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

Forums - Sales Discussion - Naughty Dog Co-founder, Console prices 'Out of Hand' except Nintendo

ssj12 on 25 August 2007
HappySqurriel said:
Legend11 said:
HappySqurriel said:

Historically speaking, videogames have thrived because they were inexpensive entertainment/hobby; you could buy the hardware for $100 to $200, there were tons of used and discount games for $10 to $20 (new games were typically $50 or less), the controllers were $20, and you saw all the benefits whether or not you owned a TV made in the past decade.

Microsoft and Sony expect you to spend $400 to $600 for the hardware, $60 for the games, $50 for the controllers, and you don't maximize your gameplay experience until you buy a $1,000 TV and pay $50 per month for online gameplay.

Even though many things about the Wii are uncharacteristically expensive, it looks down right affordable compared to the XBox 360 and PS3.

 


I take it you don't remember the costs of cartridges at their height? Also you bash Microsoft and Sony for their controller costs, why not Nintendo since it cost $20 for the Nunchuk and $40 for the Remote? Does Nintendo get a free pass from you or do you just like to bash the others, so which is it?

Oh and where do you live that it cost $50 per month for online gaming? And why single out Microsoft and Sony for that when Sony's is free and Microsoft's is $50 per year, maybe you're thinking of Xbox Live and just don't know what you're talking about?


I do remember cartridge costs and it was one of the main reasons the N64 struggled against the Playstation; the games started at a higher price, took longer to hit a budget price and at their budget price were more expensive than budget Playstation games. The game cost thing is one of the main problems I see Microsoft facing with the XBox 360 mainly because the XBox 360 has been on the market for 2 years without much of a budget game library (inspite of having a library of developed games which would be well suited to that purpose)

As for the controller comment, I did mention " ... many things about the Wii are uncharacteristically expensive ..." which was refering to the cost of the controllers. In the mindset of the consumer I don't think this is nearly the issue as the XBox 360 and PS3 controllers are because the Wiimote is "Shiny new technology" whereas the XBox 360 and PS3 controllers are essentially the same as the $30 wavebird, and the Nunchuck is optional; it doesn't matter if the reality is that the XBox and PS3 controllers are similarly technically advanced as the Wiimote in many ways or that you will need to buy at least one nunchuck if you want to play certain multiplayer games as long as the customers maintain these beliefs.

The online thing was mainly a mistake, I did mean $50 per year ... I do realize that it is free with the PS3 but the point was that people were being charged for what was once free.

Essentially, my point was directed at Sony and Microsoft mainly because they have pushed the price increase far further than Nintendo has; consider that at launch a PS2 and extra controller would have cost you $320 where it would cost you $310 on the Wii, and a XBox and 3 controllers would be $390 (they had $30 controllers) whereas the Wii would be $430 ( the PS3 for a similar setup would be $550/$60 or $650/$750 and the XBox 360 would be $350/$450 or $450/$550)

Edit: There are also things that Nintendo did correctly with the Wii to help minimize people's objections to the price, Wii Sports and Wii Play. By packaging the Wii with Wii Sports and selling Wii Play with a Wiimote Nintendo has essentially made the most common initial purchase Wii, Wii Sports+ Wii Play, 2 Wiimotes and 2 Nunchucks at $330 which people will see as being compariable to a $500 XBox 360 or $600+ PS3 bundle. Wii Sports and Wii Play may not be the best games (or largest) in the world but this doesn't prevent people from seeing extra value from their price.

Edit 2: Personally, I would have taken bundling to the next level, remade Punch Out in 2D and made a Wiimote/Nunchuck+Punch Out bundle for $75 and also produced a Nunchuck focused (puzzle) game and sold it with a Nunchuck for $30.


Glad you caught yourself with those mistakes. But I do have an argument.

The HDTV, Sony wants to push people into the HD era when they are ready. Thats why the PS3 is bundled with a composite cables instead of a component or an HDMI cable. They know not everyone owns an HDTV yeyt. Unlike Microsoft which puts the component cables in which makes people think, damn I need an HDTV to get the best graphics Sony says the games will look great at 480p but we do support higher resolutions. So you can write off Sony for making you switch to HD for your gaming when in reality its actually the government (US).



