MaxwellGT2000 said: LOL 100 dollars is absurd I thought they were batshit crazy when they upped prices to 60 dollars and even crazier when the average length of the games were half that of previous gens. Now someone in the game industry is suggesting people should pay 100 dollars for these games that won't last them more then a few days/weeks at most? The guy has obviously lost it.
I looking at the OP I don't see the price of the game being the issue I believe it's the ten times the development cost of PS2 that's the issue here >_> |
Yea, that pretty much guarantees the average PS3 game is at least $20 million. PS2 games usually cost $5-10 million dollars. The shovelware cost much lower than that. Another reason why the PS2 was so dominant was the lesser risk of financial failure. Not only with the userbase, but ease on the pockets.
PS3/360 development was $17m-$20m average in 2006 and costs have soared since then and a recession has taken effect. Assuming costs have increased %10 isn't too unreasonable is it? Now factor that in to the average.
$100 for a video game is absolutely ridiculous when they have so little to offer as opposed to games of the past.
Leatherhat on July 6th, 2012 3pm. Vita sales:"3 mil for COD 2 mil for AC. Maybe more. " thehusbo on July 6th, 2012 5pm. Vita sales:"5 mil for COD 2.2 mil for AC."