Support NeoGAF

[Figboy79]

I don't think it's that, I think Sly and Puppeteer were never intended to release at less than full price, the market just forced Sony's hand, and I don't think that means Sony will continue that, they'll just not make games of that ilk.

I actually kind of disagree (and agree).

Sony, during the PS1, PS2, and now PS3 era, had a pricing strategy that priced their first party titles $10 less than current retail, which for PS1 and PS2 had them at $39.99.

When it comes to Sony, it seems like they are not adverse to making games like Sly or Puppeteer, even when they know that, sales wise, the games won't be doing CoD numbers. Games don't have to do CoD numbers if their budgets are managed properly, with realistic expectations, goals, and milestones.

I remember reading that Sony and Quantic Dream were expecting Heavy Rain to sell between 200,000 and 250,000 units. It went on to sell 2 million at $60. Far beyond their expectations.

I think they knew the market that Sly Cooper was releasing into, and priced it that way to, yes, push units, but I don't feel that it was just purely having their hand forced. They understand the realities of the current gaming market.

 

[Man-is-Obsolete]

But movie prices aren't affected by their length or budget. And value is subjective - I'd take Knack over Infamous at any price.

You are comparing movies that have a $10-$15, depending on where you live, a ticket barrier of entry to a $60 barrier of entry for games? Also when they hit video release many of the times blockbuster movies are released at a higher price point than non blockbusters. For instance the Avengers on Blu Ray has a MSRP of $39.99 and is on sale for $25 on amazon right now, while Cabin in the Woods on Blu Ray has a MSRP of $19.99 and is on sale currently for $14.99. So even then movie prices are affected by their budget.

 

[StuBurns]

I actually kind of disagree (and agree).

Sony, during the PS1, PS2, and now PS3 era, had a pricing strategy that priced their first party titles $10 less than current retail, which for PS1 and PS2 had them at $39.99.

When it comes to Sony, it seems like they are not adverse to making games like Sly or Puppeteer, even when they know that, sales wise, the games won't be doing CoD numbers. Games don't have to do CoD numbers if their budgets are managed properly, with realistic expectations, goals, and milestones.

I remember reading that Sony and Quantic Dream were expecting Heavy Rain to sell between 200,000 and 250,000 units. It went on to sell 2 million at $60. Far beyond their expectations.

I think they knew the market that Sly Cooper was releasing into, and priced it that way to, yes, push units, but I don't feel that it was just purely having their hand forced. They understand the realities of the current gaming market.

Sony have been cutting ties with all their second tier partners. I guess we'll see, but I expect them to be fully AAA or indie from here on out. I hope I'm wrong.

 

[jgmo870]

They're trying to find space for the AA console game. Didn't work at $60, might as well try something lower.

I think tiered pricing can work, but it should go both ways like in the case of SMTIV.

Except that's a bad example because it's a budget game claiming to be a "premium" title.

 

[Figboy79]

Sony have been cutting ties with all their second tier partners. I guess we'll see, but I expect them to be fully AAA or indie from here on out. I hope I'm wrong.

I don't really see them going AAA or indie only. Historically, Sony has never been that black and white, across any of their platforms. Even the Vita, which hasn't been performing in the market as well as they'd like, still has a surprisingly diverse software portfolio that covers the range of high, mid, and "low" tier software.

Sony still has roughly 15+ internal development studios, also ranging from high, mid, and "low" tier. They have their bases covered, honestly.

 

[neorej]

No way can this model work for larger titles. Not in this current video game market with the (supposed) rising development costs and piracy, etc.

The biggest reason that they can do $40 titles now is cause as they get used to developing on the hardware, the costs can go down. These systems are old and about to be surpassed.

Why no way?

A game has a set productioncost. This is controlled and determined by the publisher. Let's say 24 million dollar gross revenue will allow them to break even.

At $60 they need to sell 'just' 400.000 units. At $40 they need to sell 600.000 sdks.

THe $60 price point seems logical and easier to achieve. You have to sell less units, you make profits faster.
However, you will never reach this goal if only 300.000 people are willing to pay $60 for the game. You will turn a loss.

At $40, 800.000 people are willing to pay the MSRP and you will turn a profit.

Of course, this is all hypothetical, but it's solid economics and worth trying out for publishers.

 

[StuBurns]

I don't really see them going AAA or indie only. Historically, Sony has never been that black and white, across any of their platforms. Even the Vita, which hasn't been performing in the market as well as they'd like, still has a surprisingly diverse software portfolio that covers the range of high, mid, and "low" tier software.

