Support NeoGAF

[viciouskillersquirrel]

No people don't like paying 250 for old and dated hardware, but people don't mind paying 250 for advanced forward thinking hardware.

Go figure.

I buy gaming consoles on the basis of the utility I will get out of them. If a system is likely to have (say) ten games that I will enjoy and get my money's worth from, a $250 handheld will cost me $25 per game as the price of entry on top of the price of the game. If the same handheld will only have five games out there that I think are worth playing, that price of entry is $50 per game on top of the price of the game.

I paid $80 for a GBA SP+ last year for the sake of playing 4 games with their glory set to maximum. I regret nothing.

 

[M-PG71C]

No people don't like paying 250 for old and dated hardware, but people don't mind paying 250 for advanced forward thinking hardware.

Go figure.

I would like to point to you the entire history of portable gaming. All of it. Every fucking bit of it.

If this was true, the Game Gear, Neo Geo Pocket, and yes the PSP, should have wiped Nintendo out every generation, regardless.

I digress, I'm not a Sony shareholder. I purchase stocks a bit wiser than to be a fool to trust a fool with my limited financial wherewithal. I would give Sony nothing and wish them the best.

But, as a gamer, its a good deal, especially once software comes in. But I can't help but to feel Sony is being a tad...what's the word, stupid. But hey, I'm not running the company so its all good as far as I am concerned. I can get a Vita for $250 and if Sony, somehow, turns a profit, good for them. I doubt it, and if they do I'm sure shareholders will still be pissed that other venues are making money in a shorter period of time, but I still got what I want out of it.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

Honestly, I don't see how this system succeeds with $50 games.

I have to believe Sony won't allow that.

 

[Dr. Zoidberg]

Every PS Vita owner better buy 15 games if they want this to work out.

But I only want Uncharted. Nothing else was all that interesting.

 

[Drinky Crow]

i could not approve more. give me the best on the corporate dime. nintendo can rot in hell.

 

[Thoraxes]

With the PS3 only recently turning profitable, I can see them sticking to their guns about the 10 year console launch cycle. As far as they're concerned, and I would be too, I would milk the PS3 for all it's worth, and delaying (probably) showing the PS4 till at least 2014 sounds very solid as far as turning profit goes.

I don't know how they're doing now, but the PS3 adoption rate seems to only finally be hitting it's stride with the recent price drops only over the past year to year-and-a-half.

Either way, NGP is more marketable, but the main thing that remains to be seen is how much the games are. At $50, I think it will scare away a lot of the portable market. I think it needs to be $40 and hit the same spot the the 3DS hits to remain competitive. The only problem is that with the increased development costs, a $50 may be inevitable for developers to recoup costs for games.

 

[Justin_Bailey]

I would like to point to you the entire history of portable gaming. All of it. Every fucking bit of it.

If this was true, the Game Gear, Neo Geo Pocket, and yes the PSP, should have wiped Nintendo out every generation, regardless.

I digress, I'm not a Sony shareholder. I purchase stocks a bit wiser than to be a fool to trust a fool with my limited financial wherewithal. I would give Sony nothing and wish them the best.

But, as a gamer, its a good deal, especially once software comes in. But I can't help but to feel Sony is being a tad...what's the word, stupid. But hey, I'm not running the company so its all good as far as I am concerned. I can get a Vita for $250 and if Sony, somehow, turns a profit, good for them. I doubt it, and if they do I'm sure shareholders will still be pissed that other venues are making money in a shorter period of time, but I still got what I want out of it.

One could argue that those handhelds had their own set of problems. Game Gear ate batteries like they were going out of style. There were no good games. Sega basically released watered down Master System ports.

Nintendo handhelds never had to be cutting edge, tech wise, because they were always priced to move, and most importantly - they had Mario, Pokemon, etc......

 

[opticalmace]

But I only want Uncharted. Nothing else was all that interesting.

Wipeout?

 

[Lonely1]

Honestly, I don't see how this system succeeds with $50 games.

I have to believe Sony won't allow that.

But do they want Ps3 quality from third parties?

 

[ShockingAlberto]

Everyone fears $50, I think they may go to $60.

I can't imagine third parties are going to want to generate PS3 quality assets and sell it for Wii-game prices.

If console publishers were not already fighting their damndest to get PC up to $60, then I could see non-$60 for the Vita, but if the basic structure is "This game on your PS3 or your Vita, they're the same!", then you can bet your ass Activision will sell Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 for $60.

