PS3 600 dollars? Sony is on crack

[reanjr]

I've always heard that for major titles (and how many of EA's games are NOT major titles) the advertisement costs dwarf the development costs. Add to that the ability to use all the same design and artwork, and you're left with a cheap port even if you do update it for PS3.

 

[John Crichton]

Taky: I like your second OR.

I *would* pay a premium for a higher quality version of a game. However, that typically hasn't been the industry's or EA's standard if we are talking historically. I would love to have better versions of the same game on the new consoles instead of the usual ports - which are typically easy to figure out based on controller configs.

But, I don't think EA is that savvy. I hope I'm wrong and your second point comes to be truth, or at least close to it.

 

[reanjr]

20% less. That's just how the math works. Doesn't affect your point, I'm just nitpicking, sorry.

You have never been in marketing...

 

[Vigilance]

So according to your quote (and proof), a bit over $60 is $80? I read that as maybe some games being $65, possibly $70 with SE's. A bit, to me, doesn't mean 30% more than what the market is currently. A bit is 10%, or less which may mean the games could be $5 more. Not $20.

And for the record, I never said you were pulling these rumors out of your hind parts. I said that you are basing opinion off rumors and nothing more. Which basically accounts to nothing solid and all is speculation at this point. As usual, the "something" is trumping the resounding nothing we are hearing about the pricing of PS3 games.

Again, in the PSM article I was quoting, they had that Sony quote alongside and EA exec saying 80.

When you have 1 exec saying 80 and the other one saying "it wont be 100", I read that as saying "80".

And again, I hope Im wrong.

 

[John Crichton]

Again, in the PSM article I was quoting, they had that Sony quote alongside and EA exec saying 80.

When you have 1 exec saying 80 and the other one saying "it wont be 100", I read that as saying "80".

And again, I hope Im wrong.

Dude - PSM? Seriously. No name attached? When has a no-name quote ever meant anything? PSM (and all like mags/sites) are trying to bring up a little controversy, that's all. There is no proof there of anything.

 

[Vigilance]

Chuck: Clarification on your quote of me?

John: I don't discount the Blu-Ray stuff, but I'm cautious. Maybe I've only just heard the bad press that suggests that they still haven't gotten it working. If it comes out and it's beautiful and it works, then that will definitely drive some people to the PS3.

One easy explanation for the difference in pricing would be that EA and other companies are working with Sony's stuff and taking a good hard look at the price-to-improvement ratio. It might be (and I have NO INFORMATION on this, this is all me making this stuff up) that:

EA can take a racing game for the 360, port it over to the PS3 without really taking advantage of the PS3's strong points, and have a decent-but-not-exceptional port... and make a profit by selling the game at $60.

OR

EA can take a racing game for the 360, port it over to the PS3 with a bunch of code-rewriting to take advantage of the PS3's strong points, and have a port that shows off everything the PS3 can do that the 360 can't... but it's only profitable if they sell it for $80.

If I were EA, and I had data along those lines, I'd be looking really hard at that data, and then at my focus testing, and then back at the data some more. How much better does it look, and how much more are people willing to pay? Do we go all-out on a couple of games to show how awesome the PS3 can be, sell that game at a loss to bring more people into the PS3 fold, and then do simple cheap ports on a bunch of other games to make a big profit in the long run? Do we do almost all our games as full-advantage ports and sell them all at high prices while blitzing the airwaves with a "Clearly Better" quality ad campaign that, yeah, will have some backlash, but will also hit home the fact that, more expensive or not, PS3 stuff DOES look better? What makes us the most money in the long run?

When they say that they're exploring possibilities, that's likely some of what they mean, along with a bunch of other money matters that are way over my head. There are a lot of people who are going to decide how much these games cost.

I think both of these are pretty good possibilities taky. I do remember from that same article an exec saying the PS3 games looked better but they werent sure it was worth the expense to MAKE THEM look as good as they could.

Which goes right in hand with what you're surmising above.

 

[Grog]

One easy explanation for the difference in pricing would be that EA and other companies are working with Sony's stuff and taking a good hard look at the price-to-improvement ratio. It might be (and I have NO INFORMATION on this, this is all me making this stuff up) that:

EA can take a racing game for the 360, port it over to the PS3 without really taking advantage of the PS3's strong points, and have a decent-but-not-exceptional port... and make a profit by selling the game at $60.

OR

EA can take a racing game for the 360, port it over to the PS3 with a bunch of code-rewriting to take advantage of the PS3's strong points, and have a port that shows off everything the PS3 can do that the 360 can't... but it's only profitable if they sell it for $80.

The problem with this analysis is that game costs aren't based on development costs. They're based on market forces - what consumers are willing and able to pay for them. Don't you think that if EA could get away with selling games for $80, they would, regardless of how much they cost to develop?

The reason game companies aren't selling games for $80 (and won't be selling games for $80) is that they'd lose too many sales, resulting in lower profits. An increase from $60 to $80 would be a one-third increase in price, which would give compaines a one-third increase in profit per game. However, if they hiked the prices to $80, their sales would drop by more than one-third, meaning they would lose money. And the game companies know this - they spend millions of dollars on market research to find these things out.

I'm quite certain that Final Fantasy X cost Square a LOT more money to develop than The Bouncer did. Yet they didn't sell FFX for a higher price than The Bouncer. They sold for the same price, because that was the ideal price point for video games.

This is why games with high development costs are such a big risk for companies - because they can't recoup the cost by selling the game for a higher price. They have to hope that the game will sell lots of copies, thereby generating enough revenue to pay the development costs and turn a profit.

And this is why we won't see $80 PS3 games - because the market won't support a price point that high, and Sony and their developers know this.

 

[Grog]

Dude - PSM? Seriously. No name attached? When has a no-name quote ever meant anything?

Exactly. It's an unsourced rumor. It has just as much credibility as if I'd heard it from the guy behind the counter at my local Quick Stop - i.e., none.

 

[Jdvn1]

Link it up, bro. You may be thinking that it will have 4 controller ports rather than actual controllers in the box - but I could be wrong.

I can't find anything mentioning it at all, now. I know it has 4 'classic gamecube ports' (the wireless controllers don't need ports), but for some reason I was under the impression that there'd be more than one controller. Which made me think, "... Which makes the pricetag of $250 even more amazing..."

But, I'm probably wrong. I remember my SNES coming with two controllers.

That would be a mistake by Nintendo, BTW. Controllers are easy money for console manufacturers.

Though, that I can use Gamecube controllers with the Wii means spending less on extra controllers, anyway.

 

[Jdvn1]

You have never been in marketing...

They dont' use math in marketing?