By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony Discussion - 'Vita games are worth £40,' says Sony boss

Carl on 13 February 2012
RolStoppable said:

What's that supposed to mean? That the latest Olympics game is bad?

Regardless, I don't know about your comment. Mario & Sonic is a much, much, much bigger brand than Uncharted, so it can get away with a premium price. By the way, I've heard that Golden Abyss doesn't even have multiplayer. Is that true?

I wouldn't know really. My girlfriend likes it, so it can't be that bad. I never said it was bad.

Afaik the game doesn't have multiplayer. I remember seeing rumors that it was planned though, I have no idea.

If any game has high production values, then I see no reason at all why a developer shouldn't charge a premium price like big brands, as you put it. We get it with Call of Duty on consoles. We get it with any Nintendo game on any console (Not the high price, but the consistant price).

New generation, new hardware, higher production costs... Bigger prices. Before I saw the "next gen" portable games, I'd have probably said that anything over £30 was too much. After seeing the games in action, I can easily say certain stuff are worth more than £30.



                            

Around the Network
Carl on 13 February 2012
chris.m95 said:
Why spend £40 on a PS Vita game when you can get the exact same game on the PS3 for the exact same price???

(BTW my opinion is that handhelds are an abomination in the gaming world. I see them as a waste of money as you pay around the same price for a PSP/ PS Vita as you do for the PS3 and you get a smaller screen, controls, games etc you also find that the games aren't as fun to play as they are on the PS3)

Opinion. That's the key word in your post.

Some people prefer to play the smaller games. Some people prefer to play on the go. Some people love the games exclusive to handhelds, be it Pokemon, Patapon or Temple Run.

Some people simply don't have the time to sit and play on a console. The only time they get to game is on the go.



                            

sethnintendo on 13 February 2012

Well I'm glad they think it is worth it. I am sure that perhaps some are but definitely not all. They are starting to sound a lot like when they released the PS3. They are trying to explain their strategy too much and that everything is worth the price. The PS3 was worth 600+ considering it was at the time the cheapest Blu-ray player. However, even if a product is worth its value it doesn't mean that most consumers will see it worth that price point. If your products are not consumer friendly then you will only have the early tech adopters.



Degausser on 13 February 2012

I've not played GA but from what I've gathered it's pretty much the same 'package' as Uncharted 1 was. A good single player game, show casing great tech, good story telling and a solid single player but nothing particually special.

Point is, Uncharted 1 charged $60 without anyone batting an eyelid, yet GA - which is pretty much the same experience - is stretching things asking for $50? No chance. Their pricing is fine here. It'll baffle my mind if something like Street Fighter x Tekken costs less on Vita then PS3, when it's literally the exact same game. Is there a possible justification for asking the Vita version to cost less?

And as I've said before, no one in the UK ever pays £40 for a video game ever. That includes the big releases like COD and FIFA, let alone handheld games lol.



sethnintendo on 13 February 2012
Degausser said:
  Is there a possible justification for asking the Vita version to cost less?


That they had to just port it and weaken the graphics a little when compared to the PS3/360 version.  I can see your reasoning a little but it has always been that portables were at least 20-30 dollars cheaper when it came to buying games.  I suppose you are fine with paying the same price but plenty of others aren't.



Around the Network
manuel on 13 February 2012
Mythe said:
We will let the consumer decide that good sir.


Indeed. If the consumers want games to be cheap they have to vote with their wallets.

But on the other hand then they can't complain that companies shy away from that market and don't bring over titles that look like a risk to them. The reason that Japan gets so many quirky/wacky/weird/niche games is that they are willing to pay high prices for them.



Need something off Play-Asia? http://www.play-asia.com/

Degausser on 13 February 2012
sethnintendo said:
Degausser said:
  Is there a possible justification for asking the Vita version to cost less?


That they had to just port it and weaken the graphics a little when compared to the PS3/360 version.  I can see your reasoning a little but it has always been that portables were at least 20-30 dollars cheaper when it came to buying games.  I suppose you are fine with paying the same price but plenty of others aren't.

