The rising price of systems and their games...

[Nikita]

Ok, why is PS3 so expensive compared to PS2 a few years ago? Seriously, I don't get how they can justify the price. It's ridiculous. There's no way I can afford this system. Yes, I know greed. But what is the real reason for such a high price besides the obvious? Is PS3 that much more amazing then PS2, because the commercials I've seen for PS3 games look pretty much like PS2 games. I don't "see" much of a difference.

And why the low shipment? They only shipped like 200,000 PS3's for now?

Also, these games are on the same type of matrial as music CD's. So, why are new games $50 bucks each while new music CD's are only around $20?

I know, I know. Greed. But seriously, the pricing is out of control for games and game systems now.

[Matt]

The games are understandably more expensive than mere music CDs despite being distributed on the same type of media (is that true? I would have thought PS3 games would be on DVDs).

A LOT of work goes into each and every game title, a great deal more than music CDs - and each of those workers needs to be paid.

[Astonishing X-Fan]

Um...dude...Blu Ray? That's basically the answer to your questions. Blu Ray. The console is expensive because they put a Blu-Ray drive in it. The games are on Blu Ray discs(as far as I know, perhaps some are DVD as well).

There's no doubt that if they had not gone with Blu Ray, the PS3 would be closer to the 360 in price.

[BetterThanYou]

Good business sense.
You put out an initial run of limited numbers so you can justify a higher price, which help you recoup investment, development, and licensing costs more quickly.
Inevitably news stories go will out about the demand. Now everbody wants one, so you can start opening the tap in terms of shipments, lowering the price slightly as more product is shipped.
The hardcore gamers will pay through the nose so they take care of the initial runs. Once thats egment of the market is sated, the casual gamers come in later at the lower price. Eventually the market stabilises at a better price than you would have got if you had shipped heavy and cheap.

[Sanagi]

Somehow I doubt Sony would pass on selling a reasonable amount of their massively hyped system on black friday in the name of increasing demand on some other day.

[big_dippin]

Good business sense.
You put out an initial run of limited numbers so you can justify a higher price, which help you recoup investment, development, and licensing costs more quickly.
Inevitably news stories go will out about the demand. Now everbody wants one, so you can start opening the tap in terms of shipments, lowering the price slightly as more product is shipped.
The hardcore gamers will pay through the nose so they take care of the initial runs. Once thats egment of the market is sated, the casual gamers come in later at the lower price. Eventually the market stabilises at a better price than you would have got if you had shipped heavy and cheap.


The price for the systems won't be coming down.

[Paradox]

Astonishing X-Fan notes:

Um...dude...Blu Ray? That's basically the answer to your questions. Blu Ray. The console is expensive because they put a Blu-Ray drive in it. The games are on Blu Ray discs(as far as I know, perhaps some are DVD as well).

There's no doubt that if they had not gone with Blu Ray, the PS3 would be closer to the 360 in price.

Ah, in other words, Sony learned nothing from their Betamax debacle.


big_dippin seems a bit disconnected:

The price for the systems won't be coming down.

Of course they will. That's beyond even questioning. The only question is by how much.

[Fish Sauce]

The price for the systems won't be coming down.

There is no way that they won't be coming down.

--

I do believe that although console prices have gone up, the prices for games have remained pretty consistent for the last ten years.

[big_dippin]

The Xbox 360 has been out for a year now. Guess what, same price unless you really want to wait a long time to get it. In that case, your right. But another system will be coming out soon after.

[Sheldon]

I figure the reason why the Xbox 360 hasn't had a price drop is due to the high price of the PS3. They have no motivation to do it, if they still beat the price by a couple hundred bucks.

[TransformersFan]

even the price of the 360 has not dropped, at least they are offering system/game bundles now. I saw one ad that had the core console selling with free games including Ghost Recon, and Gears of War.

[Leslie Lee III]

There's no way I can afford this system.

Then don't buy one. Buy PS2 games. There are numerous great ones that just came out and a few more coming out in the near future. Plust there are TONS that are now dirt cheap used. No one's putting a gun to your head and saying you have to upgrade this Christmas or eve next Christmas. Lots are under that impression, but it's simply not the case.

[Novaya Havoc]

Then don't buy one. Buy PS2 games. There are numerous great ones that just came out and a few more coming out in the near future. Plust there are TONS that are now dirt cheap used. No one's putting a gun to your head and saying you have to upgrade this Christmas or eve next Christmas. Lots are under that impression, but it's simply not the case.

Exactly. I'm fine with my PS2 for the next two years or so.

[Leslie Lee III]

Between Valkyrie Profile II, Xenosaga 1, 2, 3, FF X, X-2, XII, Shin Megamai 1-85, and Shadow Hearts 2 and 3 I'll be playing PS2 games still by the time PS4 is out. And that's just the RPGs.

Even the Sony spokesperson bragged that the PS2 would be best selling console worldwide this season and stated that Sony was still offering things for people who weren't "early adopters" of the PS3 and would pick it up in the years to come.

[Xero Kaiser]

There's no way I can afford this system. Yes, I know greed. But what is the real reason for such a high price besides the obvious?

Like everyone said, Blu-Ray

And why the low shipment? They only shipped like 200,000 PS3's for now?

Problems/shortage of chips or something

Also, these games are on the same type of matrial as music CD's. So, why are new games $50 bucks each while new music CD's are only around $20?

Uhhh..no they aren't. CDs and Blu-Ray DVDs are different things. And a game costs a hell of a lot more money to put out than a CD. That's like asking why an airplane is more expensive than a lolipop. C'mon now...

Between Valkyrie Profile II, Xenosaga 1, 2, 3, FF X, X-2, XII, Shin Megamai 1-85, and Shadow Hearts 2 and 3 I'll be playing PS2 games still by the time PS4 is out. And that's just the RPGs.


Bleh, after God of War 2 comes out, the PS2 is dead to me

[Michael P]

Game prices haven't actually changed that much since the cartridge days. $30-$50 on average, with the better titles of course being more expensive. And all the consoles have "Greatest Hits" programs where eventually popular titles go down to $20.

[Xero Kaiser]

Hell, some games used to hit the $70 mark (mostly SNES and N64 ones). If anything, game prices have gone down. And console prices (aside from the PS3) haven't changed much either. The saturn was $400 and the PS1 was $300 when they launched. Dunno what the fuss is about unless you're talking about what the NES and genesis cost

[cactusmaac]

Ok, why is PS3 so expensive compared to PS2 a few years ago? Seriously, I don't get how they can justify the price. It's ridiculous. There's no way I can afford this system. Yes, I know greed. But what is the real reason for such a high price besides the obvious? Is PS3 that much more amazing then PS2, because the commercials I've seen for PS3 games look pretty much like PS2 games. I don't "see" much of a difference.

BluRay drive.


And why the low shipment? They only shipped like 200,000 PS3's for now?


They've had problems getting enough lasers for the BluRay drive.


Also, these games are on the same type of matrial as music CD's. So, why are new games $50 bucks each while new music CD's are only around $20?

I know, I know. Greed. But seriously, the pricing is out of control for games and game systems now.

Huh? The cost of the material is insignificant when it comes to the price of the game. Next-gen systems demand games with high-end graphics, music, online capability and scripts. All of these cost money.

In any case, adjusted for inflation, systems and games aren't any more expesnive than they were ten or twenty years ago.

[Leslie Lee III]

Hell, some games used to hit the $70 mark (mostly SNES and N64 ones). If anything, game prices have gone down. And console prices (aside from the PS3) haven't changed much either. The saturn was $400 and the PS1 was $300 when they launched. Dunno what the fuss is about unless you're talking about what the NES and genesis cost

My parents dropped $80 on FFIII for me for Christmas.

[Serik]

Games cost so much because they're not cheap to design (especially the big budget titles).

What really pisses me, though, is that a lot of digital distribution games over Steam actually cost more than hard copies. It undoubtedly costs less to distribute over the Internet, but instead of passing these savings on to us, they pocket the extra money by charging us $49.99. If they did the "more for less" strategy, they could sell electronic downloads for $20-30 and push the market away from hard copies for good.

Edit: As Leslie said, PS2 game prices are dropping fast. I haven't bought a PS2 game in years because I was waiting for the moment when used games would hit the $8-20 range. But if you don't act fast, prices will actually increase in the coming years as PS2 games enter the "eBay collector's market." All sorts of old PS1, SNES, and N64 games on eBay are going for $40 - 60 now. Hell, even Disgaea, a PS2 game, is going for $70 - 100 used right now. It's a matter of buying at just the right moment. And if you really want to search for deals, I suggest www.cheapassgamer.com

[Xero Kaiser]

If they did the "more for less" strategy, they could sell electronic downloads for $20-30 and push the market away from hard copies for good.

Until broadband is as common as dial-up, that won't be happening anytime soon.

[Serik]

Until broadband is as common as dial-up, that won't be happening anytime soon.

True. But digital distributors aren't even winning over current broadband users. Why pay Steam or Fileplanet $50 for Medieval Total War 2 when I can get it in the store for the same price (or less) with the manual, jewel case, and CDs?

