EA Chief: 3D Games Could Bring Higher Prices
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
76 bucks in 85, with inflation would be like around 120...honestly. Considering home PC's were 3-7 thousand dollars as well.
But that's another topic for another time.
You guys haven't made anything 3d...why would we want you beta testing crap and shovel good money into your R&D when most of us will have the feature disabled anyway...
But that's another topic for another time.
You guys haven't made anything 3d...why would we want you beta testing crap and shovel good money into your R&D when most of us will have the feature disabled anyway...
They should focus on making good engines and middleware affordable to all studios first.
Only then can they make 3D games for the same budget as now...
Only then can they make 3D games for the same budget as now...
3D is just an excuse to raise prices; developing 3D games shouldn't cost the programmers much time at all. Look at nvidia's 3DVision: it supports all PC games that render in a 3D environment without the developers of those games so much a lifting a finger to support stereoscopic 3D.
Stereoscopic 3D is an effect which can be done almost exclusively through hardware and doesn't really complicate the job of a graphics programmer much at all unless they want to start implementing really trippy effects that are displayed differently in both eyes (thus inducing nausea).
Stereoscopic 3D is an effect which can be done almost exclusively through hardware and doesn't really complicate the job of a graphics programmer much at all unless they want to start implementing really trippy effects that are displayed differently in both eyes (thus inducing nausea).
Hhhmmm...I'm not against this as long as they release non-3-D versions of the game too at the regular price. I do see 3-D as the future of gaming, but I'd be aghast to pay a premium withouyt needing it.
As for games being over-priced. At ?60/$60 a game games represent the best value for money of any entertainment product out there. Games come in at a minimum of 8-10 hours game play, and I've NEVER only gotten this minimum out of a game. Bad example, because it's a sandbox but I picked up Just Cause 2 for ?35 the other day and I've 15 hours gameplay and I'm only of the main plot missions finished, I fully expect to get another 80 or so hours without just generally pissing about or playing lives with my mates. Even MW2, which I didn't warm too, so didn't get much more than the story and the Spec Ops and it was still worth the ?60 without taking into account the fact I got ?30 back trading it in.
I don't welcome higher prices, but I do understand them and they are justifiable.
As for games being over-priced. At ?60/$60 a game games represent the best value for money of any entertainment product out there. Games come in at a minimum of 8-10 hours game play, and I've NEVER only gotten this minimum out of a game. Bad example, because it's a sandbox but I picked up Just Cause 2 for ?35 the other day and I've 15 hours gameplay and I'm only of the main plot missions finished, I fully expect to get another 80 or so hours without just generally pissing about or playing lives with my mates. Even MW2, which I didn't warm too, so didn't get much more than the story and the Spec Ops and it was still worth the ?60 without taking into account the fact I got ?30 back trading it in.
I don't welcome higher prices, but I do understand them and they are justifiable.
I could see this happening from a mile off, if not everywhere then at least in Australia. As long as it's just an option, I'll be fine with it. I was never particularly thrilled with the whole 3D fad anyway, unlike other members of my family. If they start selling games exclusively for an extra $30 or so simply because of damned 3D, I think I might take up a less expensive hobby. Like, I don't know, collecting Mercedes-Benz's.
I won't care if they make high priced 3d games, as long as a normal priced 2d game is also available. As I can't see 3d (even in the real world, one eyed people do not have depth perception!) I wouldn't be willing to pay even a penny more for 3d games. In fact, I probably couldn't even play a 3d game, the graphics would look like crap to me. If they do the games like they currently do the movies, that would be fine. I didn't pay extra to see the 3d version of Avatar, I just paid the regular price for the 2d version.
Free update for batman darkam asylum and Killzone 2, and yet reason for other games to start costing more?
EA can blow me...
EA can blow me...
...It doesn't. Read the thread, Nvidias work and what they did in batman and other ps3 games, calls this argument as BS. They just want to make more money for the same work, using 3D as an excuse.epninja said:
I think that graphics are starting to reach a point where they're actually interfering with making games good, rather than improving them.
On the most fundamental level, games like Tetris are perfect: a steady, gradual, and constant increase in difficulty, and a method of modeling achievement and ability. Improving the graphics does not fundamentally change the game. True, without advances from sprites to polygons we would never have games like Thief, or Bioshock, or Shadow of the Colossus - but there is a point where improving a games graphics is done entirely for its own sake and adds nothing appreciable to the game itself.
I can understand 3d in games better than I can in movies, since the immersion factor is much better in a player-controlled experience, but I'm not convince that on an average consumers television, with an average consumer's eyes straining through a pair of silly cardboard glasses, an extra $10 at purchase and an extra $100 million in development would really be worth it.
On the most fundamental level, games like Tetris are perfect: a steady, gradual, and constant increase in difficulty, and a method of modeling achievement and ability. Improving the graphics does not fundamentally change the game. True, without advances from sprites to polygons we would never have games like Thief, or Bioshock, or Shadow of the Colossus - but there is a point where improving a games graphics is done entirely for its own sake and adds nothing appreciable to the game itself.
I can understand 3d in games better than I can in movies, since the immersion factor is much better in a player-controlled experience, but I'm not convince that on an average consumers television, with an average consumer's eyes straining through a pair of silly cardboard glasses, an extra $10 at purchase and an extra $100 million in development would really be worth it.
Hardly cunning, more like speaking out of ignorance. Its hard to believe anyone in the know about how current 3d games are programmed could make such a silly claim and expect be to able to get away with it, with out being ripped to shreds. Im betting he has no clue what hes talking about, he just wants in on the 3d craze.Dys said:
Games cost more down under due to the ever-present threat posed to them by all your poisonous species.. sorry, them's the breaks.Dys said:
Actually that sort of price gouging makes no sense, do yall have some sort of obscene national sin tax on games or something. I know it's an island and all, but really those sorts of prices just make no sense to me (but then most things involving economics don't make sense to me because the only sense they make is completely removed from any rational reason)
We do have very high taxes, but the only taxes that I imagine affect the price of videogames are GST and, in some cases, import tax. With some titles there are copyright laws, and distribution conflicts which are why we get later releases. But really, there's nothing that could anywhere near justify the minimum 40% commercial increase. 15-20% above wholesale price is the absolute maximum I can justify.warmonkey said:
