How much would you spend on a PS3 game?

No

No

I will probably start buying used games, or wait for price drops; I'm from Canada, where new (PS2) games are already $60-85. I feel that any more would be a bit much.

I don't know how much I'd pay for a game, but I find myself not picking up certain Xbox 360 games until they drop in price.

All I know is that PS3 games have got to cost more than Xbox 360 games, what with the price of Blu-ray media and the additional time it takes to develop for a unique seven-core processing chipset and non-unified memory architecture.

I hope they aren't too much ... Of course, I suppose if I could afford to plunk down $600, I shouldn't complain too much about $100 games. (Games have traditionally cost around 1/4th the cost of the console, afterall. This would suggest that $150 would be an acceptable price for a $600 console.)

I think $70-$80 games would be a nail in the PS3's coffin when consumers look across the aisle at a $300-$400 Xbox 360 with $50-$60 games and a $200-$250 Nintendo Wii with $50 games.

Not when I can get the same game on Xbox360 for $6 or Wii or PS2 for $50. When is Sony going to come out and say "We want you to buy PS3 gear rather than eat."? I'm almost expecting to see one of those PSAs for companies that defer the cost of prescriptions to seniors, only instead of and septuagenarian saying "Groceries or medicine?", you see a twenty-something saying "Groceries or PlayStation?".

Er, that would be $60 for Xbox360 games, not $6. I know that any current-generation game that can be had for six bucks is garbage.

Does anybody else remember back in the day when new SNES game cost 70 to 90 bucks?

"I will probably start buying used games"

Do you really expect a scratched Blu-Ray disc to work? I sure don't.

>Does anybody else remember back in the
>day when new SNES game cost 70 to 90 >bucks?
I do, which is why I think it's strange there's all this press about next-gen games costing what they do. I remember I spent $80US on Virtua Racer for Genesis when it first came out. Chrono Trigger and Phantasy Star 4 were also both pretty expensive, if memory serves.

Besides, it could be worse. They could be using the Neo-Geo pricing model. Anyone want to spend $150+ on a game?

I remember years ago when NES and later SNES and Genesis games were $60 USD. Sometimes they went for $50 and sometimes they went as high as $70.

This was all local, mind you. And on cartridges, which were more expensive than CDs and DVDs. Blu-Ray discs are pretty expensive, so I can understand them being $60 USD, but any more than that would be getting ridiculous.

Why not just do what MS is doing. Charge $50 to $60 for the game, strip chunks out of the completed product and sell it back to the customer in $15 chunks.

That way, the customer thinks they are getting a deal... and the companies make more money. As a bonus, companies never have to worry about the expansions being sold as used.

As a customer, I spend a lot less on games now that they cost so much... they are no longer impulse buys like they used to be.

Considering there will probably only be one worthwhile exclusive a year on PS3, $100 may fit into gamers' budgets...

Meanwhile, the much more expensive Nintendo Wii (which will require at least 20 exclusive game purchases a year to maximize fun), will tap gamers wallets on a consistent basis for the next five years.

$600 console cost + $100 times 2 must have, exclusive games = $800/first year Sony PS3

$250 console cost + $50 times 20 must have, exclusive games = $1250/first year Nintendo Wii

Nintendo's strategy makes you sick! Who could ever have or afford so much fun? With Sony, you won't have to worry about going in debt for the long term, only on the up front console purchase...

Projected over five years, you will have to buy two replacement PS3's to continue to enjoy your two games a year... That is based on my experience with the PS2 and is not just pulled out of my hat. (I'm not wearing a hat.)

So... Over five years:

3 PS3 units at $800 plus 10 must have exclusive games at $100 equals $3,400 total!

1 Nintendo Wii unit at $250 plus 100 must have exclusive games at $50 equals $5,250!

So you save $1,850 by going with Sony instead of Nintendo. The productivity benefits will be amazing, too!

Unfortunately, it may take some time for Wii fans to come around to Sony's way of thinking.

I remember paying $65 for Final Fantasy VI for the SNES (back when we called it FF3). I thought that was outrageous, and only did it because, well, it was Final Fantasy before all the heroes started being antisocial jerks.

I wasn't happy with it then, and I'm not happy about the prospect now. Especially given the quality of games shown so far for the PS3, I'm trying to find a way to justify spending $30 on them, let alone a price tag of $60 or more.

I'm beginning to think that the majority of games I'll get for the next gen by far will be cheap downloads like Geometry Wars and its ilk. There are only a handful of games already in this generation that would be worth the $50 they actually go for. I suspect a rise in price will correspond with a fall in worthwhile games.

No. I quit buying 360 games at $59. At first it didn't seem like a big deal to pay $10 more but now my butt hurts. People want to blame inflation, but consumer electronics and media drop in price over time. Look at PC's, DVD's, memory cards, DVD players. I don't see people paying up to play this round.

