PDA

View Full Version : Games and Gaming SYstems cost too much!



xasspenx
09-08-2006, 04:59 PM
i dont know how these game companies think, but how did they get to say that new games now cost 60$instead of 50. u might ask me, but sammy boy, thats only a 10$increase but thats when it may start.10buck increase one year and the next might be another 10bucks. just like gas prices. are there no regulations to say how much a game and system must cost? i dont think there is. what do u people think?

SpyderNynja
09-08-2006, 06:14 PM
I must admit, I am also pretty annoyed about the game price rising. $50 seemed alright at first, although it took a bit to build up 50 dollars to get one game but 60 maybe even 70 dollars is now nearing the 100 mark. I once heard that some ps3 games would come out to about 80 dollars but I think thats just a rumor. still, it's gonna be tough in this digital age of ours.

drunkrepublican
09-08-2006, 08:51 PM
Wii System - $150-$250
Wii Games - $40-$50

Xbox 360 - $300-$400
Xbox 360 Games - $50-$60

PS3- $500-$600
PS3 Games- $50-$60?

There's basically a console for every level of income.

HorTyS
09-09-2006, 01:51 AM
i guess people dont' remember back when N64 was around, there were games that were $70+. i'm not glad the games are getting more expensive, but i'm not crying about it either. it was an inevitable and probably neccesary increase.

whenever i hear someone complaining that games are $10 more, i always think they're kids and their parents are refusing to buy them games because they're more expensive. just seems a little immature to complain about a somewhat small price increase....

xasspenx
09-09-2006, 07:43 AM
to clear what u just said. i pay for all of my games and systems unless its christmas and my bday. i dont understand how it cost less money to make a game than a movie. movies cost so much money. like millions when making games do not. and when the movies come out on dvd they cost 20-30$. when games come out well u know how much they will be. it doesnt make sense.

chewie1890
09-09-2006, 10:54 AM
Originally posted by hortys_99:
i guess people dont' remember back when N64 was around, there were games that were $70+. i'm not glad the games are getting more expensive, but i'm not crying about it either. it was an inevitable and probably neccesary increase.

whenever i hear someone complaining that games are $10 more, i always think they're kids and their parents are refusing to buy them games because they're more expensive. just seems a little immature to complain about a somewhat small price increase....

I'm not sure about other families/children. But when im complaining about an increase in cost for games and systems, its not because my parents wont buy it for me. It's because it will take longer than the already ridiculously long ammount of time it takes me now to save up for games.

bablagar
09-09-2006, 10:56 AM
costs more to make i guess, the only over priced consoll IMO is the ps3, looks like the ps3 is gunna be a "rich boi" consoll http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif and as usuall the wii is doing its "cheapest consoll and games" thing, meaning it will probably the "younger gamers" consoll http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

xasspenx
09-09-2006, 11:46 AM
yup. nintendo is good for that.

MasterChief555
09-09-2006, 12:02 PM
You might think you've got it bad. Here in the UK PS2/xbox/GC games cost 40---$75 and xbox360 games cost $84 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

Here are some console prices for the UK

PS3-$799
360-$526
PSP(value pack)-$338
DS--$188

As if it wasn't enough that we have to wait 6 months longer for games http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

a-secret-threat
09-09-2006, 03:00 PM
Originally posted by xasspenx:
yup. nintendo is good for that.

nintendo is good for new ideas, everytime a system comes out from nintendo their is always new things that other systems dont have, like the rumble feature and now the motion sensore (sorry 4 spelling, some1 can correct) and they <span class="ev_code_RED">Practically</span> invented the analog stick, that is why they didnt show their new wii controller until the last possible time, and it funny how once they releast it that PS3 just happened to have gotten sued for their rumble feature, and now they have a motion sensore in theirs too..... that is pretty MEAN of them 2 take that from nintendo, i mean i would F*CK sony up for that

kew414
09-09-2006, 06:26 PM
Originally posted by MasterChief555:
You might think you've got it bad. Here in the UK PS2/xbox/GC games cost 40---$75 and xbox360 games cost $84 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

Here are some console prices for the UK

PS3-$799
360-$526
PSP(value pack)-$338
DS--$188

New 360 games cost $110 and a ps3 will cos $850-$900 here http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Penumbra_42
09-09-2006, 11:02 PM
It could be that companies actually need to sell them that high to make a good profit these days. Or it could be that there just charging more for no reason and everyone assume the prior. Either way, they do cost a lot.

entropy777
09-09-2006, 11:44 PM
<span class="ev_code_GREY">They cost much because the people who sell them are greedy morons, the way of the world... They cost less to make, and cost more to buy, for us atleast.</span>

Fates.Dark.Hand
09-10-2006, 06:09 AM
A typical Mobile Phone costs 50 pence to make my machine including parts, and the companys sell them to us for 100 - 500, like Entropy said, the way of the world

xasspenx
09-10-2006, 03:02 PM
the way of the world sucks and so do the freemasons.

