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

Forums - Sony Discussion - Playstation : Those games should be free.

Ajescent on 01 August 2013

I'm not entirely sure what your endgame here is. Namely how doing this will ultimately favour Sony and the other studios.

You think SE are gonna ask for £50 so that Sony can give away FF7 for free to any Thomas Richard or Harrison? Try £50+ million. Because you and I both know that SE will try to get as much as they can for such a deal.

Now try to spread that over all the games in your list and see how much this charitable move will cost Sony and for what end?



PS One/2/p/3slim/Vita owner. I survived the Apocalyps3/Collaps3 and all I got was this lousy signature.


Xbox One: What are you doing Dave?

Around the Network
Ajescent on 01 August 2013
Munkeh111 said:
If people thought they were too expensive, they wouldn't buy them. If people don't buy them, they won't sell them for that price

I think that $5-10 for a very good PS1 classic is a perfectly reasonable price. I did buy the PS1 classics I own in sales (mostly), but I was perfectly prepared to pay a decent price for a 50-60 hour game that I have never played before (FF VII, VIII, IX)

As for the PS2 games, I have never been interested, most of them are available on PC which is probably better for old games

The HD classics are generally reasonably priced, half the price of new games or even less! I got the Jak trilogy for £25 and that is 3 very good games!

Kindgom Hearts 1.5 HD is probably on the steep side for just 1 full game, but it is still half the price of a brand new game

KH.1.5 is 3 games in one isn't it? Let's not forget that.



PS One/2/p/3slim/Vita owner. I survived the Apocalyps3/Collaps3 and all I got was this lousy signature.


Xbox One: What are you doing Dave?

Sleepyprince on 01 August 2013
Ajescent said:
I'm not sure I can disagree with your logic anymore than I already do, I will say this though.

When FF7, 8, 9, MGS 1 all realeased on PSN, they stayed on the N/A region's top downloads for weeks respectively

Ok, but do you know the numbers ? I don't think so. Because nobody really does oustide of Sony internal guys. 

That's the whole problem with the psn. Nobdoy know the numbers. 

But coming from devs and video games names, the Psn IS weak in sale number. Heck, even Journey wich had break the psn sales record struggled to reach the level of sales needed and do not tell me this game cost more than 1 or 2 millions to make. 

Edit : Wow I'm being mocked by an Otaku now... This forum never failed to surprise me. 

 

Moderated - Kresnik.



RenCutypoison on 01 August 2013
Sleepyprince said:

I own a Ps3 and a Ps Vita. It always bothered me to notice that Sony want you to pay for PSX titles.  

Those games are here for maybe ten/fifteen years and we still have to pay for it ? In my opinion we've supported those games well enough and Sony should make them free. They're simple emulated games. Even my poor laptop can play them with epsxe.

10$ for MGS ? Without even vr mission ?
15$ for 3 crash bandicoot ? 
10$ for FF7 without even implement the great mod coming for the pc community ? 

This is not normal. They should stop trying to milking us the best they can, because that's clearly a lacks of consideration to me. In my opinion it would be a great move (or normal at least) coming from Sony if those games were free from now on. I think we've all gave Sony/those games devs enough money coming from it for almost fifteen years now.   

Now for ps2 titles : I can understand I have to pay ps2 HD port since it's not just emulation but "real" games that need to being developped a bit on ps3 in order to make them support HD or correct/fix some shit in-games. But is asking us to pay 30$/€ for a simple collection port normal ? I do not think so. The psn is full of ps2 titles you can't play anywhere else, unless you keep a psx and a ps2 next to your ps3.