#9 - Actually this is one of the key features of Blu-Ray. They can be heavily scratched and still play fine.
From Wikipedia....
A solution was announced in January 2004 with the introduction of a clear polymer coating that gives Blu-ray Discs unprecedented scratch resistance. The coating was developed by TDK Corporation and is called "Durabis". It allows BDs to be cleaned safely with only a tissue. The coating is said to successfully resist "wire-wool scrubbing" according to Samsung Optical technical manager Chas Kalsi. HD DVDs are much more similar to current CDs and DVDs in this respect, as they can be manufactured using essentially the same processes and do not require such a surface layer.

It all depends on the game. SuperMario 3 launched in my area for $99 (Cad). This was a huge cost, but offered lots of gameplay. I recently paid $79 for Oblivion CE. This was a bargain. I would have paid $100 for this game, since I have played it for over a hundred hours so far (and expect a few hundred more to come). As a contrast, King Kong, for which I paid $64, was done in less than 8 hours and not worth a penny more than $30.

LOL! Good work Jed Merrill! :D

If the game is really good, then yes ofcourse!

I remember when the N64 came out, the system was bought for me ($320 before 15% tax) and I had to buy Mario 64 by myself as my options were that or pilot wings. I was 8. I saved all year before it came out, and the game was almost 100$ after tax (damn Canada...) So believe me, I remember rediculous prices.

I think the issue here is though, switching from carts to disk format was supposed to reduce cost both to the company and the consumer. I will wait until prices drop to reasonable levels, I can't afford to spend tuition money on a $600 or $500 console... oops I meant 'computer'. The prices are rediculous once you get up here, especially since my province has the highest taxes...

Even Wii might be $300 here, once you convert funds. I really hope its the $200 range here as well, it would be great. Its the only system I'll be able to afford, and I have been gaming for almost 20 years. Way to honour your audience eh?

All I know, is that maybe they should put a barrier on consoles that allows the next generation to only come out every six years(but still being completed every five), allowing an extra year for the technology to be producer more cheaply, as well, more games would be available, and game developers would have the opportunity to improve their overall product.

Just my two cents.
~Domenico

Jed, Your argument makes very little sense. How is it a disadvantage that Wii will (according to your estimates) have ten times as many worthwile games as the PS3.

10 games for $3,400 = $340.00 per game
100 games at $5,250 = $52.50 per game

So why am I "coming around to Sony's way of thinking" again?

Apoligies if my sarcasm detector is broken today.

PS3 games are gonna cost a bomb. Just because Sony has to make profits on the PS3 from somewhere, just look at the PSP situation. system sells at a loss and makes up for it with overpriced games. I mean how else do Mini DVD's cost MORE than carts? Absolutely no logic. GTA:LCS on PSP? £40. GTA:LCS on PS2? £20.
Please somebody, explain.

And with BluRay being a new format. I'm predicting £60 games in shops.

and no. I don't remember similar priced Snes games. I have never paid more than £40 for a game ever.

upwards of 60 bucks for a game plus 600 for the system?! ha...

Well, I wouldn't be surprised if their 3rd party games were $65-70 just based on the fact that BR discs are more expensive to manufacture. Also, development times (and costs) will increase for BR games due to the massive amount of information that can be placed on them. So, I'm calling it now, $59 for 1st party titles and $65-70 for 3rd.

"Do you really expect a scratched Blu-Ray disc to work? I sure don't."

Well since Blu-ray uses Durabis(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durabis) I would assume that PS3 games are much more scratch resistant than any other optical media out there. I know this is hard for you to accept since you just want to spout trash and yell insults randomly, but it is true.

I would suggest that you try to phantom the idea that Sony is trying to make a good product and that they are not drunken little japanese men wanting to bitch slap you. I know this is less fun than your usuall OMG I HAETR SONYS STUPIDS monolouges but again its more grown up. Try to be a big boy now and dont be a hater.

I quit buying games two years ago thanks to gamefly. You wouldn't believe the amount of money I save. I also saved alot of time because I no longer have to go to gamestop to trade in games.

Looks to me like the PS3 is turning out to be the next Neo-Geo. The console was around $500-600 when it came out and the games were around or above $100.

Is Neo-Geo around today? Nope.

PS3 = Neo Geo or 3DO

Take your pick, expensive systems and games (including the $70 N64 carts) don't sell.

Cheap does sell if people believe they are getting good quality and the perceived value is high. The perceived value of the Gamecube was low. The Wii offers alot for a little so I don't see a problem this time around.

