How much would you spend on a PS3 game?

Fat chance. I flatly refuse to spend that much on a games console which promises very little.

For a console to be a superior overall value when compared to the PC, the gamer needs to be a low-volume gamer. It all comes in the timing of the "investment".

Console systems traditionally required a relatively low initial investment while PCs required a relatively high initial investment. The problem is, over the lifetime of the unit, the console will rapidly catch up to the lifetime cost of the current PC system, and may even surpass it.

The reson behind this is that PC games tend to average $10-$20 less than their console counterparts, and even up to a $30 difference when taking into consideration the $10 price jump in third party 360 titles.

Now, lets take a high volume gamer example. The gamer has two options, assuming he/she only wants a single gaming machine. I will do this over a 5 year period

Option 1 -

New PC - $1,200 (this is how much I put mine together for and theoretically will be comptenent for gaming for 4 years, assuming I pick up gaming again by that point)

20 games/year @ $39.99 average - $3999

Processor and Video Card upgrade at end of year 4 - $500 (yes, you don't need to get the top of the line to get a long term PC gaming rig, rest of the PC is already put together as RAM, sound, case, power supply, hard drive, etc, don't need upgrading all that often) (alternatively, the user can upgrade at 2.5 year mark and improve gaming experience without increasing end-cost)

Total over 5 years - $5699.00

Option 2 -

Xbox 360 Premium - $400

20 games/year @ $59.99 average - 5999

Total over 5 years - $6399

Also be warned that Option 2 also requires additional investments over the PC if multiplayer is desired in form of additonal controller ($40) or XBox Live ($250 over the 5 year span). Internet is not factored into the PC because you need it for the 360 regardless.

The point at when the total expense of gaming becomes a non-factor, known in the finance and accounting world as the indifference point, is when the gamer purchases 13 games a year. Any gamer purchasing fewer than 13 titles average a year is better off with a 360 over a PC. Things get stickier when factoring episodic or downloadable content from places like Steam, giving a larger advantage to the PC.

Now, lets do the same with a PS3.

PS3 - $600

20 games a year @ 69.99 (estimated) - $6999

Total Cost - $7599

The new indifference point becomes 7 titles. Gamers purchasing fewer than 7 titles are better off with a PS3, more than that, with the PC.

360 vs PS3 on this value analysis -

Graphs never intersect, giving full advantage to the 360.

Now, the main reason people don't go with Option 1 and chose to game on consoles is the high initial investment associated with purchasing a PC for gaming. Also, most gamers are unlikely to breach that 13 game mark, making the 360 a better value on this front. Unfortunatley, the PS3 is starting to cross the managable initial investment line by pricing its unit at $600. It is also starting to encroach on that point where many casual gamers sit, 7 games, by using a more expensive media for its titles.

Of course, there are also other factors to take into account. A big one is the bang for your buck method. Take Half-Life 2 Episode 1 for example. Apparently a quality title, runs for $20, and you can get 6 hours out of it. A 360 title would need to give you a minimum of 18 hours of quality first run time and a PS3 game 21 hours. Remember, this is first time through plays, and few console games outside RPGs and non-ending games (sports for example) offer that.

Another factor is the used titles factor. While many would think this would favor a console, it actually favors the PC. When I unloaded my entire game collection, it was quite clear that games released at a similar time retained more value if they were a console game.

For example:

Civilization 4 Collectors Edition (PC) -

Retail Purchase: $50
EBay Sale: $35
Shipping: $5
Savings: $10

Dead or Alive 4 (360) -

Retail Purchase: $60
EBay Sale: $50
Shipping: $5
Savings: $5

Both highly rated and popular games, with Civ 4 actually having an advantage in popularity and rating over DoA4, yet DoA4 took a smaller hit to overall purchase cost. The differences become more pronounced over time. 3 year old PC titles (Max Payne 2 in my instance) sold for $3 while Soul Calibur 2 (Gamecube) got me $12.

The price differential will only be larger with PS3 titles.

Other examples exist such as qualitative (which one has better games), but the question is still are those games really worth $30 more?

Consoles are perfectly designed for low volume, low income gamers. They have relatively small initial investments and undercut the cost of PC gaming over the lifetime when few games are purchased. Even under an extreme price cut situation and purchasing only brand new games (both playing to a console's favor), with the PS3 costing $240 after 6 years (same 40% cost of launch price that has been fairly traditional of all previous consoles), that only leaves the indifference point at 9 titles.