Same goes for Amazon's dumbassed movie download service. Ya, I'm going to pay $18-20 to download a low quality, DRM-riddled movie that sells for $10 at Wal-Mart.

It'll take years - decades even - for hard copies to vanish entirely. But the dinosaurs in charge aren't helping matters.

[Astonishing X-Fan]

Why the hell should I even WANT hard copies to go away. I LIKE hard copies. I'll take a case and a disc that I can look at over a file on a hard drive any day. I'd much rather look at my collection, with the box art and packaging, over a list of names.

And it kills the fun of going to the store and browsing the shelves, chatting with the employees, and stumbling across that game you've always wanted on sale for really, really cheap.

[SwordChucksMaster78]

Hopefully, the games won't be like Superman 64, expensive ($70) and awful.

[Paradox]

Serik wants a dream internetverse:

It'll take years - decades even - for hard copies to vanish entirely. But the dinosaurs in charge aren't helping matters.

I find it unlikely they'll ever disappear. Same with books.

[Xero Kaiser]

True. But digital distributors aren't even winning over current broadband users. Why pay Steam or Fileplanet $50 for Medieval Total War 2 when I can get it in the store for the same price (or less) with the manual, jewel case, and CDs?

Yeah. The fact that Steam shutting down (should it ever happen) screws you out of any games you bought off of it doesn't make it any better. It'd be like a company coming into your house and taking back all the stuff you bought from them.

[Thanos_6383]

Hell, some games used to hit the $70 mark (mostly SNES and N64 ones). If anything, game prices have gone down. And console prices (aside from the PS3) haven't changed much either. The saturn was $400 and the PS1 was $300 when they launched. Dunno what the fuss is about unless you're talking about what the NES and genesis cost

Exactly.I remember getting Mike Tysons Punch-Out almost 20 years ago for $44.99.I don't think prices have changed that much since.

[Adem]

Between Valkyrie Profile II, Xenosaga 1, 2, 3, FF X, X-2, XII, Shin Megamai 1-85, and Shadow Hearts 2 and 3 I'll be playing PS2 games still by the time PS4 is out.

Me too. If Sony keeps putting out games like Okami and Bully, which I still have to get, for the PS2 I won't be buying a PS3 anytime soon. Even if they stop making good games for PS2 I don't plan on buying a PS3 until the price drops drastically.

[The Fury]

There has been mention in this thread (and others) that with the new consoles now out the PS2 has had a price drop. With it's price at an all time low it's a brilliant console for it's money. Especially becuase you can get so many bloody games for it. And in the UK FF12 isn;t even out yet.

I like many aren't going to be buying a PS3 for a while (or a 360 or a Wii). I'm stikcing with my Ps2 and it's brilliant games for a long time to come.

And I hope that the PS2 whipes the floor with the 360, Wii and PS3 this Chrimbo.

[cactusmaac]

Why?

.........

[The Fury]

Why?

.........
Be funny? ... *shrugs*

[Gilda Dent]

The smaller apparent jump in quality between the PS2 and PS3 is due to diminishing returns.

The first generation of home console use white blips on a square screen, and had one basic kind of game play. The second generation, the Atari 2600, was a huge leap in terms of both game play flexibility and graphical quality. Third generation (NES, Sega Master System) and fourth generation (SNES, Genesis) offered incremental increases, with some psuedo 3d coming on the SNES with games like Pilotwings and F-Zero, and 2d sprite based games looking very nice, to the point that further improvements would be mostly incremental. Fifth generation consoles split, with Sega going for the ultimate sprite machine in the Saturn and Sony jumping in with the first console dedicated to 3d graphics. Graphical quality went down a bit with the new technology, while a new type of gameplay was the big draw. Nintendo went a different route, staying with a softer, cartoony look and feel for their N64. Sixth generation games (Gamecube, X-Box, PS2) showed a similar improvement in graphical quality over the fifth as the fourth did over the third.

You're also going to see a bit of a learning curve on the new console. Designers are going to have to learn to exploit the hardware, which takes a year or two before you start seeing the best quality graphics.

Mostly it's that we're getting closer and closer to the limit, the point at which further improvements in graphical quality are nearly impossible to detect with the naked eye, and as you approach the limit, smaller increases in quality cost more and more in terms of technological advance. We're basically there with home display technology--1080p is, I suspect, going to be about as much detail as a person is capable of seeing. I'd guess that the next generation will see even less, possibly virtually no increase in noticable graphical quality with the bulk of the system going to improvements in game play. That is, unless a new technology similar to the leap from 2d to 3d is just around the corner. There probably is something. 3d movement with in live action filmed environments? Probably not, but I wouldn't be surprised if there is some new method of displaying things that will take precedence or polygonal 3d.