I still think $60 in and of itself is a grossly overpriced norm for the latest generation of video games. Personally this will make me thin out my purchases as well as waiting for the "Best of", "Platinum Hits" or whatever other names they come up with for the cheap version X months down the road from the initiail launch of some games. I bet EA is going to absolutely love this new pricepoint with each new yearly patch to Madden, NCAA, NBA, etc they release at 60+ bucks (minus the initial next gen versions).

Metal Gear in my opinion (because I'm a self proclaimed MGS fanboy) is worth every penny spent. The immersion that each iteration has provided as well as deep plot (yeah, I like plot) has kept me entertained and engrossed each time I sit down (after ripping open the wrapping like a 6 year old on Christmas) for the marathon of gaming when the latest version is released. I'm going to be paying upwards of 700 dollars for MGS4 and will no doubt eat it up with a spoon despite the high price.

The video gaming generation is growing up and the high priced next generation of gaming will have enough people willing to spend the cash on said gaming. The processing power of some of the consoles in this newest generation rivals the 1500+ gaming machines (not including monitor) of today. The premium I (and many others) will be paying on launches will only help those not willing to spend that amount of money down the road.

You can argue console prices till your blue in the face but the software costs are the real hurt and this new precedent is going to hurt. It'll make the no questions asked, high volume selling games like Final Fantasy, Halo, Metal Gear, etc make a lot more money but it will hurt the sales most other games I bet.


This isn't even touching "downloadable content". If I've already paid 60 dollars for a (nonfinished) game and start getting charging for the rest of the content I'm going to be very pissed.

The more games are worth, the more picky gamers get. Suddenly expectations go up as well. This gaming drought of lack of ideas that everyone complains about is defintely increased by higher game prices. People look to reviewers more for advice before plunking hard earned cash down. That drives company's to make the big blockbuster games. I think nintendo and xbox have it right getting people to buy the blockbusters as well as having streams for cheaper simpler games.

Frankly right now i feel unable to spend more than £15 on a game, i know it sounds stupid, but im finding less and less time to play, there for I struggle to justify the cost.
I have a GC, competent PC and PSP - all psp games i buy let me down horrendously, all GC games i actually WANT to play are still £20+ and the only games i want to play on PC (Psychonauts....and maybe ANKH or any decent adventures) are still full price....

I don't think that the terms "casual gamer" and "PS3" should ever be found in the same sentence. That's not a dig on casual gamers, either - I mean there may be one or two franchises on any system that warrant the purchase of it, and so a gamer would buy what appeals, regardless of the price.

Question is, how much is it going to sting?

Yesterday, I went to a local Gamespot and paid off my NCAA 07 reserve from EA and the Prey: Collector's Edition from 2K, both for 360. Between the two of those, I ended up getting set back about $140, after tax (we're paying 8.275% sales tax here).

High software prices will turn a lot of people off, but consoles historically are a better bargain than PC gaming, and therein lies the price savings.

If it's worth it, you'll pay what they ask. If it's not, you won't buy it. The price is immaterial.

I am not going to subsidize their Blu Ray data medium. Never ever!

I remember paying $70 dollars for Pokemon Stadium, I wanted to be "cool" like everyone else and get it the day it came out. The price was kinda justified in the fact that you got the thing to put in your pokemon game....but $70 is the most I have paid for a game and probably won't do it again.

Im not paying extra to help them keep the wonky (not to mention non-standard) blu ray media afloat either whilst the end result resembles an Xbox360 launch title.

I have already owned a next gen console since last year and even though I planned to get a PS3 Im quite frankly getting sick of Sony talking utter crap all the time. Added to the fact that the PS3 to me is looking less attractive all the time and Ive decided to hold off, perhaps for good.

I think the most I ever paid for a game was £60 for Lylat Wars (Starfox in the US) 64 on the N64 - it did come with a rumble pack though. N64 was stupidly expensive though... never got too ripped off before because I had a Mega Drive before that...

...On the PS3 pricing note though, does anyone remember one of the Sony head guys saying he expected people to "work extra hours" to be able to afford it.... should have seen this coming back then.

It's almost like they don't want people to buy it!

Stop whining. You all think you have it bad.
In the UK we are only getting the more expensive bundle and it is going to cost £425 ($770). Right now new Xbox 360 games cost £50, that means we are already at the $90 mark. This tells me that PS3 games are going to cost about £60 ($110) if not more.
At least we r not back in the N64 days when i paid £70 ($130) for Turok 64.