PC gaming is better than console gaming. Always.     We are Anonymous, We are Legion    Kick-ass interview   Great Flash Series Here    Anime Ratings     Make and Play Please
Amazing discussion about being wrong
Official VGChartz Folding@Home Team #109453
 
Around the Network
Legend11 on 25 August 2007
HappySqurriel said:

I do remember cartridge costs and it was one of the main reasons the N64 struggled against the Playstation; the games started at a higher price, took longer to hit a budget price and at their budget price were more expensive than budget Playstation games. The game cost thing is one of the main problems I see Microsoft facing with the XBox 360 mainly because the XBox 360 has been on the market for 2 years without much of a budget game library (inspite of having a library of developed games which would be well suited to that purpose)


Many of the 360's older games came down in price and fill the role of budget game library:

Viva Pinata - $19.99
Dead Rising - $29.99
Project Gotham Racing 3 - $18.99
Burnout Revenge - $28.99
Godfather the Game - $23.99
Call of Duty 2 - $28.99
Table Tennis - $18.99
Pefect Dark Zero Limited Collectors Edition- $29.99
NBA 2K7 - $19.99
Cars - $18.99
Rayman Raving Rabbids - $18.99
Condemned Criminal Origins - $19.00
Outfit - $19.99
Lego Star Wars 2 - $18.99

Source: Amazon

I'll be honest, I think I'd almost any of those rather than a budget titles like Ninjabread Man, etc.



albionus on 25 August 2007
Legend11 said:
It's strange how graphics suddenly stopped mattering once Nintendo decided it couldn't keep up with the graphics arms race. Before that I remember Nintendo fans comparing Resident Evil 4 on the GC to the PS2.

Also it's more about price than graphics suddenly "not mattering" anymore. Lets be honest, if the PS3 and 360 were $200 they'd be selling a lot more, does that mean that graphics suddenly started mattering or that a lot of it is the actual price?

And about the gameplay over graphics, everyone wants good gameplay it's idiotic to think otherwise and it's idiotic to think that developers have to choose one or the other or that the more you put into one the less you get of the other.

If the PS3 or 360 were $200 they would have graphics in the same realm as the Wii's.  The graphics obsession drove the price of those two systems way too high while also destroying the bottom line of their corporate divisions.  As a whole this will also eat away at the profits of 3rd parties as has been seen with several missed profit estimates (not to say no company can make money, on the whole).  Most of the huge expensive games are coming in the next few months so we'll see how many more missed profit estimates follow in January and April.  At the least it places the companies at greater risk since a $20+ million game flopping is going to hurt a lot more than a $5-8 million game flopping. 

By the way, graphics stopped mattering when 2 of the big 3 decided you had to pay over $400 to play games that still don't look as good as my PC does and when a new way to play games was offered.



Legend11 on 25 August 2007
albionus said:
Legend11 said:
It's strange how graphics suddenly stopped mattering once Nintendo decided it couldn't keep up with the graphics arms race. Before that I remember Nintendo fans comparing Resident Evil 4 on the GC to the PS2.

Also it's more about price than graphics suddenly "not mattering" anymore. Lets be honest, if the PS3 and 360 were $200 they'd be selling a lot more, does that mean that graphics suddenly started mattering or that a lot of it is the actual price?

And about the gameplay over graphics, everyone wants good gameplay it's idiotic to think otherwise and it's idiotic to think that developers have to choose one or the other or that the more you put into one the less you get of the other.

If the PS3 or 360 were $200 they would have graphics in the same realm as the Wii's.  The graphics obsession drove the price of those two systems way too high while also destroying the bottom line of their corporate divisions. 

By the way, graphics stopped mattering when 2 of the big 3 decided you had to pay over $400 to play their games and when a new way to play games was offered.


I'm saying that if both those systems were somehow $200 with the same graphic capabilities they would sell a lot more.  It's not the graphics don't matter it's that price matters more.



dtewi on 25 August 2007

Okay, I'm so fucking sick of the "If Wii was $600 and PS3 was $250 it would be selling more" arguement it's not even funny. No shit the PS3 would be selling more because a lot of people would be familiar with the brand. If Sony released it with downgraded graphics but still the same amount of fun as the PS2 it would be selling as good as the Wii right now and the Wii would be at Xbox levels. But the point is, THEY ARE NOT THE SAME PRICE AS THE WII! They obviously would be selling more if it was the same price as the Wii because more people would be able to afford it. But Sony and Microsoft had to up the price because they think graphics are the future and Nintendo had a lower price because they didn't have that advanced technology. Start living in reality. It's their own fault their prices are so high and nothing's going to change that.



Kimi wa ne tashika ni ano toki watashi no soba ni ita

Itsudatte itsudatte itsudatte

Sugu yoko de waratteita

Nakushitemo torimodosu kimi wo

I will never leave you

Around the Network
albionus on 25 August 2007
Legend11 said:
albionus said:
Legend11 said:
It's strange how graphics suddenly stopped mattering once Nintendo decided it couldn't keep up with the graphics arms race. Before that I remember Nintendo fans comparing Resident Evil 4 on the GC to the PS2.