We're seeing the law of diminishing returns hit big time with this generation. It'll be even more prominent with the next.

[cactusmaac]

Maybe. We're still some ways away from total photorealism.

[Gilda Dent]

Maybe. We're still some ways away from total photorealism.

Sure, but the differences with each generation as we get closer are going to be smaller and smaller so long as we follow the same technological path.

True photorealism might require a different technology than texture mapped polygons, which would constitute a jump to a new technological path, and move us back a bit along the path, as we did with the jump from sprites to polygons.

[Sheldon]

I think the most I've ever spent on a video game was $90 Cdn for Street Fighter II when it came out on SNES. That was almost 15 years ago. I'm glad games haven't gotten that expensive since.

[P-Man]

I'm going to do some research. I can't really say how accurate it is, but here are some console costs according to an inflation calculator I found online at http://www.westegg.com/inflation/ This particular calculator only goes up to 2005, so actually the prices I'm listing should be slightly higher. Also, I'm getting the original prices from wikipedia, and you know how that goes.


NES $353.16
Genesis $308.30
SNES $295.98
PSX $381.68
N64 $241.55
PS2 $332.05
GC $215.82
XBox $324.97

So you see, the price of the most popular consoles have been pretty consistent. If you average these numbers it comes out to about $307. So, that means the Wii is below average, the 360 is above average, and the PS3 is WAY above average. Interestingly, Nintendo's launch price for every system except the Wii has been $199, so as you can see when adjusted for inflation that actually means Nintendo has been lowering the price for every new console they release.

If I could find the original retail price for some older games I'd do those too, but I'm not having much luck. I'll just throw out that like everybody else, I remember when SNES games like Final Fantasy 3 or Chrono Trigger could easily run around $75. When adjusted for inflation that comes to $93. So we're not doing too bad as far as game costs go.

If you still think game prices are too high I would suggest giving Gamefly a shot. Just rent something, and if you like it you can keep it and they ship the box and manual to you. This is the best way to buy used games because you know the game works because you've already been playing it, their prices are incredible, and you get the box and instructions in perfect condition.

[Xero Kaiser]

We're seeing the law of diminishing returns hit big time with this generation.

LAWL

We aren't at that point yet. Games like Gears of War, Unreal 2k7 or Crysis are ridiculously far beyond anything last-gen consoles could put out.

[Agent Helix]

They're not nearly as far beyond the leap from the 32-bit generation to the 128-bit generation, which is the point. Gears of War looks great, yeah. But so did a lot of games in the last generation. The progression is getting smaller and smaller, especially for those of us that have been playing PC games for a long time.

[RickThunderclees]

They're not nearly as far beyond the leap from the 32-bit generation to the 128-bit generation, which is the point. Gears of War looks great, yeah. But so did a lot of games in the last generation. The progression is getting smaller and smaller, especially for those of us that have been playing PC games for a long time.
Couldn't agree more with Agent Helix.

I have yet to see something from a next gen system (with the exception of Twilight Princess which will be released on GCN) that has made my bones shake. I most definitely do not feel the urge to fork out the cash for any of these systems yet...even though I am an old school console gamer yo'.

[Leslie Lee III]

I have yet to see something from a next gen system (with the exception of Twilight Princess which will be released on GCN) that has made my bones shake

People were talking graphics, and I don't think you are cause Twilight Princess most definitely isn't an example of next gen graphics.

As it is, I think there is a fairly obvious and fairly large leap in graphics from this gen to next. I should know considering I play PS2 and PC regularly right next to each other.

And for anyone wondering of Blu-Ray was worth it: Resistance: Fall of Man clocks in at 16GB.

[RickThunderclees]

People were talking graphics, and I don't think you are cause Twilight Princess most definitely isn't an example of next gen graphics.

As it is, I think there is a fairly obvious and fairly large leap in graphics from this gen to next. I should know considering I play PS2 and PC regularly right next to each other.

And for anyone wondering of Blu-Ray was worth it: Resistance: Fall of Man clocks in at 16GB.
You're right I wasn't speaking about graphics. I've been a fan of the Zelda series forever, that's why I'm anticipating it.

[cactusmaac]

Maybe there would be less questioning if Resistance looked much better than GOW.

[Agent Helix]

Yeah, I think there's an obvious graphical increase, but it's far less impressive to me than when the Playstation 2 came out. Gears of War doesn't look mind numbingly amazing in comparison to games that I've been playing for the past few years. We're reaching a plateau where graphics are getting about as good as they're going to get.

