Post by: Famicom on March 16, 2005, 04:23:32 PM
Post by: kennyb27 on March 16, 2005, 04:33:10 PM
Post by: Hostile Creation on March 16, 2005, 05:01:18 PM
Post by: Spak-Spang on March 16, 2005, 05:10:45 PM
Also, if Nintendo sets a game price rate that is affordable as well then Nintendo can positively ensure a strong launch and future for Revolution.
I am not too worried about this information...but it is true, I will only own 1 system next generation.
Post by: Bill Aurion on March 16, 2005, 05:10:48 PM
500 dollar consoles is just outright laughable...
Post by: darknight06 on March 16, 2005, 05:42:34 PM
About the $500 consoles, didn't PS1 and Saturn launch for that much or was it at least rumored to launch for that much at that time? No matter, if that's the estimated price for next-gen consoles, unless Revolution is $200 to $250 I think my gaming may go to being just strictly handheld.
Post by: Don'tHate742 on March 17, 2005, 02:07:07 AM
Or to rioting and looting!!!!!!
of course, putting some money down to help Nintendo....while your rioting.....and looting...hmm, maybe not.
Post by: Talon on March 17, 2005, 02:09:38 AM
Could be beneficial making developers work harder to create better quality games. Might also mean publishers dont publish as many games. Might also force smaller developers out of business cause they cant market their games as well as the big name companies or cant produce the same quality games as the big name companies.
It is inevitable for a price rise, unless development costs can be reduced somehow.
Quote
About the $500 consoles, didn't PS1 and Saturn launch for that much or was it at least rumored to launch for that much at that time?
If I remember correctly in Australia the PS1 launched at a massive $1000AUS price tage but i think it was reduced quite quickly.
Post by: Spak-Spang on March 17, 2005, 03:57:01 AM
1)Developers making games for all three consoles takes more money, more time and resources specially when they are trying to release them simutaneously.
2)Higher Production values mean higher cost games. Games are not requiring larger budgets. Not quite up there with movies but they are slowly creeping up faster and faster.
3)The number one issue though, is that games are not selling enough to make money with the increased budgets. I think this is due to alot of reasons. However, the biggest is the flood of games and systems there are on the market.
Each month you it seems you are getting atleast 2 new games, more if you own multiple systems. Heavy release months even more. Microsoft says that within the first 3-4 months of the Xenon's life that it will have 30+ games out on the market. That is just too many games for everybody to play, and they are all competing with eachother for marketshare. What will happen is less of every game will actually be bought. This is becoming more true with the fact that renting games more and more viable option. You can rent a game for a month and beat it for only $10.00. Why buy?
Unfortunately, raising the price is not the answer. Instead, pulling back development on several games, and just making 2 really good games a year is a much viable option. Raising the price will just make even less people buying more than one game every couple of months. Its stupid. You never raise the price to attract more audience.
That is why if Microsoft and Sony raise the price to $400-500 dollars for their consoles they will lose marketshare.
Post by: RickPowers on March 17, 2005, 04:37:45 AM
Post by: Spak-Spang on March 17, 2005, 05:33:08 AM
Post by: Bill Aurion on March 17, 2005, 05:56:34 AM
Post by: Pale on March 17, 2005, 06:04:46 AM
Post by: couchmonkey on March 17, 2005, 06:15:53 AM
Now game prices going up makes more sense what with the price of producing them rising, but I don't really like it. I actually think it's a step in the wrong direction...video games have always been really expensive compared to other mediums, and while there do seem to be more deals on new games than there were 10 years ago, I still don't think they're at a price where ordinary folks will go out and buy a game casually. My girlfriend has a GBA and half a dozen games, and she got practically all of her games from me as gifts. While the average game offers a lot more entertainment per dollar than other mediums, it's still prohibitively expensive.
Post by: Spak-Spang on March 17, 2005, 06:41:04 AM
Also, game prices going up IS definately a step in the wrong direction. Its like the US Post office deciding to raise the price in stamps every year. Does that make you want to use the Postal Services more or less. Obviously, less. I know it costs more and more to send letter out, but you are shooting yourself in the foot. I will never send anything via mail unless I absolutely must. I have too many other options to get my messages out.
With game prices going up, I will not buy as many games. I will only buy the games I feel I must own, because they are enjoyable to me. During the SNES age I bought Nintendo games, 3rd Party games and such. During the Nintendo 64 I dropped to mostly just Nintendo. Now I am down to only the best Nintendo published Gamecube games, and if prices go up, I will buy even less. If prices were to drop though, I would be willing to invest in the best 3rd party games as well.
I am sure there are several people like this. I am on a budget, and I think its time companies begin to realize that.
Post by: Pale on March 17, 2005, 06:43:06 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on March 17, 2005, 07:08:06 AM
Here are some contributing factors to rising costs:
1. Licenced music.
2. Celebrity voice acting.
3. Franchise licencing such as movies or sports leagues.
4. Releasing like 20 games per year with each of those games being released on five platforms at once.
5. Striving for realism with graphics.
Basically the costs are up because of all the bad design habits that turn me off from about 99% of American published games. The real solution is to lay off all the superficial crap, make less games a year, focus on making those games great, and train the casual fanbase to appreciate substance over flash. Of course this requires effort and legitimate talent which publishers like EA and Activision just don't have so they're expecting us to pay for their short-sighted design. Well I'm not going to. Games in Canada cost $70. Sure $60 for the US doesn't sound that terrible but it's going to really affect the non-American markets. I'm not paying $90 for a game. I refuse to pay over $60. I can wait until price drops or buy used games. Hell in the age of mass piracy price hikes just don't fly anymore. I'm not saying piracy is a good thing but it's an option a lot of people use and it doesn't take much to push people towards it.