Some of them are sold at the right price : 

- 10$ for Prince of persia the sand of time for example. It's clearly superior to its ps2 OG counterpart, the HD filter is really good, the game is still one of the best, they fixed some bugs. 10$ is fine. (The rest of POP trilogy is not as good and sold at the exact same price though)

BUT those are clearly not :

- 30$ Ratchet of collection HD
- 30$ Zone of the enders collection HD
- God of war collection HD
- 30$ Sly raccoon collection HD  
- 30$ Metal gear solid collection HD
- 30$ for Devil may Cry collection HD 
- 20$ Shadow of the colossus HD
- 20$ GTA san andreas HD

Seriousey ? A lot of those games were ported by very small studio (Bluepoint games, Ideal Minds, Sanzaru games...). Heck, for exemple Kingdom hearts 1.5 was made by TWO guys, and they had to re do a lot of in game stuff because Senix had lost a lot of data related shit. They were two guys and the result is perfect (But screw square enix for charging it 70$...). Do not tell me those HD port cost Sony millions to make. And still they're selling them as if those games actually cost millions to make. 

I am not a cheap player at all (I won't own a ps vita if I were =P) but those practice are just plain wrong. I've already bought some of those games. But I realise now, that it is not normal at all. I am a regular Sony customer but I refuse to pay for those games again in my whole gamers life, and I do not want Sony to charge new/young players for those games either. 

All the games I speak about are the ps2/psx's catalogues peak of quality and almost indispensable games. Everyone should be able to play/discover them on a Sony device without being forced to keep their ps2 next to their ps3 (and in the future their ps3 next to their ps4) and without being forced to pay wrong price for them.

The last wrong thing is, those games would not be available on Ps4. The Psn catalogue is almost complete, full of very great games, and all those games would not be available on ps4... A huge shame imo. Even if you did not pay 1$ bucks for them, even if the ps4/ps3 system are different, I don't care, those games should be available for everyone on Ps4 or at least on vita.  

Depending on your opinion/reaction, I will start a petition and I will submit it to Sony playstation to make things change. Or at least try it. 

Getting back the code was made by two guys, then a bunch of coders had to remake and optimize for the PS3, and graphist had to rework on each and every texture.

And for the two guys story, it was only for KH1. Please stop assuming stuff without knowing anything about game dev.



Ajescent on 01 August 2013
Sleepyprince said:
Ajescent said:
I'm not sure I can disagree with your logic anymore than I already do, I will say this though.

When FF7, 8, 9, MGS 1 all realeased on PSN, they stayed on the N/A region's top downloads for weeks respectively

Ok, but do you know the numbers ? I don't think so. Because nobody really does oustide of Sony internal guys. 

That's the whole problem with the psn. Nobdoy know the numbers. 

But coming from devs and video games names, the Psn IS weak in sale number. Heck, even Journey wich had break the psn sales record struggled to reach the level of sales needed and do not tell me this game costed more than 1 or 2 millions to make. 

x_x

oh my goodness

okay, I can see that this is not a conversation I want to have because I hate talking about sales figures (inb4VgchartzIsallaboutthesaleslikeitorlumpit)

But I will say this:

A game doesn't need to sell 10million copies to be considered a success.

E.g: Hotline Miami recently celebrated numbers of less than 500k on psn and considered that a success.

ThatGameCompany went bankrupt whilst making Journey, but then were back up and running the first week of Journey being on PSN because they had made back more than they used to make the game in the first week ALONE.

When ff7 was in the #1 spot, it was alleged to be selling 100k roughly each week, same with 8 and 9 and MGS.

I have no idea where this myth that nobody uses PSN came from but it is that, it's a myth. 

If no one used it, the store would be empty of ANYTHING.

Compare and contrast. Vita/WiiU physical support to PSN yeah...

Lastly. This pretty much sums up the flaw in your arguement. SE placed FF7 on the store for £7.99, nobody buys it. So in an attempt to make money, they put it for £0...I'm not a math major but I know you are less likely to make money if you put it at £0.



PS One/2/p/3slim/Vita owner. I survived the Apocalyps3/Collaps3 and all I got was this lousy signature.


Xbox One: What are you doing Dave?

