I think now unless you just have the money to throw out you have to have a timeframe of playing games after they come out and buy them used. Unless you go to a friends house then you can just play there stuff.
I don't think I'll be getting any next gen console for a looong time. I'm perfectly happy with the capabilities of my gc and ps2. If I need something new, I can pick up some quality games for 10 - 25 bucks, which is around what they are worth to me imo. And I've been playing the newest Madden recently ... the product they put out isn't worth 50 bucks, let alone 70.
wow a company SPECULATING bad news about its RIVAL we shouldn't be worried about Madden hitting $70 (i HIGHLY doubt that) and instead we should be worried about SEGA games hitting $60.
This has nothing to do with supply and demand and everything to do with the fact that Madden will be a licensed NFL game. They can afford to bump the price because their game is the only one that will have real nfl teams and names.
If we were all a pirate like you, then there would be games to pick from (at least any good ones anyways). It sure would suck to hear Campcom announcing that they would quite making Resident Evil games since the sales of RE4 were terrible, when it fact, the game was just pirated a lot. As I mentioned in my opening post, there certainly are reasons to disbelieve this considering this is coming from a rival company, but there are some truths to it, IMO. While Madden may not cost $70, it seems like it could certainly cost $60. In fact, a best case scenario for us (consumers) would be that only a few of the AAA games would actually cost ~$60 ( GTA, Final Fantasy, Halo, Resident Evil, possibly Madden, although I still find it hard to compare that game to games like the 1st four mentioned). Of course, then we'd get publishers who think their game is AAA material, when, in fact, their game sucks, and isn't even worth a $20 price tag, let alone $60. BTW, one thing to consider is that prices for games have been this high, if not higher, before, although that seemed mostly due to the costs to make cartridges. It was not uncommon to find a few great NES/SNES/Genesis/N64 games for around $80-$120, and maybe even more. Of course, I don't think that means we should go back to that type of pricing.
sticking with PC games I guess.... Unreal Tournament 4 looks spectacular and will probably be the next game I buy besides it gives me an excuse to get a new video card as mine will be almost 4 years old (crazy seems like I just dropped $300 bucks on it) by then half-naked fairies soften the blow, however
I just don't see where demand has increased to the point where a 40% price increase is justified. But looking at the history of the industry, launch titles are always expensive. I just thougth that in the disc era, the price of producing the games was cheap enough to avoid heading back into the $60 plus range.
it's charge whatever you can get there are good budget titles, Serious Sam for ex., but they obviously don't make as much as the $50 dollar game or everyone would follow their lead Nintindo sells their games/system for less but that hasn't put them on top These games also spend a ton on advertising @ launch, and when you start your product out at $50 dollars, you can "re-release" it when sales go flat for $20 or so... see Grand Tourismo 3 which is now a "Classic" game
What?? You get like 3 hours of entertainment out of a movie, and THOUSANDS of hours out of the game. Supply and demand my man, prices on Video games have been stable for years, they should go up some as prices of making the games have risen considerably. The only hope consumers have is to buy direct.....ala Steam and Half life, as that takes hold, developers will be more in control of their own products and consumers will benefit from a more reasonable pricing schedule. DD
Now that I think about it, PS3 games could see a slight rise in price due to Blu-ray, but since it seems as though Microsoft is leaning towards DVD for Xbox2, I don't really see why you would see an increase there. Maybe EA would want all games costing the same and decided to price them at the price of the highest disc media, but if that were the case, then it would seem as though they weren't even using BR to their advantage, meaning they should just stick to DVD for the PS3 version. So yeah, that doesn't make sense, IMO. That reminds me of something I read about a possible way in the future to purchase games. Instead of paying $50 (or $60-$70 in this case), a player would purchase his games using "mini-transactions." For a GTA-esque game, you would pay $15-$20 for the game world, and then an additional amount for missions, vehicles, weapons, etc. I'm not sure how this would translate into every genre, or if it is only good in theory, but it is an interesting idea. Although they aren't on top, they have made decent profits despite selling their stuff cheap. Not really the point, but thought I'd mention it. I'm feeling the same way, although I think the PC game that does that for me will be TES 4: Oblivion. I last looked for a great graphics card a little bit before Morrowind came out, and will now try to do the same this time around. I did get another graphics card about 2 years ago, IIRC, but that was just an average graphics card (at the time) to replace the first one that died on me. I realize the game will be coming out on Xbox2 and possibly the PS3, but if Morrowind was any indication, the PC version should be the best version due to the modding community. I can't imagine what they will do with graphics like this: *drool* Of course, if it costs $70, I'll just hold off.
Anybody want to dig up any of those old posts where I said EA was satanic and was going to exploit its market power? Screw EA - outside of Fight Night 2, that's the last EA game I ever buy.
So, if I'm reading this all correctly, Sega is hinting that their games are going to cost 60 bucks next generation, and to soften the blow they're also speculating that EA's will cost 70? I'm not happy with either price point.
The 60$ price point isn't a shocker - what was it, 50 this gen after 40 last gen? Pretty much to be expected, right? I just love beating on EA, you know that.
Huh? Wha? Ummm, you do realize that all consoles made so far are using existing PC technologies, correct? That there has not been a console device so far that was not inferior to bleeding edge home PC systems? What do you think consoles use for CPU's and graphic cards?
Have to agree here. PC's don't ever really 'catch up' to consoles. By the time this cycle of consoles finally gets to market and is in full effect, PCs will already be way ahead. Oh, I know that. That wasn't actually directed at you; I was just amused how the 60 dollar blow was dampened by a little EA speculation. And of course, most folks went right for it. 60 bucks isn't necessarily a 'shock', but hardly a given. Particularly with the full blown explosion of video games and specialty stores (with used, cheaper alternatives) in this last couple generations. IMO, price hikes will be a little less well received. As an aside, I can never really remember how the prices have changed with games. Anyone recall how much they paid for their games back in the day? I don't remember the prices on NES, SNES/Genesis or even PS1/N64 titles all that much.
These days parents are paying anything for their kids to get these games and crap. When PS2 or Xbox came out being 300 bucks or even 500 when they were on ebay people still bought them...They know it and we know it...
