By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
HollyGamer said:
Why no choice of 499 USD console; 50 to 60 USD game ?

Give me hot or give me cold, don't give me warm =p

mutantsushi said:
I see the poll is missing the option for "The idea Sony/MS make $20 from 3rd party games is BS, and the idea 3rd parties would pass on such savings to consumers is next level BS".

I guess you missed the part where the platform holder would determine/force the price difference due to no royalty.

jason1637 said:
Why not just leave it the way it is now?

That is an option you have on the pool. Basically asking if you would prefer paying more for the HW and less for the SW.

LudicrousSpeed said:
Nah, give me a cheaper console and keep game prices the way they are now. I’d take that option for a Nintendo console, because their games hold their value insanely long. MicroSony though, a month or two after launch you can find their games for $30-40. And the same for all third party games. It just isn’t a big enough deal imho to save money on games.

Especially when the publishers aren’t going to just charge less anyway. You think EA or Ubisoft or Activision are suddenly going to charge $40 just because MicroSony doesn’t want a cut? They’ll charge $60 because we’re used to paying $60.

Seems like you also missed the enforcement. And also that it isn't saying if it really is feasible or not, but if you would like it and how do you think it would affect sales.

duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."