'Vita games are worth £40,' says Sony boss

[Degausser]

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.