The PS3 is an enigma. Both hardware and software are going to cost quite a bit, pricing themselves out of their core demographic. Those who can make the investment would be better off going with a PC for its higher value and lower overall cost. The only real core audience would be movie afficionados out to jump into the first generation BluRay market with as little cost as possible, but they don't really buy games.

I remember buying Mortal Kombat Trilogy on N64 for about $100. In hindsight, that was a very stupid purchase. I was really hoping those days where behind us.

no. compare to other forms of media. no no no.

WTF did I stumble upon? Am I the only person that read the article? The guy said he basically wants pricing to stay competitive with pricing for new games on a launch console: $59. He basically said to NOT expect games to be higher than that, but he gave himself wiggle room [I think they are trying to do some PR backdooring, here actually]. by saying not to be mad it the prices were a bit more than $59. He said NOT to expect games to be $100, like some people have been implying.

As for the blu-ray talk, yes the disc is slightly more expensive to manufacture than dvd. Don't expect blu-ray to affect pricing. When the cost is spread across say a 500,000 print run of a game, it comes out to pennies extra per game. Just because retail blank blu-ray discs cost $25 doesnt mean that it will add $25 to the cost of your games.

These are all arbitrary numbers, but here is an example of how costs are decided.

If it costs a company something like a million dollars to print a game that ships gold on blu-ray. You divide that cost into the number of discs printed. In this case 500,000 copies. You end up with games costing $2 extra. Lets say the upgrade of your dvd printing plant to blu-ray costs $50,000,000 to build. That means that you only need to sell 50 "gold" games to full make back your investment on machinery. Many printing companies are contract companies, so a facility is not always solely devoted to one companies games unless they are large publishers like maybe an EA or a Ubisoft. In that case, they also take print jobs for other blu-ray media as well. so you have the same plant pressing movie discs and game disks, or games for several different publishers. Money would be made back on the investment quickly.

Truth is, just as with the consoles themselves, that initial price from the investment is factored into the discs lifetime pricing. So instead of paying that $2 premium for the first couple of months, you are actually paying fractions of a cent overall during the life of blu-ray.

The blu-ray technology isn't what is going to drive up game prices this generation. Blame the need for more artists, programmers, etc... Don't be surprised to find x360 and ps3 titles to be priced similarly. Matter of fact, don't quote me here [because I don't think its true], but I've read that there is precedence for ps3 titles to be cheaper than x360 titles since games dont require as much time to "squeeze" and cut back titles to fit on DVD-9.

well, let's look at the bright side. Since both models of the PS3 are coming out with built in HDs, you'll save around 40$ on memory card, which should cover at least half the cost of your first game purchase. :P

total over 5 years - $5699.00
that is assuming you can find 20 titles per year on the PC worth actually buying (since most of the good titles now come out on the consoles first or only)
This also assumes that all PC games are the same price and where I live many of the PC titles are the same price or only slightly cheaper than 360 titles.

for some reason every user posting a comment seems to think that third party companies are actually going to publish on Blue Ray disks.




THEY ARE NOT GOING TO PUBLISH ON BLUE RAY DISKS!!!

Third Party companies are not going to spend the money to publish a game on a BD-25 disk, they are going to publish their games on a BD-4.5 or BD-9 disk which is semiotics for DVD!!!

So in summery and to quell this "Every game on the PS3 is going to be 25 gigs and use blue ray to give us an unreal experience." Not going to happen for third party games!!

Third party PS3 Games will be published on BD-9 (DVD-9)

I'm not going to get involved in the price issue, but anyone who thinks that Wii is going to have 100 must-have games is fucking dreaming. No console has never had close to even that amount of must-have games. Hell, I don't think any console has even had close to that many decent-and-worth-the-money titles. Also, remember this is Nintendo, the company classic for releasing like 2 games a year. And we all know that the third parties won't be able to take full advantage of the Wii experience. Just look at the DS: up until NSMB, the game everyone raved about the most was a port of a GBA game. Really taking advantage of the DS' unique features there.

If you really believe that Wii will have 100 must-have titles, I'd like some of what you're smoking.

Not only No but HELL NO! 60 bucks is tops and it better be a Collector's Edition. I streched it 1 time for Guitar Hero but that was WAY worth it. I suppose though if im shelling out 600 bucks for a console i better go all or nothing.....nah thats still to much, Nintendo here i come!