Sony still has roughly 20 internal development studios, also ranging from high, mid, and "low" tier. They have their bases covered, honestly.

Who are these mid/low tier studios? I guess it depends on what we think of as AAA. LBP64 might only be made by forty people, but it'd still cost $60, and still be marketed as any other PS4 release.

 

[Fine Ham Abounds]

About all I can say is that I'd buy a lot more new games at $40.

 

[Midnight Moon]

About all I can say is that I'd buy a lot more new games at $40.

Same. You would buy them at launch, thus the publisher would see that people are really interested in their games, and then in turn make more games WIN WIN <3

I think companies who spend way too much on one game are a bit ridiculous when they cry their game didn't sell enough...

 

[The_Darkest_Red]

About all I can say is that I'd buy a lot more new games at $40.

I think there is a lot to this simple sentiment. I'm right there with you.

$40 is my sweet spot for a ton of games. Heck, just look at the past few weeks. If GRID 2 and Metro: LL were $40 I'd already own them.

 

[gamemadmax]

PS3 $350

15 xbone exclusive list thread

and now this.

 

[Man-is-Obsolete]

PS3 $350

15 xbone exclusive list thread

and now this.

I'm

Not sure

I Follow

 

[fiyah]

We've had this kind of model before in videogames and it wasn't that long ago. Publishers have just gotten greedy and have capitalized on gamers' willingness to spend $60 for every game. Back in the PS2 era some of my favorite games debuted below the normal $50 msrp....R&C, Indigo Prophecy, Psi Ops...even Warhawk this gen was 39.99 etc. Its really puzzling to me why we don't have variable pricing in this digital age and a re-emergence of B-tier or A-tier games. I don't know why it is that instead we are stuck with either Indie or AAA blockbuster when there is a whole middle ground begging to be exploited.

 

[Mupod]

About all I can say is that I'd buy a lot more new games at $40.

Pretty much, when I discovered Tsilon I suddenly started buying console games new again thanks to the $20 off codes. It's fairly rare now that I'll pay 60 bucks for something day 1, monster hunter 3 ultimate being a rare exception. With PC games I've been going the greenman + discount code route for a while.

 

[prag16]

Amazon UK has already started listing xbone games as £89.00, which translates to around $135 per game.

Placeholder, obviously. I've seen $99 prices for the US.

 

[Tayaya]

Releasing games that cost less to develop or that are light on content at a lower price point is the absolute right thing to do. It makes the game companies look like they actually care about their customers, makes their product accessible to a wider audience, and honestly can help to curb piracy on some levels. There will always be the assholes out there that just don't believe in paying for games, but I do know a slice of people that pirate games because they don't feel that some of them are "worth" $60 (an argument that makes sense at first but loses its justifiability when they start stealing AAA titles using the same argument.... but I digress).

I know that as a consumer I'm always excited when a game I'm looking forward to launches at $29 or $39 - things like Rhythm Heaven Fever or Akai Katana for example, or the upcoming Game & Wario.... they're all games I want to play but not games I'd play $49 or $59 for. Monster Hunter 3 Ultimate is the same way. Sure they crammed a lot of content into it but most of the game's development costs were back in the Wii days... which I paid for back then. Playing $60 for a port of a game I have already played and payed less for when it was an all-new game is not my example of good value, no matter how starved for games my Wii U is. For $40 I would snatch that up in an instant.

Back in the old days they did variable pricing on things like SNES games - some were $49, most were $59, but there were a handful of $75 and $79 titles as well (Street Fighter II being the first to retail for $74.99 if I remember right). Then, though, it was usually a production cost thing - the bigger games required more expensive ROM chips (16 and 32 megabit instead of 4 or 8).

But yeah - throw the consumer a bone every now and then that makes it look like you're not out to bilk them out of every dollar, and they usually respond by more willingly giving you some of them.

 

[Bl4ckSunsh1n3]

.... They're top tier studios that create top tier games. ...

That sentiment is why publishers fear dynamic pricing. If a top tier game is "supposed" to be $60 and I'm part of a AAA game that we decide to release at $50 what will happen is that some consumers will think of it as not worth $60. The attempt at being consumer friendly just shot us in the ass because many consumers are too stupid to understand that higher price doesn't always equal better.

That's the argument they give us anyways. The real truth is somewhere between that and gamers are just too impatient to not pay whatever price tag they slap on their game.

 

[quest]

It makes to much sense so it won't happen. They would rather price it at 59.99 and when it don't sell discount it heavily. People think it is a bad game and still don't buy it. Game bombs and they go make another military shooter. There is a big hole in the market from 20-50 dollars that needs to be filled. Especially for single player non-AAA games. Instead of wasting time and money on filler and crappy tacked on multiplayer sell it for 49.99 or 39.99 depending on budget. Use that budget to release a expansion pack level DLC that will get people to keep the game longer.

