This is what people's desire for better tech causes

http://www.gamedaily.com/articles/news/deering-blockbuster-games-need-to-be-over-100/

Ready to drop $90 on Modern Warefare 2 or more?

http://www.industrygamers.com/news/koticks-ps3-comments-underscore-broken-business-model-says-dfc/

“Companies like Activision Blizzard have relied on the hardware manufacturers to spend billions to subsidize development of the marketplace into which they sell their products. However, for Sony and Microsoft this business model no longer works as they sell their hardware at a loss and do not have a way to make up for it on software. Long term this is the biggest issue facing the established game industry.”

http://www.industrygamers.com/news/ubisoft-estimates-60-million-for-next-generation-titles/

60 mill is quite a bit. “The next generation is going to be so powerful that playing a game is going to be the equivalent of playing a CGI movie today,” This I can agree with because its close to what happened with Xbox 360 and PS3 although thats a little exagerated because they can’t get amazing camera angles like in CGI not effecive way to play a game.

“Such processing power comes at a price… literally. While most current generation games cost between $20 - $30 million to produce, Guillemot expects the number to effectively double to $60 million for next-generation games.”

You think 60 bucks is bad how bout $120.

His logic is flawed b/c the most of the big blockbusters sell tons of units and easily make back their investments. Fucking Modern Warfare sold 14 million copies hell let’s be nice and round the cost DOWN from $60 to $40 and that’s still 560 million in sales.

If Modern Warfare cost more than 560 million bucks to make then something is srsly wrong at Activision.

And with Modern Warfare 2 costing more in the UK that has everything to do with the total collapse of their retail industry due to the economy and their currency. That’s why Nintendo also RAISED the price of the Wii to retailers there.

[quote=“sbf717”]His logic is flawed b/c the most of the big blockbusters sell tons of units and easily make back their investments. Fucking Modern Warfare sold 14 million copies hell let’s be nice and round the cost DOWN from $60 to $40 and that’s still 560 million in sales.

If Modern Warfare cost more than 560 million bucks to make then something is srsly wrong at Activision.

And with Modern Warfare 2 costing more in the UK that has everything to do with the total collapse of their retail industry due to the economy and their currency. That’s why Nintendo also RAISED the price of the Wii to retailers there.[/quote]

Sorry but not every console title that they push big money into makes it big in fact alot of them don’t do so well. Well yes it is Europe which kind of gets screwed with prices anyways but 20-30 Million to 60 million is quite a jump regardless.

Its a big problem anyways at 60 Million investment cost some smaller companies cannot afford that anyways. Modern Warefare 2 is very popular not every game is going to get nearly that. Another thing is notice how some games are getting shorter, less content, more DLC, ECT.

Whores.

They were saying this back in the SNES days, and I remember them saying this back in the Gamecube days as well.

I think were not going to see the “Next generation” for longer than most people think.

This is what I predict anyways.

Just to let you guys know, it really can’t get any better looking. I mean, it can, but were starting to edge out here. I can’t imagine being blown away by the PS4, like I was when the PS3 came out.

Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo are not going to release a product thats going to cost that much, and have games cost that much.

This is retarded, who ever made this story should be shot.

“It’s the economy?”

[quote=“JPjuice23”]They were saying this back in the SNES days, and I remember them saying this back in the Gamecube days as well.

I think were not going to see the “Next generation” for longer than most people think.

This is what I predict anyways.

Just to let you guys know, it really can’t get any better looking. I mean, it can, but were starting to edge out here. I can’t imagine being blown away by the PS4, like I was when the PS3 came out.

Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo are not going to release a product thats going to cost that much, and have games cost that much.

This is retarded, who ever made this story should be shot.[/quote]

So you don’t think companies are going to try and make better graphics again? Making better graphics=Costs more money. They aren’t going to release expensive products? Thats what I thought about videogame companies this gen and they proved me wrong I did not think we’d see game consoles over $300 or games over $50 I even thought Wii was going to be $199.99 but they messed that up by including Wii Sports.

Yes, but theres always been consoles at that price. The Neo Geo was 650 bucks when it launched, that was about 20 years ago.

The games are more pricey now, but games today have more content than the games back in the day, so I’m fine with the higher price, infact, if anything, games are more cheaper now, because your getting more content for the price.

But regardless, if a game costs way too much, no one will buy that game. Its common sense. This is why the Wii is at top. It has nothing to do with graphics, or technology.

[quote=“JPjuice23”]Yes, but theres always been consoles at that price. The Neo Geo was 650 bucks when it launched, that was about 20 years ago.

The games are more pricey now, but games today have more content than the games back in the day, so I’m fine with the higher price, infact, if anything, games are more cheaper now, because your getting more content for the price.

But regardless, if a game costs way too much, no one will buy that game. Its common sense. This is why the Wii is at top. It has nothing to do with graphics, or technology.[/quote]

Yes there has been consoles at high prices and look at the failure they are. Some games have more content but from last gen I think content went down a little from what I’m seeing.

Here’s the thing though…Production costs aren’t going to sky rocket. They may jump a bit in price for the developer to upgrade, but I don’t see the price of games doubling to make up for the extra cost.