One of my favourite things about my new DS Lite is that the games top out at $35. This makes them a much easier purchase.

Here in NZ, new PS2/Xbox 360 games ALREADY cost 70-80 USD (that's 105-120 local dollars for you economists). It's the norm.

That said, if PS3 games are consistently more expensive than 360 games, the console will be in REAL trouble. For exclusive content, maybe, but it will not wash for cross-platform stuff.

The last time I wanted to pay that much money for a videogame was during the SNES days. I'd gladly pay $50 to $60 for a game like Mega Man X, LttP, or Mario World.

Well, that and Ikaruga (thank God I found it used for $17).

Problem is, if the games slated to come out are $10 for the PC anyway, what's the point on buying it for the system? And are the more expensive games even really worth the purchase? Games as of late haven't been all that much fun, there's usually less than 1 or 2 purchases a year anyway, so why the heck would I buy a console costing me half a grand?

if the 360 games cost 20% of the cost of the core system. ($60/$300). NDS games are about 25% the cost of the system ($30/$120). Similar (il)logic would put the PS3 games at $100 to $125 (20-25% of 500)

On the other hand, how many systems will Sony be able to sell if the games cost $40 more for titles that have a roughly identical gaming experience?

I rembemer in the early 90'sseeing Conker's bad fur day for $60 and a bunch of cheap $20 p.c and arcade ports on cd for PS1.

Now with XNA and the cheaper media it seems like xbox 360 is in the ps1 seat and Ps3 is selling expensive N64 carts.

In Australia most of xbox360 games cost around $120 and seeing that the PS3 console going to cost $1k well it seems like Sony is in trouble.

The good news is that the prices will eventually drop down.

Poor, poor americans :P You should be ashamed of yourselves, here in Sweden we already pay the equivalent of $88 =( So $59 would actually be pretty nice..

2 points:

How much does Sony plan to focus so intensely on the hardcore crowd and forget those people that made such a huge percentage of their buyers the last time around? Don't kid yourself, the PS1 and 2 didn't trounce the competition by appealing to JUST the hardcore crowd, they sold through the roof because they appealed to EVERYONE.

They dissolved enough of their audience with the declaration of a 600$ price tag, and now they plan to implement a 60-90$ standard for their games that has the potential to alienate even more people? I've always thought this and it seems ever more likely to happen: the 360 has potential to become the PS of this generation, and it's almost all thanks to Sony's doing. Finally, this does nothing but good to ALL of their competition, which would also include the Wii. :)

Guys! SONY WOULD NEVER DO $100 A GAME TO US.

Itll just be a nice $99.99

For those bringing up the cost of the PC in regards to gaming guess what the PC isn't just used for gaming. You use it for other things as well. A lot of people use their pcs for work and play games as a bonus. Also you can get a lot of pc game demos online. You have gametap for one thing. Lots of free flash games, mmos. All the pc gaming is just a bonus to the main functions of a pc.

The PS3 will not replace pcs nor will the 360/PS3 ever become the media center of a home entartainment system. Several consoles have gone that route such as the 3DO and they all failed.

Also for those neglacting the facts of Blu-ray costs per disc carts cost that much and it wasn't spread around the production run like you claim the blu-ray cost will be.

PS3 game development costs will likely triple or even more even for what should be a budget title. Many supposed PS3 exclusives are going to the Wii. Many developers are considering deserting the PS3 and going to the 360 and Wii.

Sony is up **** creek and their stock holders are becoming enraged at them because Sony stock has dropped by 50% and the company is about 10 billion dollars in debt. It's not earning as much money as it should either. Last I looked Sony's abilitity to borrow money was near junk bond status which is quite bad. Companies even with no debt routinely borrow money when they want to expand because it allows them to not dip into their own resources. Once they finish expanding and the expansion pays the money back they lose very little money if it all. When a company cannot borrow as much money as it used to and is regarded as a poor investment the company is in danger of dying out. Sony is in such a strait.

Donutta Nintendo has increased their development team sizes. They have over a 1000 game developers and they have increased their second parties and forged a lot of close ties with third parties. The number of unknown wii titles is in the dozens from what is hinted.

Also the third party DS games coming out really show off the DS. It took a while to get the idea of the DS into the heads of developers.