 

[Link1110]

Back in the PS1 era, Sony's games were $40, and Nintendo 64 games were $60. I gravitated heavily toward the PS1, and passed up a ton of titles for N64 as a result. I didn't even play Ocarina of Time until Wind Waker came out (and I imported the game for that remake just in case the US didn't get it.) If Sony could get back to $40 games while Nintendo went up to $60, while getting JRPGs on the console, I could see myself seeing the PS4 vs. Wii U as PS1 vs. N64 again and getting a ton of PS4 games. If they do it, the only issue will be getting a ton of games out that I'd actually want.

 

[Visceir]

I'm more curious if people would be more likely to accept the no used games/drm thing if it also meant game prices going down to 40$ or even 30$

 

[Man-is-Obsolete]

I'm more curious if people would be more likely to accept the no used games/drm thing if it also meant game prices going down to 40$ or even 30$

I think the need for DRM from a publisher's perspective would be lessened by such a price model, or even better discounting digital versions more than retail.

 

[quest]

That sentiment is why publishers fear dynamic pricing. If a top tier game is "supposed" to be $60 and I'm part of a AAA game that we decide to release at $50 what will happen is that some consumers will think of it as not worth $60. The attempt at being consumer friendly just shot us in the ass because many consumers are too stupid to understand that higher price doesn't always equal better.

That's the argument they give us anyways. The real truth is somewhere between that and gamers are just too impatient to not pay whatever price tag they slap on their game.

I think games have spoken that 90% of games are not worth 59.99. It has forced them to discount most games in the first few weeks of release with good sales. If you are patient and look at cheap ass gamer or similar site you can find them for 49.99 or less with in a few weeks of releases. Hell we are even seeing great deals on pre-orders from places around the internet. Anyone with 2 eyes can see it but publishers are to hard headed about 59.99 pricing for every game.

 

[Success]

I think tiered pricing can work, but it should go both ways like in the case of SMTIV.

Tierd pricing can work but it would take some incredible paradigm shift to make it work at retail.

 

[Figboy79]

Who are these mid/low tier studios? I guess it depends on what we think of as AAA. LBP64 might only be made by forty people, but it'd still cost $60, and still be marketed as any other PS4 release.

That's kind of why I put the "low" in quotes. I don't mean low as in, "Hey, these guys are poor developers," I mean low as in, they tend to have a low profile as far as consumer recognition goes.

Think of Naughty Dog. As popular as Crash Bandicoot and, to a lesser extent, Jak and Daxter was last generation, most consumers didn't really know who the hell a Naughty Dog was. I'd have categorized ND as a mid tier studio last generation. Same with Sucker Punch (although I'd probably class Sucker Punch as "low" tier).

Now, though, thanks to Uncharted and inFAMOUS, ND is a high tier studio, with a lot more recognition than they had before (but maybe not like Bungie, or Infinity Ward), and Sucker Punch has earned a lot more cred and respect as a mid tier studio.

When I think of AAA, I don't think of game quality, but game budgets. Uncharted had a AAA budget. PlayStation All Stars did not.

I think Sly being priced at $40 wasn't a knock against Sanzaru, but a realistic assessment that a game like Sly: TiT, releasing at $60 just wouldn't push many units regardless of its high quality and positive word of mouth, but $40 is just a really nice sweet spot for most consumers.

Very few games do I buy at $60 (I've made more than a handful of exceptions, however), but when I see a game priced at $40 or lower, it's pretty impossible for me to resist. Many consumers feel the same way, and I think Sony has been watching those trends over the course of this generation.

I bought Sly: TiT brand new, because it was <$40, and I'm a huge Sly fan. Would I have bought it at $60? Maybe, but $40 sealed the deal(checking my Amazon, I actually got it for $32, because I think I randomly stumbled across a sale they were having). The fact that I got Sly PS3 and Vita for $32 was a steal for me. It's one of those psychological things where I felt like I was getting on over on the publisher.

 

[Shoyz]

I'm buying a lot of $40 Vita/3DS games, buy I never buy $60 console games. I'd buy a lot more games on day one at $40.

 

[Fudgepuppy]

Cost of games isn't rising like it's set in stone. Games cost more because they're mismanaged and overreaching.

I think a lot of people would buy more games day one if they cost 30$ and fit that price-tag.

A long and epic game can be more expensive, but developing good gameplay =/= higher budget.