 

[neptunes]

I would like to point to you the entire history of portable gaming. All of it. Every fucking bit of it.

If this was true, the Game Gear, Neo Geo Pocket, and yes the PSP, should have wiped Nintendo out every generation, regardless.

I digress, I'm not a Sony shareholder. I purchase stocks a bit wiser than to be a fool to trust a fool with my limited financial wherewithal. I would give Sony nothing and wish them the best.

But, as a gamer, its a good deal, especially once software comes in. But I can't help but to feel Sony is being a tad...what's the word, stupid. But hey, I'm not running the company so its all good as far as I am concerned. I can get a Vita for $250 and if Sony, somehow, turns a profit, good for them. I doubt it, and if they do I'm sure shareholders will still be pissed that other venues are making money in a shorter period of time, but I still got what I want out of it.

What part of this is not the first time sony has sold hardware at a loss.

Every single console they've released (except the go) has been sold at a loss at launch.

If the strategy hasn't put the company out of business back then I doubt it will now.

 

[dalin80]

Also to bare in mind folks is that it isnt $250 world wide.

Here in the UK $250 should be £152, but the machine is actually selling for £225 ($370)

It was much the same situation with the PS3, which was making a tidy profit in the UK/EU for years before americans stopped banging on about how sony were selling for a loss.

 

[googleplex]

I would like to point to you the entire history of portable gaming. All of it. Every fucking bit of it.

If this was true, the Game Gear, Neo Geo Pocket, and yes the PSP, should have wiped Nintendo out every generation, regardless.

I digress, I'm not a Sony shareholder. I purchase stocks a bit wiser than to be a fool to trust a fool with my limited financial wherewithal. I would give Sony nothing and wish them the best.

But, as a gamer, its a good deal, especially once software comes in. But I can't help but to feel Sony is being a tad...what's the word, stupid. But hey, I'm not running the company so its all good as far as I am concerned. I can get a Vita for $250 and if Sony, somehow, turns a profit, good for them. I doubt it, and if they do I'm sure shareholders will still be pissed that other venues are making money in a shorter period of time, but I still got what I want out of it.

I said "don't like" not "never would".

Is it really a mystery as to why people would rather pay 250.00 for more advanced hardware then less advanced?

This shit not rocket science

 

[Zaptruder]

Problem with this strategy is that they're not going to be able to really drop their price for three years. And three years in, people are going to want a price cut.

Maybe they should've offered subsidized contract models - sign up to PSV+, where you can rent a set number of games per month.

Sure, gamers would've bitched and moaned... but it'd be better business than... repeating their fiscal failures of the last 5 years.

I suppose Sony are really quite hopeful they'll repeat the PS2's success with the PSVita. Which will to a degree justify this sort of strategy.

But selling at cost and getting moderate success is a more surefire financial strategy. And doesn't necessarily preclude becoming the market leader in this segment either.

 

[Kenka]

I'm sure they know what they're doing

I would love to believe the same but the losses in the first years of the Playstation 3 lifespan is a warning for me. I really would like to know what is their business plan with this one.

 

[corporate cheerleader]

Definitely not 60. 50 would be better. :/

 

[Justin_Bailey]

Problem with this strategy is that they're not going to be able to really drop their price for three years. And three years in, people are going to want a price cut.

Maybe they should've offered subsidized contract models - sign up to PSV+, where you can rent a set number of games per month.

Sure, gamers would've bitched and moaned... but it'd be better business than... repeating their fiscal failures of the last 5 years.

I suppose Sony are really quite hopeful they'll repeat the PS2's success with the PSVita. Which will to a degree justify this sort of strategy.

But selling at cost and getting moderate success is a more surefire financial strategy. And doesn't necessarily preclude becoming the market leader in this segment either.

Says who? Didn't PS3 drop it's price while it was still losing money?

 

[bummyhead]

I love nintendo fan meltdowns

Almost as much as I love Sony fan retards, I'd wager.

That being said, I do think Nintendo fucked up by pricing the 3DS at 250, it left them wide open for Sony to come in and do this. If they had priced it at 199, Sony would not have been able to pull this stunt.

Now Nintendo will have a hard time cutting the price of the 3DS without looking a bit desperate.

 

[Chuck Norris]

You may be an insane right-wing narcissist and a loon, but you make a good point, Chuck Norris. The wording is ambiguous here.