I work with a casual gamer, and we were talking about the PS3 price. I'm an avid (I must stress the word...) gamer, and I really want the PS3 because it plays Blu-Ray and I can also play games. She commented on the price, saying it's pretty outrageous, but she is STILL BUYING IT. You know why? Not for the Blu-Ray, at all. She's buying it because she likes to occasionally play games.

So, really, I think the only people who are complaining about the price point of these things don't have a job. Either that, or they don't make much.

Omega2k3 says:

"So, really, I think the only people who are complaining about the price point of these things don't have a job. Either that, or they don't make much."

Let me add on to that list, may I?

"...or they don't make much, or they don't think the PS3 is worth it, or Blu-ray could tank (like Sony's beta-max and UMD formats), or you could instead buy a Wii and at least 6 games (or a "Wii60"), or you instead buy a 360 that costs 200$ less and doesn't force you to buy their version of HD-DVD's, or because you'll be able to play GTA IV on the 360 at the same time for hundreds of dollars less, or they are finally fed up with Sony's arrogance, or Sony's exclusive games are more scarce then they've ever been, or..."

After having to buy an HDTV, and the high end model of the PS3 not to mention accessories, I'd be hard pressed to buy a game that costed more than $60. Maybe It's just me.

I've already been thinking about buying Nintendo stock because I've been watching the console wars intensely, but I'm thinking about shorting Sony stock too now.

"27. 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."

HAHA!! you made me laugh.

The Neo Geo was released in 1990, do you seriosly expect a machine to be around after all that time? Thats like saying the SNES was crap because its not around now. The Neo Geo was NEVER released to be mainstream, it was a very cult machine that not many could afford (And many dreamed of owning).

It actually stayed on sale for many years in various guises (Later models were CD based). Some of the games on the system that were made in its later years were absolutely amazing, and were talking 10 years after, Metal Slug and the King Of Fighters Series were incredible. It was the ULTIMATE 2D machine (Saturn was a close Second), some of the animation in Neo Geo games were simply jaw dropping back then (And still are now).

The funny thing is that the Neo Geo is still being developed for even now (If a little sparsely), Mainly for the MVS Arcade system, but one or two carts get produced for the AES machine. The company had difficulties a few years ago but came back to life as SNK Playmore (I do honestly think they have gone a bit downhill since then).

It really annoys me when all you little kiddies diss on Neo Geo and compare it like it was a failed unit just because you heared someone else say it and its the cool thing to do. Alot of you probably don't even know what it is.

If you wanted an Arcade machine at home, Neo Geo was it, it wasn't ever trying to complete with SNES or a Megadrive, the general public made it out to be (As usual).

On Topic

Xbox 360 Games cost more than this gen too... so whats the big deal? Its inevitable and has been all through time. Some games will be more than others also. Do you really think Singstar will be $80-$90? no it will be max $40 and they'll sell content to you afterwards. If anything this gen is gonna show a lot more diversity in the "Fixed" retail price of games because some games will naturally rely on downloadable content. Of course, some developers are going to rape the system and release "Full" games at extortionate prices with further charges on downlaodable content to make the "Full" game really complete (GRAW anyone?).

Its not just gonna be Sony... MS and Nintendo are gonna do it too.. mark my words.

I think they should all be £19.99 or like $29.99. Obviously they wouldn't make as much from each individual game, but they'd probably sell more than twice as many, which would more than make up for it.

I'll have to correct comment 53 of vidguy.
"Say a great game sells 250,000 copies at $50. That's $12,500,000 total revenue.
Push the game to $60, and 50,000 buyers drop out. That's $12,000,000.
Push the game to $70, and 50,000 more buyers drop out. That's $10,500,000."

Now take the cost of the disc (and the cost of burning the data on it, and the cost to get it to the customers)
Say 15 dollars. Iwon't take development cost in consideration because this is spread over the number of units sold(example development cost is 100.1 unit sold. The development cost for that unit is 100.100 units sold the development cost is 1 for each unit)


250.000*(50-15)=8.750.000
200.000*(60-15)= 9.000.000
150.000*(70-15) = 8.250.000

The price point at which we will sell is at $60.
In fact If the cost is $30 which is quite possible with the bluray format.
250.000*(50-30)=5.000.000
200.000*(60-30)=6.000.000
150.000*(70-30)=6.000.000

Now there are other rules at play also in this market and that is to install a great userbase. I believe the price of games can have a big influence on this.