 

[jblank83]

Some of the delusions going on about next-gen are truly laughable.

Companies aren't going to lower prices. If anything, they'll find more ways to raise prices. $50 season passes, $15 endgame story DLC, $15 multiplayer map packs (3-4 maps), $5 cheat codes, $5 downloadable characters, online passes, re-registration fees, and more.

 

[Zhengi]

Tiered pricing makes sense. Some games should NOT cost 60 dollars. Case in point: NSMB U is 60, NSMB Wii released for 50. Ten dollar price increase... why? Just for a new generation? Thats bullshit. Both should have released for 40.

Honestly, 40 is the sweet spot for a new game. I'd buy new games at 40, but at 50 or 60? No chance.

My biggest gripe was Nintendo Land selling for $60. Really Nintendo? I know that this game needs its price point to keep the deluxe Wii U desirable, but there was no way I'm going to pay $60 for a mini-game compilation no matter how fun it might be.

 

[Midnight Moon]

Placeholder, obviously. I've seen $99 prices for the US.

They did that with the Wii U games before they knew the prices, take it with a grain of salt lol. I think the most I ever paid for a game was Taiko at $140

 

[Jinko]

What you talkin' bout with that "Supposed"?

1000 people working on one Assassin's Creed game and you say "Supposed"?

Well throwing people at a project is hardly making things better.

Developers need to learn to be less wasteful and plan things out better, perhaps maybe they wouldn't blow through their budget so fast and make more profit.

 

[Bl4ckSunsh1n3]

I think games have spoken that 90% of games are not worth 59.99. It has forced them to discount most games in the first few weeks of release with good sales. If you are patient and look at cheap ass gamer or similar site you can find them for 49.99 or less with in a few weeks of releases. Hell we are even seeing great deals on pre-orders from places around the internet. Anyone with 2 eyes can see it but publishers are to hard headed about 59.99 pricing for every game.

I agree. Honestly, to me, most games are not worth $60. I've bought very few games at that price point. A surprisingly much lower number than I thought it would be when the whole thing about $60 games came out.

 

[Man-is-Obsolete]

Some of the delusions going on about next-gen are truly laughable.

Companies aren't going to lower prices. If anything, they'll find more ways to raise prices. $50 season passes, $15 endgame story DLC, $15 multiplayer map packs (3-4 maps), $5 cheat codes, $5 downloadable characters, online passes, re-registration fees, and more.

What you listed are ways to get people NOT to buy a game. It would kill the industry.

 

[labaronx]

budget titles were all the rage and some were very good.....

i remember going to eb games and buying stuff like:

NARC $20 bucks
NFL 2k $20
several midway titles between 20-30 like Area 51
several thq items between 20-30 like Destroy All Humans

a lot of these titles i probably wouldn't have brought at the full 40-50 price tag but acting on impulse i got them and enjoyed them

budget titles have been replaced by psn/live games mostly but the impulse is still there sometimes.... never played Ratchet Deadlocked but at 10 dollars on psn i couldn't say no and now I LOVE IT

budget titles can be a blessing to some studios... a friend of mine never heard of far cry, saw me play far cry blood dragon on psn, played it for a minue.... went home and brought far cry 3 blood dragon, has beaten it before i did purchased far cry 3 of psn.

I believe teired priced titles have more upside than down.

 

[D3VI0US]

Publishers and platform holders are crazy if they think they can cut out the used game market and or create all these restrictions AND charge us more for games. I hope the opposite will happen, I do think mid tier games will be smaller in scope and size as well as cost and retail for alternative price points. Why take a huge gamble when you can take less of a gamble and if it works out you do DLC and larger sequel. Always connected to me means games as a service which means lots of DLC add ons which means my upfront price should be less except for a few major AAA games.

 

[fritolay]

If games were 30 or 40 dollars and you can't sell used I would be OK with that. But then after time they will be back to 60 dollars and you still wouldn't be able to trade them in because the big game publishers would figure out a way to get prices back.

Remember 2KGames that were 20 dollars, their sports games like NFL 2K5? That was awesome I bought all that I could at that price vs not buying any at 60 dollars except one every year or so.

It's tough to sell a game for less AND advertise. Most people, except for parents looking for a cheap gift, think a new game and cheaper price is some kind of crap game most the time.

 

[Wozman23]

I fully expected and was willing to pay 60 for Sly. It turned out to be one of my favorite games so far this year. I would have happily paid 60 for Puppeteer. It's probably my most anticipated new IP. I was even one of the crazy people who paid 60 for Rayman Origins, despite knowing it would take some quick price cuts. Without hesitation I'll do it again with Legends. Knack, too, as well as anything else that fits within that same vein.