Now if developers would start trying to push gameplay forward, instead of just squeezing in as many polygons and mip-maps and whatevers.

[RickThunderclees]

Honestly, I thought the frame rate wasn't very good on the trailers I've seen of Resistance....then again, the only way we'll find out is by playing the game.

[Serik]

Now if developers would start trying to push gameplay forward, instead of just squeezing in as many polygons and mip-maps and whatevers.

Part of the reason I'm excited about this "graphics plateau" you guys have discussed is because it will hopefully encouraging devs to innovate when it comes to game design. Now that these graphics are almost ubiquitous, devs will focus on new gameplay to distinguish their product. I'd rather play more fun or entertaining game over the same crap only with sharper graphics.

[Leunames]

Good business sense.
You put out an initial run of limited numbers so you can justify a higher price, which help you recoup investment, development, and licensing costs more quickly.
Inevitably news stories go will out about the demand. Now everbody wants one, so you can start opening the tap in terms of shipments, lowering the price slightly as more product is shipped.
The hardcore gamers will pay through the nose so they take care of the initial runs. Once thats egment of the market is sated, the casual gamers come in later at the lower price. Eventually the market stabilises at a better price than you would have got if you had shipped heavy and cheap.

No actually that is not correct. For all the $599 pricepoint of the PS3, how many people know that Sony is LOSING $200 PER UNIT? Inputs for making the PS3 cost sony about $800 per console. I read this on an article on BBC News. So the reason for the high price-point is just superficially explained away by "greed" or "justification" of a higher price. Research, development, investment, etc. etc. are all sunk costs and have already been expensed by Sony. What they are interested in is generating immediate sales revenue. To be sure, building high demand and anticipation is critical for the success of any product, but it is POOR business strategy to have so much demand, yet intentionally restrict suplly so as to "justify" a higher price. The principal law of economics is to make supply and demand meet. Do you think Sony would generate more revenue with 200,000 units at a $600 price and excess demand, or would they generate more revenue with 1,000,000 units at $600 with still excess demand?

The point is if you have a chance to generate revenue now, you take that option. A sale is a lowering of price to generate revenue sooner rather than later. The trade off is some customer coming along in the future who is willing to pay the full price. But when will that customer come? Next week? Next month? Next year? This is time value of money: a dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow. Sony would be eviscerated by shareholders if they purposely withheld units just to justify a high pricepoint. And also consider the 94% plummet in net income for Sony Corp that they announced a few months ago. Withdholding PS3's, and their associated revenue, would not improve the image of the company in the least.

Sony execs have repeatedly stated that despite the PS3's price of $599, it is an excellent value, considering it is also a blu-ray player. Check out how much Sony's current stand alone blu-ray player is...it's available for $999. And that's just the player.

So if sony loses $200 per unit, how do they make money, after they factor in their costs? The answer is in an economic strategy called razor and blade. Simply put, you buy a razor for cheap. But inevitably you will buy blades for the razors, and the blades themselves are inexpensive to manufacture yet are relatively expensive. Yet you still buy them, because that is the only way to use your razor.

Same thing with the PS3. Each game sold generates a certain amount of revenue for Sony. Obviously the marginal costs associated with producing a game, as well as the manufacture of the blu-ray disc itself, are not as much as the market price for 1 game, which is about $60. Therefore Sony keeps this money and essentially they are recouping the $200 loss on their consoles through sales of games.

So you see it behooves Sony to sell as many consoles as possible now, because there are not many games available for the system currently. The more people buy the system, the more people buy the games, etc. etc.


And all of this doesn't even begin to approach the fact that the holiday season is upon us, and any executive who orders supplies of a high-demand product to be restricted on purpose should be fired and his/her job given to someone else immediately.

[Xero Kaiser]

Gears of War doesn't look mind numbingly amazing in comparison to games that I've been playing for the past few years.

What did you play that everyone else seems to have missed?

They're not nearly as far beyond the leap from the 32-bit generation to the 128-bit generation, which is the point

Doesn't seem like that to me. Line up Vagrant Story, FF12 and Gears of War and if anything the jump seems bigger, especially as far as detail is concerned. I don't know how anyone can look at Drakengard and then look at Lair and act like that wasn't a massive jump

[Nikita]

Like everyone said, Blu-Ray



Problems/shortage of chips or something



Uhhh..no they aren't. CDs and Blu-Ray DVDs are different things. And a game costs a hell of a lot more money to put out than a CD. That's like asking why an airplane is more expensive than a lolipop. C'mon now...