suppose Xbox360 have their game prices set at $45.
This will mean that it is much easier to pick a game up for the customer.
The media used (DVD) is much cheaper. More people are attracted to their console. So there are more potential buyers for the games. More buyers of the game are important because every buyer pays a part of the developmentcost.
I'm sure the folks of Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo are well aware of this. (and off course third party support)
Sony has taken a gamble with the bluray but in time a blank bluray disc will only be a little bit more expensive than a blank DVD.
What will decide this war is which console offer the consumer the most bang for their buck.We decide
Is it Nintendo? Pro their controller, development cost
Is it microsoft? Pro Live , development cost
Is it sony ? Pro Bluray (if it becomes the new standard) ;Con development cost a big ? (just like the PS2 was)

Alright. So how many of these games does Sony have to sell in order to break even on *one* PS3? I'm not being facetious here. Four games? Five? Ten? Twenty? Because we know that Sony is losing money on the PS3; ignoring the Blu-Ray aspect for a second, they'd have to make up profit in games.

Soo .. how many games?

Of course, bringing Blu-Ray back in, the PS3 will more than pay for itself, games or no, but I'm still curious.

[I have to ask, idioteraser: Sony's stock has dropped by 50%? FIFTY? You're telling me Sony's stock has halved? I sure want to see that stock report, because I think that would be on the front page of newspapers everywhere.]

Now: What does not belong on this list of "Living Expenses"?

a) Rent
b) Tuition
c) Gas/Electric Bills
d) Petty Cash
e) Food
f) PS3 Game (singular)

If a game costs me more than my grocery bill ..... -_-

Forgot to add: the PS3 will more than pay for itself if Blu-Ray is a *success*. Whoops.

I think Sony would have to be nuts to push games for anything higher than 60 bucks. I'm a hardcore gamer, and I was totally pumped about the PS3. But it seems like everytime I read a new comment from the Sony camp, they make less and less sense. I fell into the money pit that was the PSP, and I'm determined to have a more measured look at the PS3 before I buy it.

The used-game trade is already having a major impact on the bottom line for all systems. Sony knows it better than most. Hell, they've been talking about issuing a license system, which would eliminate the used market for any titles with that feature. (nothing official yet, but they're working on it.)

Charing $60 a game is already pushing the used market into overdrive. Go look at your local Gamestop's 360 used section. It's near full. Going above that is going to increase the drive to used even more so. Seems like sony would be better severed doing what EA, and several other publishers have, releasing decent titles for $10 less than the standard retail price.

It only makes sense to raise the price of a product if it isn't going to signifigantly impact the number of units you sell. It's better to sell 10 units at $50 than 5 at $60. Those are arbitrary numbers, but the more and more we get into Sony's weird, elitist, 'of course you will buy it! it costs more because you MUST have it' way of thining, the more it seems to me that it's going to bite them in the ass.

I'll have to correct comment 126 of Kris.

Total revenue is money brought in. It does not include any cost incurred by the company. Thus, cost of the disc, production costs, etc don't figure in to my statement.

You attempt to show that higher prices are better using the numbers
"250.000*(50-30)=5.000.000
200.000*(60-30)=6.000.000
150.000*(70-30)=6.000.000"

Yet you fail to see my point. If you continued on, you would have
'100,000*(80-30)=5.000.000'

You can clearly see that the curve has reached it's peak and is on the way down - higher prices result in less revenue. With these numbers, selling at $50 and $80 will yield the same revenue. Yet, at $50, there's a much larger consumer base to purchase strategy guides, expansion packs, etc. In this situation, selling at $60 would be ideal, because it yields the most revenue while holding onto the most consumers.

Even when factoring in the costs, which attempts to project net income, not revenue, my point still applies. It's basic economics.

I HAVE NEVER BUY A GAME ... I JUST RENT THEM ... WHY ... IS CHEAPER .. AND AFTER YOU BEAT THE GAME I HAVE HAVE TO SELL IT .. SO I DONT REALLY CARE IF THE GAMES ARE 100 SINCE IM ONLY PAYING 20 A MONTH AND I PLAY 5 + GAMES A MONTH DO THE MATH PPL

How does this all add up? We can already get discount Blu-ray movies but were going to have to screwed when we buy games. It seems that $ony sees that consumer’s wont be buying an individual player, the majority will be the Ps3. That’s ok $ony we’ll pick up the tab, were dumb. What’s the surprise, since $ony wants to sell you a system that is comparable to quality from its competitors for more $ already. It really boils down to selling a new media format on us just for their benefit and profit. This is garbage! How is this a progression in gaming, more storage on the disc, and content. Larger games will also cost more, longer developing = more money. Hey, everyone is out to make a buck but were getting screwed!