The great thing about technology is that with time it becomes cheaper as more advance technology is released. And even this “advanced” technology may only have a very slight difference compared to its previous version. We all already know that the processors in the current generation of systems were already falling behind the PC processors that came out at the same time. So if a developer just invests in a better processor- but not the best one out there -, we’ll see a noticeable difference in graphics but without the top-notch cost.

Then on top of that, game engines evolve all the time. If you look at a game series with multiple installations during a set generation, you can see the improvements of how the game looks and flows over the years as developers better improve what was there. Yet, each installment is still released at the standard price.

Oh and by the way, games have always been in the $40-$60 price range with budget titles coming in at the $20-$30 range. My copy of Zombies Ate my Neighbors from KB back in the early 90s still has its price tag on it. It was marked down to $39.99 from $54.99. And that was this:
[align=center][/align]

Upon which I spend the same amount of money for this:

[align=center][/align]

So yeah…Regardless of how much game production improves, the retail price has always been about the same.

[quote=“Kumiko”]Here’s the thing though…Production costs aren’t going to sky rocket. They may jump a bit in price for the developer to upgrade, but I don’t see the price of games doubling to make up for the extra cost.

The great thing about technology is that with time it becomes cheaper as more advance technology is released. And even this “advanced” technology may only have a very slight difference compared to its previous version. We all already know that the processors in the current generation of systems were already falling behind the PC processors that came out at the same time. So if a developer just invests in a better processor- but not the best one out there -, we’ll see a noticeable difference in graphics but without the top-notch cost.

Then on top of that, game engines evolve all the time. If you look at a game series with multiple installations during a set generation, you can see the improvements of how the game looks and flows over the years as developers better improve what was there. Yet, each installment is still released at the standard price.

Oh and by the way, games have always been in the $40-$60 price range with budget titles coming in at the $20-$30 range. My copy of Zombies Ate my Neighbors from KB back in the early 90s still has its price tag on it. It was marked down to $39.99 from $54.99. And that was this:
[align=center][/align]

Upon which I spend the same amount of money for this:

[align=center][/align]

So yeah…Regardless of how much game production improves, the retail price has always been about the same.[/quote]

I’m not so sure you understood the concept. Production costs aren’t going to skyrocket isn’t that what the articles I posted actually say has happened? either way 30 million to 60 million is double if that isn’t a skyrocket I don’t know what is unless you were expecting it to be billions or something. If they aren’t raising prices of games that means double the costs for the same income which means less profit. If its not a problem why are studios and such going under and talking about some of their games having disappointing sales. Yes games have been in the $40-$60 range the difference now is companies aren’t as well off as they used to be. Seriously why do you think companies are posting negatives unless you think their games are really bad.

Seriously PS2 was $300 at launch vs PS3’s $600 at launch double the price is a big difference what happens when PS4 is $800+ because of the tech. Not to mention Sony lost tons of money on it more than they gained on the PS2 previously which is quite sad.

Not every game can be a Halo, Mario or God of War, ECT. If their costs increase game makers are going to raise prices on games or do some other thing such as remove content, make shorter games, ect to make up for the fact they have to pay more.

You’re ignoring the fact that the PS2 was a gaming system, technically, the PS3 is a multi-media device. The price jump didn’t come from the fact that games look better and they needed to charge more to make up for better processors. The price jump came from the fact that the PS3 had built in wireless, a web browser, a Blu-ray player as well as a normal DVD player, SD slots, and played music that you could install onto a harddrive, as well as the harddrive itself. This is compared to the PS2 that just played games, normal DVDs, and you could get online if you paid for the additional add ons until Sony gained enough of a profit to include a built-in network card into the system but even with that, it was still limited to just Ethernet over Wi-Fi like the PS3. The PS2’s memory was also limited to individual memory that was on available in either 8MB or 32MB cards compared to the PS3 with built-in memory expanding from 20 to 160Gigs.

Yes, this is an improvement in technology but this is unnecessary technology. While I will say that Blu-ray in a PS3 does offer developers more space per disc, the over all add-ons for the system are completely unneeded with the exception of internet access since online gaming seems to have become a standard.

If all these features were removed from the systems, the cost of them would be less.

[quote=“Kumiko”]You’re ignoring the fact that the PS2 was a gaming system, technically, the PS3 is a multi-media device. The price jump didn’t come from the fact that games look better and they needed to charge more to make up for better processors. The price jump came from the fact that the PS3 had built in wireless, a web browser, a Blu-ray player as well as a normal DVD player, SD slots, and played music that you could install onto a harddrive, as well as the harddrive itself. This is compared to the PS2 that just played games, normal DVDs, and you could get online if you paid for the additional add ons until Sony gained enough of a profit to include a built-in network card into the system but even with that, it was still limited to just Ethernet over Wi-Fi like the PS3. The PS2’s memory was also limited to individual memory that was on available in either 8MB or 32MB cards compared to the PS3 with built-in memory expanding from 20 to 160Gigs.

