' style dedicated gaming hardware. However, their 'Xbox' install base are also those on PC and now on Android devices too. You can literally play on PC, then carry on playing on a virtual Xbox on your Mobile and then carry on playing on a console. Your Xbox account and saves are carried over (at least in some games and if you buy through MS store or play via game pass) its a unified user base and that will become even closer in the future with DirectX12 Ultimate and the new Series S/X are more PC in a console box. They don't need to sell you a Console to play games, they won't be looking at their potential install base as just the number of consoles sold. They will also be looking at Game Pass Subscribers and Windows 10 PC gamers as their install base.

Sony are more 'Nintendo' in that they are Consoles in the more traditional sense. The PS4 was a 'closed' ecosystem too and didn't really have cross buy, Backwards Compatibility etc. Its almost offering those because of Xbox but Xbox is because of the PC market. You don't lose your old games when you buy a new GPU and have to buy a 'new' version with better visuals, textures etc. You don't have to buy Control again on PC to get Ray Tracing if you upgrade to an RTX card.

There are differences between the two and Sony is going the more traditional console route and MS are blurring the line between all gaming formats (PC/Console/Mobile) and their respective policies and plans may well reflect that. Not saying 1 is better than the other or X should do what Y is doing (or not) and we will see if their choices end up being the 'right' choice for them in the long run...

Like I said, if you are not happy with the price points though, you can vote with your wallets. It will be interesting to see what they would do if the 'higher' price games don't sell very strongly in their opening weeks - especially compared to more 'traditionally' priced games. We are already paying a premium for gaming on a console - higher prices and Subscriptions to access ALL content in a lot of games.

I do wonder if that 'game hints/tips' on PS5 will mean that even single player games will have to be PS+ online games to work with that and the cards. If so, I bet that will go down well LOL

A pessimist is just an optimist with experience!

Why can't life be like gaming? Why can't I restart from an earlier checkpoint??

Feel free to add me but please send a message so I know where you know me from...

PSN: TaimeDowne

Top

Please login or sign up to reply to this topic