I remember paying 70 dollars for Zelda ocarina of time back in the day (never regreted it excellent game). But back then i had no bills and lived at home with my parents without a care in the world. The PS3 is lookin more and more like a N64 to me. Might be an excellent system but without the mainstream presence. the only thing with sony is that it doesn't have the first party quality that ninty has to fall back on. god of war can only get u so far.

For those interested in the Sony stock price dropping by 50% it was covered in the newspaper on the 22 of June of this year at the Sony Shareholders meeting.

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/060622/japan_sony.html?.v=3

Associated Press and several business newspapers etc covered it.

And for the record it is highly unusual for someone in Japan to question a Japanese exec like that. And laughing at a Japanese shareholders meeting is also unusual. Seems the Japanese aren't too confidant in Sony.

120-43 dollars is quite bad for the second largest consumer electronics company in the world. Nintendo stock has never really decreased. In fact stock price for Nintendo and Microsoft are about even.

Also the NEO-Geo was the equal of the arcade gaming cabinets so it was superior to any home console of the time. It got a feverish fan base consisting of guess what game reviewers for gaming magazines who could afford to shell out the cash. Also the game carts cost over a 100 bucks in fact people often shelled out hundreds for them. The PS3 has no such potential audience since it isn't any more powerfull then it's console competitors it doesn't have a first party development team capable of cranking out games that people would willingly shell that much for. Only company that could do it today would be Nintendo.

And you are talking about the game development for the arcade cabinet not the home console NEO-GEO. Even Nintendo has an arcade gaming division that rakes in cash.

Maybe it's just me but I remember buying games for upwards of $80. I remember that I paid $80.80 each after tax for both Street Fighter 2 and Final Fantasy 3 for SNES when they were released. I think $50-$60 is fair for most games. I usually feel that I've gotten my money's worth.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=SNE&t=6m

That's the 6 month chart for Sony. Is it just me, or does that just seem like a normal chart? It shot up earlier in the year, went down, and now it's higher than it was at the beginning.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=AAPL&t=6m&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=SNE

That's Sony compared side-by-side to Apple. Sony's stock has gone up, Apple's has gone down a LOT. These are 6 month charts.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=AAPL&t=5y&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=SNE

That's the 5 year chart for both. It seems that the real loss came in mid '02 to mid '03, and that Sony stock has actually gone up since that time.


The big losses in Sony stock had nothing to do with the PS3 price.

What is up with all of these people who claim to remeber past gen games at being over $50. I bought MK triology at launch for $49.99. Snes, Sega Genisis and N64 games at launch was at $49.99.
Back on topic at hand G4 announced that PS3 games will retail at about $100.

I honestley dont think that the ps3 games are going to be over priced and right now I dont think 360 games are over priced so for all you cheap gamers just save your money (like i do) and then by the game

The only game i would pay more than $60 for is FF7.

"I know that any current-generation game that can be had for six bucks is garbage"

Marble Blast Ultra was $10, and I like it...

I would like to note that the original Warcraft(remember when you could only control 4 units so you had to pause order unpause wait pause order etc..) originally cost $200 freaking dollars. personally i'd pay $80 for a game IF the publishers would make additional content free and available on Sonys answer to X-Box live. Otherwise even $60 is pushing it.

If you want the system and the games, you'll pay the money that's all.

And since no console costs $50 and games $10 (as a lot of people would like it to be), we can all start saving money.

By the way, here I pay at least $80 for any game of almost any console, so I'm kind of used to paying that much for games.

dang! All the talk of the games in EU being so high already makes me wonder if Sony really is going to try and block sales of used games! No wonder Ken is talking electronic distribution. A exclusive code that is tied into the machine serial number would be smart if this is the case! I read a article that said the average Dragon question 8 game will sell 6 sixs in a few months! Five of those six times being used, and none of that going to Sony as it shouldn't. But they want to find a way. Here is hoping to back lashes!

Depends...

Katamari PS3, no effing way.

FFXIII (if it's not a let-down like X was), then I'd spend $100 on it.