I'd saddens me that those types of games, particularly platformers, aren't the center of attention anymore. They're still my favorite genre by far. If the $40 price point allows Sony to keep making the games I like I'm all for it.

Development costs are getting ridiculous. More developers should probably adopt a similar way of thinking. I've always found it a bit odd that sequels are the same price as their predecessors. In many cases, top tier developers spend a lot of time and effort creating their own engine. Plus a lot of time is wasted with R&D and failed concepts. While sequels may tweak an engine, most of the work is already done, so they should be easier to develop on some aspects.

I'm wondering when we'll get to a point where full sequels are just released as DLC. Or even more ambitious, when DLC will actually change a game or its engine at a core level.

 

[Takao]

That would be awesome to see. By nature 1st party games should cost less to produce anyways since their is only one platform in mind, and Sony has incredibly talented and more importantly efficient teams. I had no idea the first two Infamous games were made by less than 50 people. That's amazing. Media Molecule made the Little Big Planet games with less than 40 people. Tearaway, a Vita game, is being made by 15 people.

More like first party games take less to become profitable. Sony isn't paying themselves royalties, lol.

I think it will be, but they have been incredibly mum about pricing and release format.

It's confirmed to be a PSN release.

 

[MasLegio]

so.....

Piracy is already a problem on the PS4?


is it even on the PS3???

 

[Mario007]

Interestingly Sony has had the 40 euro price tag on pretty much all Move related software. With Wonderbook they seem to be going even lower, Digg's Nightcrawler is around 15 pounds on Amazon.

 

[neorej]

so.....

Piracy is already a problem on the PS4?


is it even on the PS3???

Both have no mandatory Internet connection. So yes, piracy is a rampant problem on both systems.

 

[DBT85]

I'd love to see sales numbers for Fifa if it wasn't part of the supermarkets fight with each other to the lowest possible price.

 

[benny_a]

Both have no mandatory Internet connection. So yes, piracy is a rampant problem on both systems.

If piracy is "a rampant problem" on PS3? How would you describe piracy on the Wii and the DS?

 

[ramparter]

No way can this model work for larger titles. Not in this current video game market with the (supposed) rising development costs and piracy, etc.

Really? What's better a 40$ game sellin 2M or a 60$ game selling one million?

 

[Jinko]

Both have no mandatory Internet connection. So yes, piracy is a rampant problem on both systems.

Piracy is rampant on a system which doesn't exist ... what's the weather like there in the future ?

 

[kinoki]

I really don't get video game budgets. If you sell a game for $20 and let the split retailer/publisher be 50/50 and you manage to sell a milion copies you still make $10 million. If you have the game on PSN/XBLA/Steam where the retailer cut is even smaller and support your product with quality DLC (that you plan and start work on at the same time as the game) I don't really see how you can't make a profit with a dedicated team.

The more I think about it the $60 price tag is just a sign of mismanagement.

 

[Man-is-Obsolete]

More like first party games take less to become profitable. Sony isn't paying themselves royalties, lol.



It's confirmed to be a PSN release.

Very true about royalties, and also thanks for confirming Rain. For some reason I thought I heard it was a PSN game but whenever it is written about its pricing and availability is rarely mentioned.

 

[smr00]

It depends on the game's budget, really. But yes, they have been doing this a lot.

Speaking of which, why didn't twisted metal do better? I just started playing, and it is BY FAR the best TM game.

Probably because that genre isn't really big.

I waited till it was on sale for $20 and after playing it i felt that was a good price, i wouldn't of paid $30,40,50 or 60 for it.

 

[RoeBear]

I, as a consumer am more willing to buy a game with a $40 price tag than a $60 one. I was part of the Gamers Club this last year with Best Buy, and most games if you per-orderd a big name title and picked it up within the first week of release you got $20 back a month later. I bought Borderlands 2 day one because of this, even though I knew that it would eventually come out with a GOTY edition. I justified that purchase because of that $20 I would be getting back.

I'm going to be getting Puppeteer too. I don't know how the $40 price tag effects Sony's bottom line or the developers, but it tells me that even if I don't find it enjoyable I didn't waste as much money as I could have.

 

[Soler]

Games shouldn't be 60 seeing as how inflation is making the dollar weaker
We're lucky if games stay at 60

 

[Raonak]

Vita has variable pricing. You're seeing it on PS3 here and there.
They already said varaible pricing for PS4.

Sony published games will definetly do it. I don't really expect third parties to follow suit.