Sony CEO 'totally opposed to blocking used games'

[Runa216]

Joelcool7 said:

Runa216 said:

Sorry Runs but you are aware of how expensive development costs are right? Customers want all of the high end production values the Pizarro level visuals professional high quality voice actors. Musical scores from the absolute best and cinematic cut scenes that stun. All this costs money as does the 1080p graphics the new physics engines and the thousands of hours hundreds of employees have to put into making the game.

You really should check out my blog as I address the issue of pricing. We are paying less for video games then ever before in our history if you convert the currency values to modern costs. So we are paying less for a game made by 300 staff members for 30 million USD then we did for a game made by a team of five for ten thousand. Now ask me how in the world that makes sense?

There is a reason Nintendo chose to forgo the graphical upgrade with Wii, the development costs were simply going to be too high. Nintendo chose and rightly so to create amazing games and not get caught up in a suicidal graphics arms race. An arms race caused by graphic whores who want the high end AAA game but don't want to pay for it.

These same gamer morons want a NextBox 10+x the power of PS3. They want games that will cost 3x current Dev costs. That means 150-300 million dollar games. Development teams of up to 800 all making a single game. These same consumers who want to raise development costs 3x want the retail prices to remain 59.99$ a historic low price. THQ specifically stated they could not make a NextBox game and charge less then 100$ retail, they wouldn't even break even at a smaller price tag. So if a gamer wants that 3x Dev cost NextBox game they will need to pay for it. If they only pay 59.99$ retail then developers need to get creative to generate the other 40$. This means day one DLC, subscription services, Online passes, special editions etc...etc... developers need to break even at the very least. Ideally a game should turn in a profit of at least as much as went into development. That way the developer can make another amazing game. If profits are good enough developers can take more creative freedoms so we don't end up with CoD:CivilWarfare 52 in 2050. Or God forbid Just Dance 33! Developers need to turn a profit one good enough to fund future games. Its because of cheap ass high production value gamers that developers like the one who made HomeFront get closed. Amazing game studios shuttered because amazing games didn't turn a profit. Us consumers are not the only poor guys, the 300 men and women slaving over your game for two to three years deserve the recognition and the pay for the game they made. They should not be faced with losing their jobs or suffering because some Smokey graphics whore had idiotic and unrealistic pricing and quality expectations.

Acevil said:

o_O.Q said:

ZaneWane said:
why do all sony games have online passes

why do all 360 games require paying for live to play their online components regardless of if they are bought new or not?

Sorry but that is a poor man's argument, I personally don't care for either (I feel sorry customer in both cases), but saying company A isn't bad because company B is really poor argument. 

poor man's?  The way EA, Ubisoft, Activision, and every other company in gaming (save a select few) are nickel and diming us, it's a miracle we're not all poor men! 

I'm confused...what?