Bleh, after God of War 2 comes out, the PS2 is dead to me



I don't know what "Blu-Ray DVD's" are. Why are they so much more expensive then "regular" DVD's ?

[Leslie Lee III]

I don't know what "Blu-Ray DVD's" are. Why are they so much more expensive then "regular" DVD's ?

www.wikipedia.org/wiki/bluray

[Nikita]

www.wikipedia.org/wiki/bluray


Ohhhhh. Damn, that site has everything. I still think the $599 for a new PS3 is too high darnit. So, I'll just stick with my PS2 for now.

[kal_el21]

I'll wait until after the holidays to get a next-gen system and even then it'll probably be the 360, only because I'm still a little cautious that the Wii may still be working out bugs. Sony is taking a huge risk by using the Blu-Ray format. Stand alone Blu-Ray players are for the serious home theatre junky, not as accessible as DVD players were when the PS2 hit stores. At least then DVD players had started their price drop to less than $200 and the library was fastly growing. This allowed Sony to somewhat was then and for awhile the $300 price tag. Blu-Ray may never take off simply because from what I've been told is that standard DVD's are not backwards compatible with BR players. The PS2 was both a game console and a DVD player. The PS3 is pretty much just a game console. Also, I'm a little upset that games are now in the $60 range. Mark my words, this will KILL the gaming industry in the near future. I live alone, make a modest salary and save a ton on my rent and utilities. I still can only afford one game every three or four months. The secondary markets great but studios see none of that. I say choose wisely with the next-gen selection, I wouldn't be surprised if the regular four year laps between consoles is extended considerably.

That is just my opinion. I'm over thirty now and could be just acting my age.

[kal_el21]

I'll wait until after the holidays to get a next-gen system and even then it'll probably be the 360, only because I'm still a little cautious that the Wii may still be working out bugs. Sony is taking a huge risk by using the Blu-Ray format. Stand alone Blu-Ray players are for the serious home theatre junky, not as accessible as DVD players were when the PS2 hit stores. At least then DVD players had started their price drop to less than $200 and the library was fastly growing. This allowed Sony to somewhat was then and for awhile the $300 price tag. Blu-Ray may never take off simply because from what I've been told is that standard DVD's are not backwards compatible with BR players. The PS2 was both a game console and a DVD player. The PS3 is pretty much just a game console. Also, I'm a little upset that games are now in the $60 range. Mark my words, this will KILL the gaming industry in the near future. I live alone, make a modest salary and save a ton on my rent and utilities. I still can only afford one game every three or four months. The secondary markets great but studios see none of that. I say choose wisely with the next-gen selection, I wouldn't be surprised if the regular four year laps between consoles is extended considerably.

That is just my opinion. I'm over thirty now and could be just acting my age.

[Leslie Lee III]

Blu-Ray may never take off simply because from what I've been told is that standard DVD's are not backwards compatible with BR players.

You should stop listening to whoever told you that, because it's absolutely wrong.

[Paradox]

And again I'll mention Betamax. It was a far superior system to VHS, but was ridiculously expensive, so VHS took over the market. I predict the same for Blue Ray.

[Agent Helix]

Blu-Ray may not take off because if Wal-Mart makes good on their threats not to carry the format, it will die.

[Serik]

Blu-Ray's initial failures are represented by the fact that so few people understand the damn format. I've noticed that people on tech sites and gaming forums have a hard time getting Blu-Ray, so I'm guessing the general population is totally clueless. I don't mean this in a negative way; Sony's PR has done a terrible job of explaining why we need another format so soon after DVD's wide-spread adoption. Hell, I don't understand HD TV/HD DVDs myself.

Plus Microsoft supports HD DVD. If WalMart does the same, Blu-Ray is S.O.L.

[The Fury]

Ohhhhh. Damn, that site has everything. I still think the $599 for a new PS3 is too high darnit. So, I'll just stick with my PS2 for now.
Indeed it does. And I too agree with you on the expensive front, and byt the time it comes out here, no doubt it will end up that us Brits will be throughtly ripped off compared to the rest of the world.

It is a great price at this current time for a Blu-Ray/DVD/PS3/PS2/PS1/a couple of other things player.

Blu-Ray may not take off because if Wal-Mart makes good on their threats not to carry the format, it will die.
Er...why? Why will it fail? How does one store based in the US only have that much power?

Here in the UK the giant known as TESCO is no where near the top of DVD sales.

