PS4 Games to be $100?

[Abe Mac]

So a little while ago, a friend of mine told me he saw a listing for Battlefield 4 and one other game (I can't remember what it was now, I'll try and find out), both for PlayStation4, set at a price for $100. I've checked recently and can't find any trace of them. I was just wondering if this was a pre-emptive posting by amazon or if my friend was mistaken.

 

[IllumInaTIma]

Maybe he mistook it for price of some kind of Collector's Edition? I won't be surprised if that shit went up to 100$ or more.

 

[Abe Mac]

Just to give some more info, the other game was watchdogs and I found the page he was referring to, its here : http://www.amazon.com/Watch-Dogs-Xbox-360/dp/B00BGD6LMG/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1361554711&sr=8-2&keywords=watch+dogs check the PS4 price, its $99.99

Also, I can see what you're saying j-e-f-f-e-r-s, I can remember when I just got into gaming on the ps2 and games only cost about $30. I also remember when I first saw a $60, can't remember exactly what it was, and thinking that was insanely expensive. Hopefully this whole cycle won't repeat itself, and $100 games won't become the norm.

 

[ShinyCharizard]

Probably the Australian price.

 

[dumbseizure]

Being in Australia and pretty much already paying $100 a game, this makes no difference to me.......wow it's depressing when I re-read that.

 

[exxxed]

I really wouldn't be surprised if game prices go up next generation. In fact, I expect it.

We've already see game prices go up exponentially this generation. The average development budget has gone up by tens of millions. I think it costs something like $40-60 million to develop an average game now, whereas one generation ago, $20 million was seen as expensive.

That's a given, half of that budget often goes into marketing and another quarter into expensive well known voice actors (which are exactly what games need these days, and I'm talking out of my arse considering the percentage, but it's a fair estimate).

As for prices of games going up, they only go up because ''they'' say so, as technology advances there's less production cost regarding the actual game and engine development in it's capabilities on more potent hardware, quite allot of funds in the console market went into optimization for older hardware, want proof (RESET [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLd8kEQJIzw])?

Look at the indie market and what kind of products they can pump out with fairly low budgets (that's if they have any to begin with) compared to the rehashed shit ''AAA'' (what does it stand for besides big ass amarketing acampaigns?) products...

I do realize that motion capture and voice acting is quite important, but considering the only game that really innovated in this regard was L.A. Noire and the company went bankrupt (like plenty before it) and procedurally generated animation is the next best thing along with really good voice actors that are not as well known, there really is no reason to make games more expensive besides the ''they say so'' reason.

As for the topic at hand, I wish the game prices were evenly spread across the world, $60!=£60!=?60 ...

Cheers.

 

[A.A.K]

eeeh... 'Australia'.
Deal with it.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

1. Games didn't become $60 until this generation (360-PS3)

2. That is not an exponential price hike. New games mostly came out at $50 prior to that gen. To have even an exponential price hike of 2 would have meant $2500. If you want to get really technical about it, it would be about 50^1.0466.

3. Remember, games back in the 80s debuted for $50, which is a lot more in today's dollars than what we pay now.

This.

I seem to recall that Super Mario Bros 3's original retail price was $50.

**checks the internet**

And that is correct. To buy a new copy of Super Mario Bros 3 at release it would cost you $50 bucks.

Can someone adjust that for inflation please? I'm pretty sure that games are CHEAPER now than they were on the NES if you include inflation.

 

[exxxed]

Eh... that video doesn't really show anything except a car and a robot suit stationary in the rain. If you were to go to a publisher, that wouldn't even be a proof of concept trailer.

Regardless of optimisation, putting stuff out at that visual quality takes a huge amount of work. You see that mecha suit? You see all those individual pistons, the cables, the rivets? Those all had to be sculpted in a 3D rendering programme of some kind. And that shit takes a huge amount of work. Which, in traditional gaming sense, means a huge amount of money.

There's stuff in that trailer that can be done procedurally, like the rain. But I will be amazed if a development team of two are able to create an entire game with that kind of visual quality. Have they released any other footage? That trailer's a year old now. Anything else they've put out to show this is more than a concept video?

Mate, it's made by two people... regardless of how old it is, it's made by two people, even as a presentation it's pretty darn impressive.

The reason is simply that with higher costs, you need to recoup your investment one way or the other. Ideally, publishers would be looking to reign back costs and make development budgets more manageable. Sadly, however, publishers have spent the entire generation conditioning gamers to "OMG GRAFIX!!!" and "HOT NEW GAEM ENJIN!!!" so for many gamers now, anything less than triple-A production values is an instant no-buy. So if publishers want to keep those gamers buying their games, they're going to have to keep pumping in money, which means even bigger development budgets.

The same publishers who tend to step over creativity in exchange for profit?

Screw them for all I care!

Erm... you do know what an exhange rate is, don't you? $60 isn't worth 360. In fact, $60 is worth more like £40. £60 is worth more like $91. International prices aren't exactly fair right now anyway, but what you're talking about is even worse.

You realize I didn't say equal but != which is basically =/=... which major distributors tend to ignore and I end up paying close to 80 bucks for a damned game on release (cheers to GOG for pricing it right)...

 

[popa_qwerty]

1. Games didn't become $60 until this generation (360-PS3)

2. That is not an exponential price hike. New games mostly came out at $50 prior to that gen. To have even an exponential price hike of 2 would have meant $2500. If you want to get really technical about it, it would be about 50^1.0466.

3. Remember, games back in the 80s debuted for $50, which is a lot more in today's dollars than what we pay now.

This.

I seem to recall that Super Mario Bros 3's original retail price was $50.

**checks the internet**

And that is correct. To buy a new copy of Super Mario Bros 3 at release it would cost you $50 bucks.

Can someone adjust that for inflation please? I'm pretty sure that games are CHEAPER now than they were on the NES if you include inflation.

Using this site http://www.westegg.com/inflation/

What cost $50 in 1988 would cost $95.55 in 2012.
Also, if you were to buy exactly the same products in 2012 and 1988,
they would cost you $50 and $25.66 respectively.

 

[lunavixen]

I live in Australia and I have to pay that for PS3 games now, wii games are still consistantly over $70 even after they've been out for a few years, and just to make it worse, the Australian dollar is worth MORE than the US dollar, so, you guys really have nothing to complain about.

 

[Jack Nief]

I'm thinking they might be placeholder prices, since way back, the WiiU games were also labeled as being $100.

Of course, if its true, then the Xbox and PS4 both have pretty hard cons against them.

 

[knight steel]

Australia laughs at your complaining
Although if the price rises over there then it rise over here too O_O
I don't want to pay $200 for a game O_e

 

[sb666]

I'm an Australian, so what's new there?