HorTyS
09-10-2006, 07:56 PM
Originally posted by xasspenx:
to clear what u just said. i pay for all of my games and systems unless its christmas and my bday. i dont understand how it cost less money to make a game than a movie. movies cost so much money. like millions when making games do not. and when the movies come out on dvd they cost 20-30$. when games come out well u know how much they will be. it doesnt make sense.

movies usually make a profit before they're out of the theatres, thats where they re-coupe the money it took to make the film. the dvd sales just make the studios more money. videogames don't have a venue that they go through like movie theatres to get a big push of money, otherwise they might not be as much as they are.

ameshockey3
09-10-2006, 09:03 PM
look its true everything is getting more $$$$$, but with the ps3, u have so much stuff, also with xbox 360, i mean some of it goes more then just a game system... how ever on the games, i read some one saying that movies cost so much to make, which is true how ever when they go into the theater they pay alot of money for the movie.. so when it comes out to vhs/dvd they dont have much more to make.... oh well games will be what they will be, as long as people get greedy, they will go up.

JN006
09-11-2006, 12:42 AM
Originally posted by entropy777:
<span class="ev_code_GREY">They cost much because the people who sell them are greedy morons, the way of the world... They cost less to make, and cost more to buy, for us atleast.</span>

It's not a convention signed by all developpers, who decided together to raise the prices of games for no reason. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Developpers invest tons of money into next-generation of games when a new generation of console are out:
-Developing new tools and updating their editors or creating new ones.
-New capabilities of the consoles means more developing time on all aspect (art is more pushed, prog is more evolve, etc).
-All this means more peoples working on one single game (all the salaries).

You will rarely see teams of developers under a hundred,working on a next-gen blockbuster like AC, Splinters or Crysis.

Plus, in the transition period between current-gen and next-gen console, developers still have to make current-gen games because their markets has not yet switch over the new consoles, or at least until it reach a acceptable amout of people owning the new consoles. That's a six month to one year, developing games for ALL the available gaming consoles that have their own capacities. When they'll only have to make a game on X360 and port it to PS3 and Wii, or vice versa... they'll save time and money there!

It's always a gray zone during the transition period of the new consoles.

-When the developper won't have to invest their money into supporting last-gen consoles as well as next-gen
-When developer will have their tools proven to work well and crews that are up to date with these tools
-When developers will only have to care about designing great games on next-gen....
then... we might see the prices of games lower, which I doubt but we can dream.

Can you imagine how much money is invest into R&D for a next-gen engine/editor/games/pipeline/(..etc) from the developers? Check the news and see if they're really making money these days ... considering all the money they've invest so far... It's starting to switch now but, from last october 'til july or so, it wasn't the eldorado! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif

That being said, I cannot share entropy777's opinion when he's saying that games cost less to make and cost more to buy... well... it does cost more to buy, but trust me, blockbuster games don't cost less to make now! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Take Two interactive's hard time (http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3735&Itemid=46)

Merging for survive (http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3666&Itemid=46)

Atari's lost (http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3606&Itemid=46)

butni
09-11-2006, 08:26 PM
eh its natural for things to rise in price but i think its ridiculous for sony to make it so expensive just cause there putting a "blue mist" or whatever its called in there thats probably going to do horribly especially if they only put them in ps3's and i feel more appreciative of nintendo seeing how theres is like half the price of the xbox 360 the only reason people usualy buy them is because the previous gen consoles get cut off from the games

JN006
09-11-2006, 09:50 PM
Originally posted by butni:
eh its natural for things to rise in price but i think its ridiculous for sony to make it so expensive just cause there putting a "blue mist" or whatever its called in there thats probably going to do horribly especially if they only put them in ps3's and i feel more appreciative of nintendo seeing how theres is like half the price of the xbox 360 the only reason people usualy buy them is because the previous gen consoles get cut off from the games

I share your opinion about the Sony's blueray! It's a war over who's going to lead the digital portable media, and the customer is caught in between. As we all know, it's the porn industry who's going to decide which media will live, like they did with the VHS/Beta's saga. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/353.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I'm an upset owner of a gamecube console who sweer to never go back to a console which would not deliver full quality of games. Games which got graphically cuts to fit that tiny disk and to run on the underperforming console (most games on gamecube), games with maps that got cuts to fit on the media (Splinter Cell - Chaos Theory, and more). I feel that the Wii will suffer of the same problems as it's previous version. I'm a 3d modeler in the game industry, who's in love with game for it's look and the graphics. I won't be the first one to buy a Wii until the joystick proves that it's a different gaming experience. I own a 360 and I might not buy a PS3 'cause of the very expensive price for the console, without being sure of getting more than my Xbox... I'll wait for proves before getting another next-gen console, but ... I'm please so far with my 360 even if there is not a huge amount of games that are pushing it to the edge, so far... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ifiwerearichman
09-11-2006, 09:57 PM
Originally posted by JN006:
I'm please so far with my 360 even if there is not a huge amount of games that are pushing it to the edge, so far... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
I'm gonna guess that one of those 'games that are pushing it to the edge' would be GRAW. Ahh yes, nothing more satisfying then playing a game that you helped to create, especially when working on the visual portion.

