PS4 Games to be $100?

[uchytjes]

I am laughing so fricking hard right now.

If this is true, this will likely be the final nail in the coffin that is the AAA home console.

We have the WII U that isn't really going anywhere (may be my own perspective though)

We have the XBOX 720 and its always online requirement.

And now we have $100 PS4 games.

Now which poison do I pick...

In all seriousness, though, this is probably a fake or a mistake. No one, and I mean NO ONE would be stupid enough to do such a thing.

 

[havoc33]

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.

Forget about NES games, what about SNES? I remember in Norway back in the early 90s, a NES game would costs 499NOK. The SNES games? A whopping 799NOK and in some cases, 899NOK. In US dollars, that would be 87 USD for a NES game, and 156 USD for a SNES game. Now if we count in inflation as well, then you realise just how much more expensive games were back then. I was just a kid at the time, and I saved for half a year or longer before I could buy a game. Basically, buying a game was an event in it self, and I treasured every game I got, even the bad ones. This is why I don't have much sympathy when people complain about games being expensive today. Given the production costs and hours you get of fun, they're actually cheap.

I would not be surprised if the prices went up nextgen. As a matter of fact, we have seen from several developer interviews lately that it is indeed a hot topic.

 

[Vausch]

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.

You also need to factor in that wages haven't kept up with inflation so it's still a lot.

But either way, adjusting for 2012 dollars a 50 dollar game is 86.50 in today's money.

 

[Casual Shinji]

I doubt Sony would be as stupid as to price their games at 100 bucks.

But then Microsoft might very well have DRM on their console, so anything's possible, I guess.

 

[DrunkOnEstus]

I remember very vividly paying $60 plus tax for Chrono Trigger within a week of release with pooled birthday money. Considering how much more expensive our games are now (regardless of how necessary it is), I can't say I would argue with a $70 price point next gen. I assume though that it would be $70 in addition to online passes (ahem..."overkill editions"), day 1/on-disc DLC, and some new and wonderful advancement of avatar clothing (which is paying them for the privilege of advertising their game).

I don't know the exact numbers at all, but I'm thinking that the from-scratch assets in Bioshock Infinite probably cost more to make than Chrono Trigger itself did. On the bright side, it would teach me to be very careful about pulling the trigger on a purchase and shopping around to get the absolute best deal. Which may continue to be Steam sales if half these rumors don't get squashed...

 

[Dryk]

snip

This is the very definition of an unsustainable business model. They may be able to push some more DLC on people to try to stave off the inevitable. There are too many companies spending too much money to try to get a slice of a very limited pie.

 

[Norrdicus]

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

In general, perhaps not.

But I did pay 67,95? for my new copy of Budokai 3 on PS2

 

[Revolutionary]

So i'm guessing that's probably a placeholder speculative price or possibly a special edition or something (here's hoping) because you can be sure that if there are $100 games in the U.S that'll mean $150 games over here in Australia. Not that it would really affect me too much as I mainly get games through steam these days.....then again even steam prices are higher in Australia....
It's also perfectly plausible that your friend is just full of shit.

 

[Able Seacat]

The Amazon [http://www.amazon.com/Watch-Dogs-Xbox-360/dp/B00BGD6LMG/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1361554711&sr=8-2&keywords=watch%20dogs&tag=vglnk-c21-20] price is a place holder price;

"Watch Dogs Placeholder Pricing
Please note that the current price on Watch Dogs for PlayStation 4 is a placeholder price until we receive more information from our first party and third party partners. As with all pre-orders, under Amazon's Pre-order Price Guarantee (POPG), if customers pre-order an item, then they are guaranteed the lowest price between the order date and the item's release date. We will update the price as soon as we know more. Thank you for your patience."

I wouldn't be surprised though if there was an increase in price for games at least initially but I doubt it would be a very large increase.

 

[RedLister]

If this would occur i would expect console gaming to take another hit, Because at the end of the day people only have so much money and games getting shorter and more expensive will lead to alot of gamers just not buying.

Hopefully it is a fake or a mistake.

 

[UrieHusky]

I'm a kiwi, we pay upwards of $120 for new releases on consoles as it is. I don't know what you guys are crying about.

 

[Maximum Bert]

The other option is for companies like Sony to raise the price on games, and hope enough gamers still buy their games brand new to make up the difference. We already saw this in the UK when the price of gaming went from around £25 in the PS1 generation to around £40 for the PS2/Xbox generation. We've already got games flirting with the £50 (about $76), and I wouldn't be surprised if publishers go for that price en masse.

The problem is that, with the economy in the way it is, £50 is going to be a huge kick in the teeth for millions of gamers. Gamers will either be forced to buy fewer games each year, turning the market even more cut-throat and risk averse, or they simply won't have the money or desire to buy games at all.

Well I live in the UK and still have the original price on a fair few of my PSX games usually they would cost 40 to 45 pounds some even went for 50 in some places with the PS2 the price became more standardised with usually 40 pounds across the board they tried to raise this with the PS3 and 360 but people werent having it so it stayed at 40 mostly although they get around this with Collectors editions. If you are foolish enough to buy digitally especially on the PS3 or 360 store you will pay more usually 50 pounds for a new release already.

Saying all that game prices did go down with the PSX many SNES cartridges would cost you 50 or even 60 pounds back in the day I dont know what that would be with inflation but a fair amount many N64 games were also similarly expensive.

100 USD is about 65 pounds and I cant see them getting away with that especially with the more regularised prices across the board we in the west have enjoyed for so long. They need to find the sweet spot though making games more expensive dosent necessarily mean they will get more money if it means not as many people buy them.

What I dont get is why not just make games they can afford instead of pumping ridiculous amounts into a project and then complaining they arent making any money not all games have to have 100s of millions behind them, you never know making games for the PS4 may be cheaper if they have streamlined the process or at least not hugely more expensive than it is now but thats just idle speculation on my part.

 

[Asuka Soryu]

Obviously not gone to be the official price. People ***** about 60$, they're not gone to be stupid enough to make this mistake. They'd be putting the nails in their coffin. I would assume that Sony must've learned by now that the PS3 and Vita's poor pricing screwed them over in sales.

 

[Vegosiux]

I'm a kiwi, we pay upwards of $120 for new releases on consoles as it is. I don't know what you guys are crying about.

Gee, I'd be all in favor of something getting done to bring the prices down under down to par with the rest of the world myself, but I suppose that getting unscrewed is less important to some people than schadenfreude over others getting screwed.

Or in other worlds, if we're gonna play the "I'm going to treat anyone who has it less hard than me, but still has the audacity to complain, like a whiny brat" game, then I'm pretty sure I can one-up you on that *snicker* Sure, it wouldn't be on the specific issue of game prices, but...

Also, yes, pretty sure $100 is a placeholder.

 

[Roxor]

$100 for a game? Welcome to Australia circa 2003.

 

[teebeeohh]

Reading this the Australians here would probably solve slavery by enslaving Fucking everyone