Also it's more about price than graphics suddenly "not mattering" anymore. Lets be honest, if the PS3 and 360 were $200 they'd be selling a lot more, does that mean that graphics suddenly started mattering or that a lot of it is the actual price?

And about the gameplay over graphics, everyone wants good gameplay it's idiotic to think otherwise and it's idiotic to think that developers have to choose one or the other or that the more you put into one the less you get of the other.

If the PS3 or 360 were $200 they would have graphics in the same realm as the Wii's.  The graphics obsession drove the price of those two systems way too high while also destroying the bottom line of their corporate divisions. 

By the way, graphics stopped mattering when 2 of the big 3 decided you had to pay over $400 to play their games and when a new way to play games was offered.


I'm saying that if both those systems were somehow $200 with the same graphic capabilities they would sell a lot more.  It's not the graphics don't matter it's that price matters more.


Huh, I don't recall posting and then editing that comment, strange.  Anyways well above a certain point price begins to matter.  The GCN was $100 cheaper than an Xbox and the graphics were similar yet the more expensive one sold better.  When systems get above $300 it seems is when price becomes king.

Also, the point of why this hurts game developers is that at this stage in the US last gen about 15.6 million systems had been sold with the leader at almost 11 million.  This time about 13 million have been sold, the leader is at less than 7 million and the HD systems account for less than 9 million.  Natural growth alone should have pushed total sales to around 17 million.  The greater cost of HD systems has eliminated half the potential market for games at a time when it also doubled game budgets.



*~Onna76~* on 25 August 2007
dtewi said:
Okay, I'm so fucking sick of the "If Wii was $600 and PS3 was $250 it would be selling more" arguement it's not even funny. No shit the PS3 would be selling more because a lot of people would be familiar with the brand. If Sony released it with downgraded graphics but still the same amount of fun as the PS2 it would be selling as good as the Wii right now and the Wii would be at Xbox levels. But the point is, THEY ARE NOT THE SAME PRICE AS THE WII! They obviously would be selling more if it was the same price as the Wii because more people would be able to afford it. But Sony and Microsoft had to up the price because they think graphics are the future and Nintendo had a lower price because they didn't have that advanced technology. Start living in reality. It's their own fault their prices are so high and nothing's going to change that.

I was actually planning to say about the same thing but I'm glad you spit it out so nicely for me as well ;)

That is what Jason is trying to imply, because of the high technological features which both consoles have to offer, it therefore makes it expensive for buyers, most of all, if you have a 250-300USD WII right next to it. Not sure what the main retail price is in the US. Also comparing to the PS2 back then with the PS3, is a major difference for the Americans mostly. Not as much for the Europeans as the PS3 cost now almost just as much as the PS2 back then, yes in the US they paid at least half the price for a PS2 than within Europe.



PLAYSTATION®3 is the future.....NOW.......B_E_L_I_E_V_E

Supporter of PlayStation and Nintendo

outlawauron on 25 August 2007
Game_boy said:
HappySqurriel said:

Historically speaking, videogames have thrived because they were inexpensive entertainment/hobby; you could buy the hardware for $100 to $200, there were tons of used and discount games for $10 to $20 (new games were typically $50 or less), the controllers were $20, and you saw all the benefits whether or not you owned a TV made in the past decade.

Microsoft and Sony expect you to spend $400 to $600 for the hardware, $60 for the games, $50 for the controllers, and you don't maximize your gameplay experience until you buy a $1,000 TV and pay $50 per month for online gameplay.

Even though many things about the Wii are uncharacteristically expensive, it looks down right affordable compared to the XBox 360 and PS3.

 


I absolutely agree, and to add to that in the UK a PS3 is $850,new games are $120 (Seriously), a controller is $60 with no special features and the TV is $1000. So to start out with a PS3 here could cost $2200 or $1200 without a TV.


Games are only 40 pounds. Thats $80 american dollars.



"We'll toss the dice however they fall,
And snuggle the girls be they short or tall,
Then follow young Mat whenever he calls,
To dance with Jak o' the Shadows."

Check out MyAnimeList and my Game Collection. Owner of the 5 millionth post.

FishyJoe on 25 August 2007
outlawauron said:

Games are only 40 pounds. Thats $80 american dollars.


Only??? Cripes, I'd give up gaming if that was the average price per game.  



Sqrl on 25 August 2007
FishyJoe said:
outlawauron said:

Games are only 40 pounds. Thats $80 american dollars.


Only??? Cripes, I'd give up gaming if that was the average price per game.


Yeah, I don't think you can really call yourself a hardcore gamer until you pay those kinds of prices =P I understand why they need to charge a bit more for certain regions but that seems more like price gouging tbh.

Is this a government tax thing? Import tax? There has to be something behind it.



To Each Man, Responsibility