JN006
09-11-2006, 10:39 PM
Originally posted by ifiwerearichman:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JN006:
I'm please so far with my 360 even if there is not a huge amount of games that are pushing it to the edge, so far... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
I'm gonna guess that one of those 'games that are pushing it to the edge' would be GRAW. Ahh yes, nothing more satisfying then playing a game that you helped to create, especially when working on the visual portion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unfo, I didn't worked on it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif But I'm quiet surprised you forgot about Oblivion, Battlefield Modern Combat, and many more.. but damn that GRAW was HOT looking http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/inlove.gif I can't wait to get my hands on R6:Vegas ... ouch!

entropy777
09-11-2006, 11:10 PM
<span class="ev_code_GREY">I'll pay $600 for the PS3 if I get an ocelot to go with it...</span>

ifiwerearichman
09-12-2006, 12:57 AM
Originally posted by JN006:
Unfo, I didn't worked on it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif But I'm quiet surprised you forgot about Oblivion, Battlefield Modern Combat, and many more.. but damn that GRAW was HOT looking http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/inlove.gif I can't wait to get my hands on R6:Vegas ... ouch!
Wow... don't I look stupid http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif. But as for Oblivion, I don't think Bethesda should merit ALL the praise they received from a visual point of view because a lot of modelling+texturing scenes, such as vegetation and character expressions, were pre-done using third party tools such as SpeedTree and FaceGen respectively. Still, its remarkable how realistic the day/night transition are as well as the massive varriation of character design. Grr... don't get me started with games published by EA. I loved the original Medal of Honor game (even graphics wise), but they made the expansions way too quickly and as a result, I got left behind while playing 'catch-up'. Now-a-days, EA published games such as Battlefield lacks the essential substance that seperates a good looking game from an over hyped-money hungry-massive corporation of a game. So I suppose they both LOOK good, but neither game offers anything revolutionary as they both incorporate a-now-all-too-common pseudo-visual techniques such as bump mapping. In my opinion, the next step to extending the realism of a game after graphics, would be to substitute animations through computational physics (rather then vice versa). Too often I play 'good looking games' only to be disappointed by bland animations (ex. smoke by fire). I suppose that this would be asking for quite a bit in this day of age, especially when the field of geometric level set methods is all too new. But watching the example videos done by Ronald Fedkiw on computational physics has helped me to realize that this is very much attainable. Btw, here are some of Fedkiw's vids:
http://graphics.stanford.edu/~fedkiw/ (http://graphics.stanford.edu/%7Efedkiw/)

Robbinho1992
09-12-2006, 01:43 PM
Ps3 is so much becasue of the technology in side it. The ps3 is somwhat SONY's computer of sorts. With a big hardrive and internet access installed. Thats why its gunna be alot. You dont see many comoputers at a low price, the good ones anyway, and i dont see why the ps3 should be less, Becasue the quality of the console is good.

I might not no alot about the market and game technologies (Me being only 14), but we as the public shouldnt bicker about prices and if the moneys worth it.

I myself is going to buy a ps3 becasue ive been loyal to the plastion for my whole life. And i dont like the xbox.
Thats enough of writing for one day http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

JN006
09-12-2006, 10:16 PM
Originally posted by ifiwerearichman:

Wow... don't I look stupid http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif. But as for Oblivion, I don't think Bethesda should merit ALL the praise they received from a visual point of view because a lot of modelling+texturing scenes, such as vegetation and character expressions, were pre-done using third party tools such as SpeedTree and FaceGen respectively. Still, its remarkable how realistic the day/night transition are as well as the massive varriation of character design. Grr... don't get me started with games published by EA. I loved the original Medal of Honor game (even graphics wise), but they made the expansions way too quickly and as a result, I got left behind while playing 'catch-up'. Now-a-days, EA published games such as Battlefield lacks the essential substance that seperates a good looking game from an over hyped-money hungry-massive corporation of a game. So I suppose they both LOOK good, but neither game offers anything revolutionary as they both incorporate a-now-all-too-common pseudo-visual techniques such as bump mapping. In my opinion, the next step to extending the realism of a game after graphics, would be to substitute animations through computational physics (rather then vice versa). Too often I play 'good looking games' only to be disappointed by bland animations (ex. smoke by fire). I suppose that this would be asking for quite a bit in this day of age, especially when the field of geometric level set methods is all too new. But watching the example videos done by Ronald Fedkiw on computational physics has helped me to realize that this is very much attainable. Btw, here are some of Fedkiw's vids:
http://graphics.stanford.edu/~fedkiw/ (http://graphics.stanford.edu/%7Efedkiw/)