Paradox, I also find it odd that you predict that Blu-ray will go the way of Betamax because it is expensive. The blu-ray movies and such alike are not more expensive then HD-DVD. At the moment it is only the players that are and we all know they will go down in time. Of course I'm sure that they will go now soon as why by a s Blu-ray only player for $800 when you can get a cheap Blu-ray and a PS3 in one for $600?

(You know I like the debate and conversations here at CBR, was reading some youtube posts the other day (the ones after videos and their arguements are just 'PS3 Sucks!!!" with a reply of "No, Wii Sucks!!!")

[Paradox]

The Fury wants to know why:

Paradox, I also find it odd that you predict that Blu-ray will go the way of Betamax because it is expensive. The blu-ray movies and such alike are not more expensive then HD-DVD. At the moment it is only the players that are and we all know they will go down in time. Of course I'm sure that they will go now soon as why by a s Blu-ray only player for $800 when you can get a cheap Blu-ray and a PS3 in one for $600?

Well, part of it's just "one of those feelings". But, the more expensive players for sure, and they'll come down, but probably not down to the HD-DVD players, which will also go down. And they're having problems finding parts for even their "cheap" Blu-Ray. And it's a techy thing. For most people, the difference in quality is going to be "meh...I paid $300 extra bucks and I can't tell the difference". Much like when my friend the musician gets up and messes with the equalizer for twenty minutes, and we all roll our eyes and say "Oh, yeah, that's MUCH better now." When you're dealing with the general public, cheaper and easier generally wins the day. It's gotta be a BIG jump in quality for the average non-techie to even notice (say, the jump from cassettes to CDs).

And, really, how much quality do people need to watch most comedies and dramas? It only really shows up in big visual pictures, which most are not. Certainly you don't need Blu-Ray for the kids to watch the Lion King for the four hundredth time.

[The Fury]

And, really, how much quality do people need to watch most comedies and dramas? It only really shows up in big visual pictures, which most are not. Certainly you don't need Blu-Ray for the kids to watch the Lion King for the four hundredth time.
True yeah. but then the same can be said for HDDVD as the movies are the same price.

If the general public were really concerned with cheaper and easier like you say, then why are mobile phones now everything in one small package?

[Paradox]

Because they didn't hook the public with that, they hooked them with cheap simple phones and gradually upped the ante as cell phones became more and more a "necessity" (after they got them down to reasonable prices anyway **shudders at the thought of '80s "cellular" phones**). Heck, half of that is the fact that when you get cell service, they'll GIVE you the phone, and they keep upping the ante as to services that phone can get to compete with other companies. Very apples and oranges sitch there.

It's less about the tech and far more about marketing.

[Urusai Wrangler]

Er...why? Why will it fail? How does one store based in the US only have that much power?


Because we gave it to them. Music companies will edit CDs for content so Wal-Mart will carry them, and Wal-mart was also responsible for the downsizing and standardization of PC game boxes. Wal-Mart not carrying your media is a retail kiss of death.

[cactusmaac]

A big problem with HD-DVD\Blu-Ray is the need to buy a TV set that can adequately showcase the heightened quality of the visuals. Until prices for those and the players go down, I doubt they'll make much inroad into the conventional DVD market. Especially since I saw an Alba DVD player going for £18 at a supermarket.

Personally the only movies I really want to get on HD are Star Wars and Hero. For the rest, I'm not too bothered.

[The Fury]

It's less about the tech and far more about marketing.
Okay...you got a point with the whole 'Here have the phone for free as long as you sign this £40 a month contract." :p

But as things moved on the demand was there, I think that is phones stayd their cheap 2 bit screens, while people will do fine with they, they would demand more. Technology gets better and people want to have that technology. Blu-Ray/HDDVD will be the same.

Because we gave it to them. Music companies will edit CDs for content so Wal-Mart will carry them, and Wal-mart was also responsible for the downsizing and standardization of PC game boxes. Wal-Mart not carrying your media is a retail kiss of death.
Why did you do that? That was silly.

[Paradox]

The Fury overestimates Americans:

But as things moved on the demand was there, I think that is phones stayd their cheap 2 bit screens, while people will do fine with they, they would demand more. Technology gets better and people want to have that technology. Blu-Ray/HDDVD will be the same.

Except it doesn't work that way. Like Highlander, "There can be only one!". One of them will outsell the other at the onset and become the "standard". One of them will either disappear or become a small niche market. For mass sales, the distributors and manufacturers will back the horse in the lead, like they always do.

[cactusmaac]

I think manufacturers will offer players capable of playing both formats, making the war a moot one.

[Paradox]

And then what would be the point of having two?

History says "I doubt it".