@21:
Mr. Duelist, I think what Mr. Merrill is trying to do is say (facetiously) that Sony has the customer's best interests in mind by having an expensive console with few must-have (but expensive) games. Nintendo, by contrast, (if I'm following him) will, by having a less expensive console but more must-have games, cost the customer more, and take up more of a gamer's time. Mr. Merrill denounces Nintendo for doing so, creating an ironic situation as he is bemoaning an inexpensive system with inexpensive ( but high-quality) games.
Thus, humor!
(Of course, I could be wrong.)

you pay for what you get, and i have no problem with that

Seeing that PSP games cost $40(Remember when they were $50 new?) I won't be surprised if we see PS3 games for $70+. Anything more than $50 is too much for me. The last time I spent $50 on games I bought RE4 and Halo 2. I have saved hundred's of dollars buying used games, and I'm probably going to end up doing the same for the 360/PS3(If I get a PS3, which I doubt I will).

But Sony will realize quickly that not everybody is crazy enough to spend $70 on one videogame.

A game should sell for $50 max. No more. I don't care if it costs more to make - you should bring the costs down yourself, not drop them on the consumer.

Theres's no way I'll be paying anywhere near $80 on any game. I already cringe when I walk into Gamestop and see used - that's USED - copies of Call of Duty 2 for 360 selling for $49.99. I'll admit I can't even recall the last time I bought at game for $50. I just don't see the logic in buying something at full price when I know for sure that 6-12 months later it's gonna be $20.

If Sony really thinks that they're going to either make up for lost $$$$ or gain ground on MS by inflating games over the already ridiculous $59 price point on the 360 (honestly, are the games really that great?) then the cost of the PS3 is only the beginning of their troubles.

You know i have to wonder how it is that a jackass comment like jc's warrants 7 stars. What game exactly wasn't complete? Oh wait lemme guess, GRAW? Last i checked, playing that game without the $15 dollar expansion pack, I didn't feel ripped off in the slightest. I don't recall anyone during the games launch complaining that the game felt incomplete. On the contrary, all you heard was that it was the one of the first true examples of Next Generation gaming, along with Fight Night. I'm pretty tired about that whole arguement. The moment a game comes out that truly is half done, and fixed only by purchasing an expansion, i will eat my words. Call of Duty was a game that was broke, and they fixed it for free.

Anyway, the only way the prices on these games is going to worth the money is if they contain a lot of extra content. I have paid for the collectors editions of a few different games, but with the knowledge that extras are included (Jade Empire for instance.) If the games are the exact same thing as the 360 games, no way is this worth the extra cost just for media. The other thing is, even if all those games do contain extras, not every game i purchase do i want to be a collectors edition, i'd like the option to pick a regular edition if i so choose. 70 bucks for every game, Sony can take a long walk off a short pier with that crap.

For me, this isn't strictly a matter of cost, it's a perception of value.

And I think that's what this whole next-generation of gaming boils down to.

If people think MGS4 or GTHD is worth $100 then they'll pay it - and good for them! I was happy to pay a small fortune for Street Fighter II on the SNES because there was nothing like it at the time - it hurt that it appeared I was paying a premium for a 'must have' title, but the amount of gameplay I got out of it was exceptional.

But now, a bit older (and maybe a tiny bit wiser) I'm not willing to buy in to Sony's tactics.

I don't feel I would be getting value for money from the PS3, and I have not seen anything from the software that convinces me I'd be getting good value from the games if they are priced at $60+

In fact, I think the reverse is true. Production costs may be soaring but most games are too easy, too dependant on eye-candy, or the latest greatest technology (do I really care about HDR??) and lack those adrenaline filled moments of gaming gold I felt when beating many 8 or 16-bit titles.

I'm all for increasing the immersive experience of gaming, but not at the cost of gameplay, fun and value for money.

Didn't Mortal Kombat cost $70 when it came out for Sega Genesis?

You call $70 games expensive? Well guess what, here in Finland we have been paying 59€ (~$74) prices for current-gen games. And the Xbox 360 games go for about 65€ (that's $80).

And back in the N64 and SNES days I remember that some games cost up to 600 FIM (~100€, $125) in some places.

I paid $65 for VF2 on Saturn, and would have paid the $100 for Virtua Racing on Genesis if I had it at the time. Those are my absolute most expensive game purchases.

$70 for the average FPS/War sim/sports game? Forget it. It's just not going to happen. The best thing Sony could do with its $600 system is take another loss on software. $20 games minimizes the shock of a $600 system and gets those Blu-Ray players in homes, which is Sony's grand ambition after all.

It will be interesting to see how this pans out what with Nintendo taking on a former PS1 and PS2 stance (many types of games from multiple developers and for low costs), while Sony takes on a N64 and GCN stance (few games from a consolidated list of developers, with high costs). The companies have basically flip-floped.

It will be up to the Third-Parties this generation on who wins the console war.

If games start becoming that expensive, then I see no reason to be a gamer anymore.

Does anyone want to buy my 360?

I would pay $70 for MGS4, but I wouldn't for anything else on the PS3, but then again, I wouldn't spend $800 just to play MGS4.