Doesn't seem like anybody will listen though

 

[Jomjom]

Problem with this strategy is that they're not going to be able to really drop their price for three years. And three years in, people are going to want a price cut.

Maybe they should've offered subsidized contract models - sign up to PSV+, where you can rent a set number of games per month.

Sure, gamers would've bitched and moaned... but it'd be better business than... repeating their fiscal failures of the last 5 years.

I suppose Sony are really quite hopeful they'll repeat the PS2's success with the PSVita. Which will to a degree justify this sort of strategy.

But selling at cost and getting moderate success is a more surefire financial strategy. And doesn't necessarily preclude becoming the market leader in this segment either.

Saying that they hope for profitability for the platform as a whole in 3 years does not equate to them expecting the console to sell at a loss for 3 years.

 

[Justin_Bailey]

No doubt that Sony already has a future price drop factored in to their profitability projections. It will just be a question of when that happens. But no way it will go 2 years, let alone 3, without a price drop.

 

[toastyToast]

Hope it works out for them.

 

[GrotesqueBeauty]

One thing that I like about Sony is they're willing to take losses to try and back their competition into a corner and grab market share. Can't say I wholly understand it from a business standpoint (multiple generations of taking heavy losses on hardware has to take a toll), but as a consumer it's pretty nice. They also stuck to their guns on PSP through thick and thin, and I think it paid off. Now that they're more of a known commodity in the portable market I think they've got a chance at siphoning off even more customers from Nintendo, which hopefully will keep Nintendo competitive and on their toes. It would be great if Sony's pricing lit a fire under Nintendo's ass to knock down the 3DS price.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

Definitely not 60. 50 would be better. :/

lol @ either price tag.

But do they want Ps3 quality from third parties?

If third parties can't make PSV games for $40, they will have a hard time selling them.

I just don't think gamers are interested in spending console/PC money for mobile games that they'll play much less frequently.

 

[BishopLamont]

Almost as much as I love Sony fan retards, I'd wager.

That being said, I do think Nintendo fucked up by pricing the 3DS at 250, it left them wide open for Sony to come in and do this. If they had priced it at 199, Sony would not have been able to pull this stunt.

Now Nintendo will have a hard time cutting the price of the 3DS without looking a bit desperate.

Nintendo underestimated how far Sony's willing to go in terms of loss leading. Their launch line up isn't great either. Still, they don't need to cut the price, the NGP isn't out yet and their heavy hitters aren't out either. The DS didn't come out swanging either, its all about the games.

 

[Justin_Bailey]

lol @ either price tag.


If third parties can't make PSV games for $40, they will have a hard time selling them.

I just don't think gamers are interested in spending console/PC money for mobile games that they'll play much less frequently.

Ok, so after you're done LOLing, what do YOU think is a fair price for Playstation Vita games?

 

[Hellion]

Are people actually bitching about this?

THANK YOU SONY.

 

[opticalmace]

I would be ok with $45. Mind you, I would purchase when they're actually a fair bit cheaper, but for an MSRP I think that would be fine.

 

[Nicktals]

Once I see Monster Hunter, I'm in.

Maybe not the best place to ask, but how exactly does the 3G version work? It's exclusive to AT&T, so I have to have a data plan through at&t in order to have 3G? can this be combined with an existing data plan?

 

[J-Rock]

From a gamer's standpoint it seems to be a bargain, so that's nice. LBP and Modnation racers sold it to me I think.

But from a business industry standpoint, after the financial bomb that was the PS3, I'm amazed they're daft enough to risk this loss-leading shit all over again. Do their shareholders have any sense?

Yeah it's awesome and horrible at the same time. I wish they had a better business model in place. These fuckers love to gamble in strange ways.

 

[Gravijah]

Are people actually bitching about this?

THANK YOU SONY.

From what I understand, people are only bitching about the possibility of expensive games.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

Ok, so after you're done LOLing, what do YOU think is a fair price for Playstation Vita games?

$40 is the price tag that makes mobile games move. $40 or less is what they'll have to hit.

These will be shorter, less featured games designed for short "on the go" play. These are not console games. They should not have console prices.

It's pretty simple.

 

[googleplex]

They'll be games available from .99 cent ps suite pick- up and plays to 50 dollar big meaty games. Just pick your poison and let the market handle the rest.