Around the Network
Munkeh111 on 01 August 2013
Ajescent said:
Munkeh111 said:
If people thought they were too expensive, they wouldn't buy them. If people don't buy them, they won't sell them for that price

I think that $5-10 for a very good PS1 classic is a perfectly reasonable price. I did buy the PS1 classics I own in sales (mostly), but I was perfectly prepared to pay a decent price for a 50-60 hour game that I have never played before (FF VII, VIII, IX)

As for the PS2 games, I have never been interested, most of them are available on PC which is probably better for old games

The HD classics are generally reasonably priced, half the price of new games or even less! I got the Jak trilogy for £25 and that is 3 very good games!

Kindgom Hearts 1.5 HD is probably on the steep side for just 1 full game, but it is still half the price of a brand new game

KH.1.5 is 3 games in one isn't it? Let's not forget that.

In classic Square Enix fashion, it is not clear. 3 games have been remastered.... kind of

Kingdom Hearts 1 - a proper full length PS2 game

Kingdom Hearts Re: Chain of Memories - It was a GBA game, then remade for PS2 then re-remade here

Kingdom Hearts 358/2 days - DS game, but not actually playable here, it has been made into a 2 hour 50 minute film (so says wikipedia)

So basically, Square suck at naming games and you have probably 2 games to play here. Personally, I will probably only play KH 1, especially as it comes out at the same time as GTA V, so I'll be busy



Sleepyprince on 01 August 2013

"And for the two guys story, it was only for KH1. Please stop assuming stuff without knowing anything about game dev."

Calm down Otaku guy. I was speaking about KH1.5 (KH1 if you want, the only one game), not the whole three games in KH1.5 HD remix.

And about graphist and coders for KH1.5, show me your source. I've followed the development for quite while now and all I heard/read was that two guys made the HD port.



Anfebious on 01 August 2013

Is 10 dollars that much? I mean you get a game for 10 dollars, and in the Argentina PSN store we get Dead Space 3 for 90 dollars? Seriously?



"I've Underestimated the Horse Power from Mario Kart 8, I'll Never Doubt the WiiU's Engine Again"

Ajescent on 01 August 2013
Anfebious said:
Is 10 dollars that much? I mean you get a game for 10 dollars, and in the Argentina PSN store we get Dead Space 3 for 90 dollars? Seriously?
VGhippy said:
This is like a whole new level of first world problems.

 





PS One/2/p/3slim/Vita owner. I survived the Apocalyps3/Collaps3 and all I got was this lousy signature.


Xbox One: What are you doing Dave?

pokoko on 01 August 2013
Sleepyprince said:
pokoko said:
Some of the games you mention don't even belong to Sony. What, exactly, do you want them to do?

Simple : Pay some bucks to be able to offer them for free to their consumers. They already do it with playstation + and guess what, this is a success.

If they're not from sony studios, they're from rockstar, Square enix studio or kojima studio. All those studios have strong bonds with Sony, I'm even sure Sony wouldn't need to drop a single $ in the move.

Do not tell me people do not see consumers being happy with Sony if they made something like that ? The advantage coming from it would be huge from them.

Pay a few bucks for hundreds of games to offer them for free?  Sony is a business.  PSN is intended to make a profit.  PS+ is intended to make a profit.  You're asking them to pay a LOT of money just so you won't have to?

Why are you sure that Square would give their games away for free just because Sony asked?  Square, which is notorious for over-charging?  Those are businesses, too, who are in this whole thing to make money.

And no, making some older games free would not translate into much profit.  They might win a few new customers because of that but most of those would be people who would just play the free offerings.  I fail to see how this would be a good business move by Sony or anyone else.  Basically, what you're saying is, "I want them free, so they should be free."  There is very little logic in your arguments.

The only thing that should be done, that needs to be done, is for certain publishers, like Square, to offer their back catalog are more reasonable amounts.  However, I'm not so entitled that I think I should get everything free.