#1 Posted by Blu3V3nom07 (3791 posts) -

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.

#2 Posted by Bane122 (812 posts) -

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.

#3 Edited by Pr1mus (3954 posts) -

There's already a thread about this.

#4 Posted by Blu3V3nom07 (3791 posts) -
#5 Edited by Jimbo (10008 posts) -

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.

Online
#6 Posted by JasonR86 (9729 posts) -

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

Online
#7 Edited by Blu3V3nom07 (3791 posts) -

@jimbo said:

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 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.

#8 Edited by Oldirtybearon (4899 posts) -

@bane122 said:

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.

Warner Brothers games in Canada.

Those fuckers love to price gouge.

#9 Posted by UlquioKani (1205 posts) -

@jimbo said:

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 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.

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

#10 Posted by Blu3V3nom07 (3791 posts) -

@blu3v3nom07 said:

@jimbo said:

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 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.

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

Well what do you think Platinum means?

#11 Edited by Jimbo (10008 posts) -

@jimbo said:

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 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.

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.

Online
#12 Edited by Blu3V3nom07 (3791 posts) -

@jimbo said:

@blu3v3nom07 said:

@jimbo said:

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 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.

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.

#13 Posted by TheHT (11831 posts) -

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

#14 Posted by mellotronrules (1257 posts) -

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.

Online
#15 Posted by OfficeGamer (1086 posts) -

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.

#16 Posted by prontopup20 (33 posts) -

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

#17 Posted by MildMolasses (3229 posts) -

@bane122 said:

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.

Warner Brothers games in Canada.

Those fuckers love to price gouge.

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

#18 Posted by Ravenlight (8011 posts) -

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?

#19 Edited by Kidavenger (3629 posts) -

“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.” (..)

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

#20 Posted by Blu3V3nom07 (3791 posts) -
#21 Edited by Cameron (607 posts) -

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.

#22 Edited by ProfessorEss (7523 posts) -

@mildmolasses said:

@oldirtybearon said:

Warner Brothers games in Canada.

Those fuckers love to price gouge.

Can you elaborate? I don't remember ever seeing prices higher than the standard $60 on any WB game?

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

#23 Posted by Oldirtybearon (4899 posts) -

@mildmolasses said:

@oldirtybearon said:

Warner Brothers games in Canada.

Those fuckers love to price gouge.

Can you elaborate? I don't remember ever seeing prices higher than the standard $60 on any WB game?

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

#24 Posted by Demoskinos (15183 posts) -

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.

#25 Edited by GS_Dan (1397 posts) -

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

#26 Edited by MildMolasses (3229 posts) -

@oldirtybearon said:

@professoress said:

@mildmolasses said:

@oldirtybearon said:

Warner Brothers games in Canada.

Those fuckers love to price gouge.

Can you elaborate? I don't remember ever seeing prices higher than the standard $60 on any WB game?

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

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

#27 Posted by Oscar__Explosion (2432 posts) -

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

Online
#28 Posted by Live2bRighteous (315 posts) -

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