I'm nervous about a lot of what Nintendo says regarding their future but I agree with their attitude that going bigger and bigger and thus more expensive is not the way to go. I'm confident that they can still give us $50 games that blow the sh!t out of anything EA or Activision makes.
If you don't want to pay $60 DON'T. YOU'RE the consumer. YOU'RE in charge, not them. Buy what you want on your own terms. They can only get away with raising prices if you let them.
Post by: Spak-Spang on March 17, 2005, 07:37:45 AM
Post by: ThePerm on March 17, 2005, 08:00:58 AM
Post by: RickPowers on March 17, 2005, 08:11:02 AM
Post by: KDR_11k on March 17, 2005, 08:16:51 AM
Price hikes are suicide, the market is already barely tolerating game prices, upping them any more would scare away even more customers. "Look how much profit we're making at 50 bucks! If we sold 'em for 60 we'd make even more!". That's the same logic that stands behind the death marches seen in the industry. It's as if somebody decided the games industry is the one least worthy of capable management.
But then again we've seen a whole load of claims that "prices are going up really soon!" for over a decade now. Everybody claims "games are going to sell for more because they're more expensive to make!" but usually the answer to diminishing profits is NOT increasing the price. Games are creative products, once you have the game made you can make copies insanely cheap. There is next to no loss to production if you make increased numbers. They could sell twice as much at half the price and make approximately the same profit, as opposed to other markets where the cost to manufacture is significant.
Post by: Bill Aurion on March 17, 2005, 08:53:11 AM
Come on, it comes with bongo drums...If you already have the drums you can get a copy of the game for only 40 bucks...
Post by: Pale on March 17, 2005, 09:22:45 AM
Post by: Plugabugz on March 18, 2005, 03:53:08 AM
It is relatively expensive, taking currency into account, but that is still quite cheap. A £100 DS is impressive all the same.
The games is where it's improving: progressively, prices are falling. In the N64 days prices were £44.99. This generation, they started off at £39.99. Most shops are selling most games between £32.99 and £39.99 around here. Online it's between £29.99 and £34.99. DS games can be bought online for £24.99 or around that.
IF Activision decided to rise the price of their games it seems quite likely nothing is going to change here .
Post by: slingshot on March 18, 2005, 04:15:03 AM
Not sure about Blue Ray or HD DVD based games though?
Post by: Bill Aurion on March 18, 2005, 04:31:08 AM
Post by: ThePerm on March 18, 2005, 05:19:17 AM
Post by: vudu on March 18, 2005, 08:38:44 AM
Most launch lineups sucks. For those who don't already own a Cube, one of the main selling points for the Revolution will be backwards compatability. It will give them the chance to play RE4, Zelda, Metroid Prime and all the other great Cube games they missed. If they can buy a GameCube for super cheap, they might just do that instead and then skip over the Revolution.
Post by: Ian Sane on March 18, 2005, 09:15:26 AM
Perhaps the plan then should be to lower the game prices. Any major Cube title that isn't $20 yet should be by the Revolution launch. Or include a free Player's Choice Cube game with a Rev purchase.
Post by: ruby_onix on March 18, 2005, 10:11:17 AM
Quote
Just as well, consoles are expected to start out at $500.
AKA: Xbox2 = $499.99
LOL!
I had previously laid out in my head that with the Xbox2 launching 1 year early, it would obviously be less powerful than the PS3/Rev. But that it would be launching a year early, makng the Xbox2 akin to the Dreamcast of the next generation, if Sega had posessed the fortitude to stick with it longer than they did.
My preconceived notions have now officially been shattered.
I'm now guessing Xbox2/PS3 = "if you have to ask, you can't afford it". One's a year early. One's more powerful. But at those prices, who the heck cares?
I'm braced for the Rev exceeding $200. The DS was higher than $99, but not by a lot. It'll have whatever that Revolutionary something-or-the-other about it is. It'll be less powerful than a PS3, but at those prices, who the heck cares? I kind of wonder how it'll stack up against the Xbox2?
Oh and, Activision wishes to return to the "good old days" of the N64. Good for them. I don't.
(Hey y'know, maybe the Revolution's revolutionary new thing that will "attract new gamers" is that it'll just be an ordinary, normal-priced console. Not "beating gamers away with a stick" like the rest of the industry wants to start doing. It's not technically a "positive" gamer flow, but a lack of negative can sometimes be seen as a positive. It's all about your point of view.)
Post by: Avinash_Tyagi on March 18, 2005, 10:37:48 AM
What they should do is release a demo disc with the REV at $250 while letting the PS3 and Xbox 2 fight it out at around $400.
Post by: nickmitch on March 18, 2005, 02:15:23 PM
Based on that logic my price predictions are as follows:
Xenon/Xbox(2/360)/NexTbox: $400
Playstation 3: $300-350 (350 more likely)
Revolution: $250
I think that Sony will blow off Microsoft and go head-to-head with Nintendo in prices, which will be the beginning of Microsoft's formal ousting.
Post by: BlkPaladin on March 18, 2005, 02:51:18 PM
Post by: Talon on March 18, 2005, 09:55:10 PM
Quote
don't know both Sony and Microsoft (Microsoft's Home Entertainment Division.) are kind of floating on thin ice financially.
Well arent you glad Nintendo is still profitable. If Sony and Microsoft were the only companies developing video game consoles then it would be a pretty bleak future for video games.
Post by: slingshot on March 19, 2005, 02:53:17 AM
hurting sales- I would not buy anything for $400+
Post by: ThePerm on March 23, 2005, 04:54:30 AM