 If the PS3 is the 'lead platform' should the 360 version cost less cause it's a port? No. Something like SFxT I doubt you can even see a graphical difference with its art style and stuff. Theres of games you can apply this too to - should the Final Fantasy X remake cost more on PS3 then Vita? Why?

 I get handheld games historically cost less, but handheld games were always pretty different experiences. Whereas now the line between PS3 and Vita is blurred in some regards, and you're seeing some games that are literally the same game on both systems. A lot of this reminds me of when there was outrage about 360 / PS3 charging $60 for a game, and now it's generally just accepted.

 Also I've not really thougth about what I 'think' about game prices, as I never buy games on launch, never pay launch price and will only buy them when I'm happy with the price. So for me they can charge whatever they like, as I'll get them when they're priced what I'll pay. I guess I just think the people who are shocked at Golden Abyss being $50 really should take a step back if they paid $60 for Drakes Fortune and didn't bat an eyelid.



chris.m95 on 13 February 2012
Carl2291 said:
chris.m95 said:
Why spend £40 on a PS Vita game when you can get the exact same game on the PS3 for the exact same price???

(BTW my opinion is that handhelds are an abomination in the gaming world. I see them as a waste of money as you pay around the same price for a PSP/ PS Vita as you do for the PS3 and you get a smaller screen, controls, games etc you also find that the games aren't as fun to play as they are on the PS3)

Opinion. That's the key word in your post.

Some people prefer to play the smaller games. Some people prefer to play on the go. Some people love the games exclusive to handhelds, be it Pokemon, Patapon or Temple Run.

Some people simply don't have the time to sit and play on a console. The only time they get to game is on the go.

im not putting those people down im just giving background info so people know why i think £40 is a waste



Wait... does this mean im not human?

PSN addy - mrx95

A good head and a good heart are always a formidable combination. - Nelson Mandela

A radical is a man with his feet planted firmly in the air. - Franklin.D.Roosevelt

 

Carl on 13 February 2012
RolStoppable said:

I specifically asked about multiplayer, because it's not so much about production values, but rather entertainment value. You see, Nintendo games that maintain their price tag aren't necessarily ones with high production values (Brain Training would be the most extreme example), it's about how much entertainment people can get out of it or at least what they assume to get out of it. While the CoD games have high production values, that isn't the only reason why they can sell a huge amount of copies at a high price tag. More importantly, people expect to play these games for weeks or months, so they have no problem with forking over the cash.

Back to Golden Abyss, if it doesn't have multiplayer, then it's probably a game you only get ten hours out of (assuming one playthrough). High production values or not, this isn't all that appealing when looking at it from an entertainment value point of view.

The post from Degausser above gave a great point on this. I'll use American prices as I have no idea what U:DF launched at in the UK.

The original Uncharted launched at $60. Uncharted DF was a single player experience, 8-10 Hours to complete and you could go back through it for collectables/difficulties. Despite this, Uncharted went on to sell over 4 Million units.

Uncharted GA is a single player experience, 8-10 Hours to complete and you can go through it for collectables/difficulties. It's launching at $50 (For some reason, $10 higher than anything else).

It's cheaper than Drakes Fortune was. It's the "must have" game on the system. Uncharted is now classed as a "big" franchise.

I see no problem with Uncharted having the "premium" price, personally.



                            

Carl on 13 February 2012
RolStoppable said:

Yup, I thought this would be brought up.

But video games evolve and the following two Uncharted games featured multiplayer modes, so Golden Abyss will definitely feel like a lesser package for many people. Had the Uncharted trilogy be singleplayer only, then you could make the case that everything's fine.

You can be sure that there would also be an outrage, if Mario Kart went back to 16 courses only. People would ask why, because they have come to expect more.

If Uncharted GA really does feel like a lesser package (It probably will do when compared to 2 and 3), then people shouldn't complain when it's cheaper than 2 and 3. It's a lesser package at a lesser price.

Nintendo wouldn't do something that lazy Rol.