Thanks for the pretty cool link! I'll check it out soon. Futures of graphics is this generation of console! There is a real potentiel of making awesome looking games when that is the goal of the production. The lighting techniques used for the next-gen games gives so much instead of the old vertex lighting. That's really immersive. Regarding graphics the normal maps is still working well but the paralax mapping is the thing! I'd say that mocap still does a real cool job and that it's possible to get awesome result with it. What still need to be pushed further is the blending between animations so that it's fluid and reactive to the joystiq in a realistic way.

I do share you opinion on EA, as I'm a little disapointed of the game they've shipped with the power and ressource they got! Henry Ford would be proud of their way of making games. They have 6500 peoples working for the shop worldwide, revenues over 3.1 billions in '05... Come on... impress me a little! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif I'm waiting for Crysis big time (only published by EA...pfff!) and hope it ends up as well as what I've seen so far! (Little disapointed about the interior environnement but outdoors are juste insane... but... AC's better http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif )
Let's hope EA is not pushing Crytek to hard, rushing the game to be shipped for a specific fiscal quarter (Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4) so they get to push the game 'til the edge!

ifiwerearichman
09-13-2006, 12:19 AM
Hmm, I'm not too keen on the whole "parallax mapping" technique as the illusion is perceptive based and thusly, only works when viewing an object at a certain angle. I can, however, understand that bump mapping and other applicable techniques (normal+parallax mapping) is essential in offering dynamic graphics to low res. meshes (I'm hoping though that it will become less and less apparent in the coming years). I'm also looking forward to the next video card flagships supporting DirectX 10 with its integration of unified shaders (geometry shaders?) to further extend the realism of lighting and shading. As far as animations go, mocop does offer some pretty realistic character movement (not to mention how much time it saves) but IMO, there is no substitution to computer generated animations, especially after seeing footage of this one animation program being integrated into the new Indiana Jones game (ugh, can't believe I forgot the name of the program!). I do agree with you on how good the game Crysis looks (looks like you guys have a little friendly competition), but hearing an employee mentioning to the media that the PS3 and XBOX 360 are too weak to run the game, I've become quite frightened as to what the min. spec is going to be. Well, I better shut up now as I'm sure you've become annoyed at me seeming to 'share different opinions' with roughly everything you talked about not to mentioned straying from the topic subject so I'm off to bed (stupid classes...).

Edit: Found it! The program is called Endorphin and was developed by NaturalMotion Ltd. Here's a link if anyone's interested (perhaps Ubisoft should jump on the band wagon *hint, hint*):
http://www.naturalmotion.com/index.htm
Hmm... they seem to have a trail software of it, definitly worth taking a little gander at http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif.

JN006
09-13-2006, 11:27 AM
Originally posted by ifiwerearichman:
Hmm, I'm not too keen on the whole "parallax mapping" technique as the illusion is perceptive based and thusly, only works when viewing an object at a certain angle. I can, however, understand that bump mapping and other applicable techniques (normal+parallax mapping) is essential in offering dynamic graphics to low res. meshes (I'm hoping though that it will become less and less apparent in the coming years). I'm also looking forward to the next video card flagships supporting DirectX 10 with its integration of unified shaders (geometry shaders?) to further extend the realism of lighting and shading. As far as animations go, mocop does offer some pretty realistic character movement (not to mention how much time it saves) but IMO, there is no substitution to computer generated animations, especially after seeing footage of this one animation program being integrated into the new Indiana Jones game (ugh, can't believe I forgot the name of the program!). I do agree with you on how good the game Crysis looks (looks like you guys have a little friendly competition), but hearing an employee mentioning to the media that the PS3 and XBOX 360 are too weak to run the game, I've become quite frightened as to what the min. spec is going to be. Well, I better shut up now as I'm sure you've become annoyed at me seeming to 'share different opinions' with roughly everything you talked about not to mentioned straying from the topic subject so I'm off to bed (stupid classes...). I'm not annoyed of your different opinion as this is the purpose of a forum. Since your share your thoughts without downgradding mine, IT'S ALL GOOD http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I do remember the link I've seen about Crysis high requirement and possibly not able to run on current next-gen consoles... pfff! Damn it! They're aiming to high and might not sale enough copy to generate profit about it!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

ifiwerearichman
10-06-2006, 06:20 PM
http://www.gametrailers.com/viewnews.php?id=3676
Crytek just pulled a John Kerry... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif.