EA says that Next-Gen Games might cost $69

I read this online. Edge Online.

PS4 and the next Xbox are 8 to 10 times the power of the current generation consoles and games are expected to cost around $69, EA executives Rajat Taneja and Blake Jorgensen have said. (...)

“The architecture of the consoles is based on standard PC components and technologies. So our own investments in our back end engine like Frostbite, our libraries, our tools will very smoothly run on this and make it easier for us to innovate to the new console technologies themselves. What used to take months in the past will now take days to do.” (..)

“I think, typically, at the start of a cycle, you’ve seen the pricing raise, say, to $69 for a core piece of software,” he said. “And then over the life of those, that’s drifted down to introduction price, typically now around $59. We haven’t yet set pricing on our gen 4s, but you probably see a similar trend to that during the start of the next cycle.” (..)

I like Edge Magazine. I try to read it every month at the Barnes and Noble. ~ I also like EA. They like C4.

But, What does this all mean? I thought Sony said, games were to cost, "$.99 to $60." How does that work.

$.99 - $60 - joystiq dot com

I don't think EA games will cost more than PS4. Something just doesn't add up. I think that, Sony simply said a nice quote, to quiet people down. Sony is simply toeing the line, saying all the right things, to gain consumer faith. Pure, cult faith. Sony needs this.

Polls I've seen about this, my poll, and some others on here; basically have people saying that Sony has won them over. I've Also seen, that Sony wants to do a PS4 game subscription service: joystiq. All you can eat, PS4 games? Yo,. that probably means like, all digital.. NO USED GAMES option, ala Xbox ∞. Sure! One's optional apparently, one's maybe-mandatory. BOTH, kill GameStop?.

But right, I'm thinking:

• $100 a month Platinum version, for a PS4 subscription, buffet
• $50 a month Gold PSN download-made games, also buffet
• free Silver version, lets you message people.

What say you, Bomb? I think this E3 is gonna be Real interesting. ~ That's all I can think about that, right now.

I'm wondering where this EA person has seen games start at $70, then lower down to $60.

Also, no fucking way will there be $50-$100 a month subs.

There's already a thread about this.

@pr1mus: Huh. Might as well.

I think there will be a digital-only SKU. There won't be a Metaboli style subscription which gives you access to ALL games, because that would be crazy.

I'm sure EA would really like that to be so. I don't see it happening though.

I think people are just scared of the future. Near-future, that is. People don't wanna stray any far from Steam. People rather have one foot in Steam, and one on console. Paying a game-and-a-half's worth, I.e. $100, would be more enough money to pay everyone around. It pays Sony, small developers, big ones. Everyone wins.

Also, Remember that this would be a Gaikai thing. Yo, it said: Platinum, meaning high tier price.

Warner Brothers games in Canada.

Those fuckers love to price gouge.

50-100 dollars a month seems crazy though. People can't afford that for a games console.

Well what do you think Platinum means?

It's not so much the money or lack of money, it's how the money would be distributed and the ramifications that would have on game design going forward. Do you want games designed to make people buy them, or do you want them designed to keep people playing at any cost (MMO style)?

What you describe would work for some games (ie. games well past their prime in terms of selling potential), though obviously at a much lower price point than you're suggesting. That's how Metaboli already works on PC - check out the sort of games publishers agree to put up on there for an idea of how this will work in reality. The publishers are not going to agree to their AAA games hitting a subscription service at the same time as they hit retail- that's just not gonna happen. A year or so later, when the game has stopped selling, perhaps, but nobody is going to pay top dollar for that.

But you wouldn't be paying for games. You'd be paying for "PlayStation Platinum," service. NOT a games service. A feast of features you don't really want. You would pay the high tier price for all the games you want, and maybe you'll watch some Sony Unlimited, and movies VOD. ~ You buy the box, to get the lunch. $100 is a lot per month, man. But $80 seems a little low for a smorgasbord to kill Microsoft's effort.

@blu3v3nom07: platinum or not, 100 bucks a month is insane. 50 bucks a month for gold is nuts too.

EA says a lot of things- like "we're putting microtransactions in every game." EA also has nearly zero franchises i'm interested in playing at this point.

I'm glad I jumped ship to the PC, Steam is our only savior from all this bullshit. Enough is enough you fucking console mother fuckers, got sick of all that bullshit they pull.

I'm not sure if I'm cool with paying that much money, Hopefully it doesn't become reality.

Can you elaborate? I don't remember ever seeing prices higher than the standard $60 on any WB game? The only fluctuation I remember was for a short while in 2009, some games were coming out at $70, but the only companies I remember doing it were Capcom and MS, and it was due to the disparity in the value of our currency. But then something happened, can't quite remember what, and the US dollar went to shit, and everything went back to how it was. Beyond that, all games have been the same price. The only exception I can think of was a video store in Marathon ON that charged $65 for new releases because of the costs related to having his inventory delivered to the middle of nowhere, and I was glad to pay the price to help support a local business that was thriving amidst a lot of unemployment in the region

EA says that Next-Gen Games might cost $69

Ravenlight says that he might slap some motherfuckers in the face with his dick if they try to price-gouge their customers.

Seriously. Can EA not see past their next-quarter profits?

Doesn't this shoot any argument for price increases directly in the foot?

@kidavenger: I dunno probably.

Sony can't tell EA how much to charge for their games. EA can charge $1000 a game if they wanted to, but no one would buy them. Sony can say that they will sell their games for $60, just like how Microsoft sold their games for $50 for a while on the 360, but they can't stop third parties from charging more.

I also don't think a subscription service would work. There are just way too many publishers and developers out there and Sony's not in a position to play hardball with any of the big guys. Why would Activision agree to have the next Call of Duty game available to everyone who subscribes when they can make way more money selling it for $60-$70 a copy? If Sony were to demand that all new games were available to their subscribers, then Activision would just make games exclusively for the next Xbox and PC. That would hurt Sony way more than Activision.

Every WB game released in Canada over the last two or three years has been $69.99 as opposed to the standard $59.99.

I can see them trying this but I don't agree with them. While I understand that games are expensive to make the gulf between this generation and next generation isn't as big a jump in asset quality overall. Not that I care anyways I don't really buy EA games. So let them do what they want.

If they don't have launch day DLC, many games should really cost more than 60.

I literally have never seen that. All WB games I have purchased have been $59.99 (Batman, MK9). Where in Canada are you? I think retailers are fucking you, not WB

Injustice

Lego City: Undercover

Batman: AA Armored Edition

And yet I'll still wait for sub-$30 or lower.

There is no way I'll be paying that much for a new game.