Yes, this is an improvement in technology but this is unnecessary technology. While I will say that Blu-ray in a PS3 does offer developers more space per disc, the over all add-ons for the system are completely unneeded with the exception of internet access since online gaming seems to have become a standard.

If all these features were removed from the systems, the cost of them would be less.[/quote]

Well thats a first. Your the first person who’s told me Blu-ray doesn’t do squat for games. PS3 being a multi-media device well isn’t that part of the tech as well? Bulit in Wireless isn’t nearly that expensive even Wii has that the only real argument of price increase is Blu-ray and well since Microsoft doesn’t have blu-ray whats the excuse on the 360 launch? Also you think game manufacturers really wanted to increase game prices by $10 I seriously doubt it they did that because they felt the need to do so and I figured that was pretty damn conservative. You say its the add on’s I say its the price of putting more work into making the games pretty but oh well. Either way if it were really about the add-ons why do game companies that don’t make hardware feel the crunch? Its not like they put hardware parts out its pretty clear the software is getting more expensive for them. Maybe you didn’t notice the extreme amount of games that end up being PS3/Xbox 360 now I’m not so sure thats because Microsoft is doing an amazing job or Sony is necessarily doing an extremely poor one. I think its because well they can’t afford to do anything else.

Actually, I did mention that Blu-ray gives developers more space per disc which can be used either for more content or more room to improve graphics if desired. Such as back when The Darkness first came out, Star Breeze mentioned how they could include a couple more hours of TV shows/movies to the PS3 version over the XBox360 version due to the space on a Blu-ray disc but they choose not to because they felt there was no need to make the two version that different.

And I did say that the add-ons were apart of the system’s technology but it’s unneeded for the core purpose of the system. I don’t need my system to bake me a bagel while I play Call of Duty. Would I like it to? Yeah sure, why not? But I don’t need it to; the bagel baker wouldn’t effect whether or not I could play my game.

And yes…I know the difference in games released. I do work in video game retail…I am around just about any game that has come out in the past 3 years every day…Though I’m a bit confused by what you’re trying to say…

Are you saying that the reason why the XBox360 tends to have more titles over the PS3 is because of the price difference between the systems? Or is it something else?

[quote=“Kumiko”]Actually, I did mention that Blu-ray gives developers more space per disc which can be used either for more content or more room to improve graphics if desired. Such as back when The Darkness first came out, Star Breeze mentioned how they could include a couple more hours of TV shows/movies to the PS3 version over the XBox360 version due to the space on a Blu-ray disc but they choose not to because they felt there was no need to make the two version that different.

And I did say that the add-ons were apart of the system’s technology but it’s unneeded for the core purpose of the system. I don’t need my system to bake me a bagel while I play Call of Duty. Would I like it to? Yeah sure, why not? But I don’t need it to; the bagel baker wouldn’t effect whether or not I could play my game.

And yes…I know the difference in games released. I do work in video game retail…I am around just about any game that has come out in the past 3 years every day…Though I’m a bit confused by what you’re trying to say…

Are you saying that the reason why the XBox360 tends to have more titles over the PS3 is because of the price difference between the systems? Or is it something else?[/quote]

Well It gives more space which mean less compression really or multiple languages, ECT it doesn’t improve graphics it makes them less compressed if thats how you want to explain it but really having more space doesn’t improve graphics it lets you have less refined or compressed code.

You say its not needed but lets face it people don’t think that way its why everyone complains Wii doesn’t do Feature X because technically none of that stuff is needed yet people are clamoring for all kinds of stuff like twitter on XBL, ECT.

I’m trying to say that developers are making their PS3 and Xbox 360 titles for both platforms because there is economic pressure on them to do so its actually my explanation as to why alot of games seem to go multiplatform. I think its worse for software developers rather than hardware makers really. Again like Movie budgets have gone pretty high the same thing is going to happen with videogames as this goes on you know those sequels people don’t like I wouldn’t be surprised if we saw even more next gen.

So you’re saying that if the economy was more stable, we’d see an increase in exclusives?

Probably then again I can’t know exactly why these companies choose the paths they did but I feel as though its partially because of the way the market is. Its not the economy as a whole either its their development costs if they were lower I think they’d be more inclined to make something exclusive not to mention we’d see them trying more things. Can’t really get to focus on core mechanics when all people want to know is it the best looking title at the time.

[quote=“Kumiko”]And I did say that the add-ons were apart of the system’s technology but it’s unneeded for the core purpose of the system. I don’t need my system to bake me a bagel while I play Call of Duty. Would I like it to? Yeah sure, why not? But I don’t need it to; the bagel baker wouldn’t effect whether or not I could play my game.
[/quote]
The PS3Grill however, is essential to CoD4.

so I dont fully get this article. Does this thing say that next gen consoles will cost out the butt cause they will be so advanced? That just sounds like what happens every gen though and then as tech becomes more advanced the price drops. That has been how it is for a long time. Or is this aimed at the games being made not the consoles?

Their forgetting the fact that I highlighted in your post.

Technology becomes cheaper. A simple calculator used to be 500 bucks. Now, you can get them for free. The same thing is with video games, and other technology