 

[JaskoX1]

3DS price cut before PS Life launch, fab it Ninten.

 

[bigtroyjon]

Way too many people think that since they read financial reports that they have a full grasp of how a company can and can't operate. Brian Crecente mentioned that he talked to Sony before E3 and they told him that they set a price for the Vita and then built it to that price. So this has been their plan for years.

That's the problem, they have been planning this for years but the company has taken a big hit lately. They don't have any real margin for error with this that they might have had a couple of years ago.

 

[KaYotiX]

Would people really be ok with 50 dollar games for the Vita? Well anyways this news i just hope this doesnt bite them in the ass in any way.

HELL NO!!! I want them to be at least the same price as 3DS games but just by looking at some of these games on the Vita it looks like they could cost some $$ to develop.

 

[Justin_Bailey]

$40 is the price tag that makes mobile games move. $40 or less is what they'll have to hit.

These will be shorter, less featured games designed for short "on the go" play. These are not console games. They should not have console prices.

It's pretty simple.

Ok, well let's just say that MSRP is Vita games is $49.99 (which I think it will be - but you never know)...... That is 10 dollars more than your magic price point. Is it that far fetched to think Amazon won't have these games on sale every so often for $44.99?, and with promotional credit deals, etc....it should be pretty simple to get these games for that price point if you are willing to wait for deals.

I agree with you that these games will be shorter in length, more designed for on the go play. But they still seem to have very high production values, and graphics that rival something we've NEVER seen in a hand held before. I think we're all going to be surprised how popular this thing actually is going to be with gamers. I think it's gonna be hot.

 

[J-Rock]

Are people actually bitching about this?

THANK YOU SONY.

Well some of us actually want Sony to be around in the future so we can enjoy their creations. When I buy Sony products now I feel like I'm drinking their blood. I really don't want to kill them just to feed my insatiable hunger for games.

 

[Zombie James]

At the rate mobile tech is moving, I don't think it'll take quite that long.

 

[Gravijah]

BTW, people who want 40 dollar games... You should pre-order the few on Amazon that are up for that price.

 

[Salsa]

awwwwwhhh i feel so bad for them! im gonna buy 12!

 

[DiscoJer]

Everyone fears $50, I think they may go to $60.

I can't imagine third parties are going to want to generate PS3 quality assets and sell it for Wii-game prices.

If console publishers were not already fighting their damndest to get PC up to $60, then I could see non-$60 for the Vita, but if the basic structure is "This game on your PS3 or your Vita, they're the same!", then you can bet your ass Activision will sell Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 for $60.

I don't think it's just assets, they won't want to undercut sales by selling the same game (with maybe 75% of the graphics quality) for $10.

Not to mention flash carts aren't cheap. Yes, they are cheaper than they used to be in days past when they were $100-120 for the biggest games on SNES/Genesis. But they do cost more than optical media, which is just pennies.

 

[narcosis219]

awwwwwhhh i feel so bad for them! im gonna buy 12!

12 games right?

 

[Justin_Bailey]

Well some of us actually want Sony to be around in the future so we can enjoy their creations. When I buy Sony products now I feel like I'm drinking their blood. I really don't want to kill them just to feed my insatiable hunger for games.

Sony is doing just fine selling over priced Bravia televisions, and proprietary storage media for cameras/handhelds/etc.....

 

[kuroshiki]

Game price will be aroud $29-39. Which I have zero problem since amazon credit + promotion I will always get game aroud 20-30 range.

And with quality stuff like Dragon Crown? Bring it on.

 

[J-Rock]

Sony is doing just fine selling over priced Bravia televisions, and proprietary storage media for cameras/handhelds/etc.....

Well they keep losing billions. They need to get ahead and not take years to just break even.

 

[daffy]

Will Sony be around in 3 years?

Really man? Who are you asking this to, really.

edit: and now I see $60 price point predictions.... lol I'm out guys

 

[Justin_Bailey]

Well they keep losing billions. They need to get ahead and not take years to just break even.

This isn't Sega we're talking about. Even if this thing bombs, they would survive as a company.

 

[Gravijah]

Game price will be aroud $29-39. Which I have zero problem since amazon credit + promotion I will always get game aroud 20-30 range.

And with quality stuff like Dragon Crown? Bring it on.

I highly doubt the average game will be 30 dollars.

 

[Iceberg]

Obligatory PS+ subscription for two years confirmed.