[The Fury]

Random comment: I just re-read my post above...man did i make a lot of typos.

Otherwise back to thread conversation.

You're all right. :)

[Agent Helix]

I think manufacturers will offer players capable of playing both formats, making the war a moot one.

There were VHS/Betamax double-decks, too.

Manufacturers and studios don't want there to be two competing formats, especially not when they're so similar. Warner Bros. doesn't want to release the same movie on two formats. They want to release the same movie on the same format several times.

[Xero Kaiser]

Also, I'm a little upset that games are now in the $60 range. Mark my words, this will KILL the gaming industry in the near future

It hasn't in the past, so why is an extra $10 going to cause the industry to explode now?

[cactusmaac]

Heck, back then there was no pre-owned market to speak of.

[suedenim]

Does anybody know why, exactly, there's no price competition on new console games? With, say, DVDs or CDs, you might find widely varying prices at Best Buy, Circuit City, Target, Wal-Mart, Tower Records, etc. But a new copy of Marvel Ultimate Alliance, say, will be an invariable 50 bucks at all those locations.

[P-Man]

Does anybody know why, exactly, there's no price competition on new console games? With, say, DVDs or CDs, you might find widely varying prices at Best Buy, Circuit City, Target, Wal-Mart, Tower Records, etc. But a new copy of Marvel Ultimate Alliance, say, will be an invariable 50 bucks at all those locations.

That's a damn good question. Consoles are the same way too. You can find the same television for a hundred different prices, but I'll be damned if a new PS2 doesn''t cost the same just about everywhere. Although come to think you can find deals on certain games, it's just really rare. I picked up a copy of Madden 05 at Wal-Mart for $20 bucks when all the other places were still charging full price.

[The Fury]

Here in the UK there still is a price difference but only when comparing High Street vs Supermarket vs internet. Internet is still cheapest, then Supermarket then Hight street.

But between said places the prices remain the same. All high street sell games for £30 or whatever the RRP is.

Internet sale prices do vary though.

[Sheldon]

The markup on video games and consoles is much less than dvds and cds

I used to work at a music store and would get pretty much everything at cost. CD's and DVDs had a greater margin to play around with. Plus retailers are more willing to sell them at a lower price because they know they will move more copies.

With games, I'd only save like 5 dollars on new ones.

[Serik]

How does one store based in the US only have that much power?

When you're the largest seller of DVDs in America, you have a lot of clout with Hollywood. Here's an article from Slate about Wal-Mart/Hollywood relations:

http://www.slate.com/id/2128631/

[Wild Card]

I remember when the 2600 was close to $200 and that was when gas was less than $1 a gallon.
The most expansive system was the Neo-Geo $800 for the console the carts cost $200 a piece.

[Serik]

Does anybody know why, exactly, there's no price competition on new console games? With, say, DVDs or CDs, you might find widely varying prices at Best Buy, Circuit City, Target, Wal-Mart, Tower Records, etc. But a new copy of Marvel Ultimate Alliance, say, will be an invariable 50 bucks at all those locations.

Shop online and you can save $5-20 on most game, if not more. I haven't bought a game from a brick and mortar store in years.

It hasn't in the past, so why is an extra $10 going to cause the industry to explode now?

What will kill gaming isn't the $60 asking price, but those damn $2 "microdownloads" that are added on top of it. People don't want to pay $50-60 only to be nickel-and-dimed for extra racetracks, armor, or outfits that the publishers intentionally excluded from the original package just so they could sell them after release. The creative design process is compromised when marketing says, "Ya, leave this [map, character, weapon] out of the game and find a way to sell it to customers post-release." EA’s business practices have made me cynical enough to believe this actually goes on, at least in their games.

Oh, and ads in full priced games won't help either.

[Xero Kaiser]

What will kill gaming isn't the $60 asking price, but those damn $2 "microdownloads" that are added on top of it. People don't want to pay $50-60 only to be nickel-and-dimed for extra racetracks, armor, or outfits that the publishers intentionally excluded from the original package just so they could sell them after release.

So what, you've never heard of an expansion pack before? Nobody has a problem paying for actual content months after the game's original release. If a company tries to get too greedy, people will just ignore their downloads, simple as that. It's not going to kill gaming because it's been going on for a long time already

The creative design process is compromised when marketing says, "Ya, leave this [map, character, weapon] out of the game and find a way to sell it to customers post-release." EA’s business practices have made me cynical enough to believe this actually goes on, at least in their games.

EA =/= The entire industry

Oh, and ads in full priced games won't help either.

Yeah, a random billboard in the background (which results in additional money for the developer) will kill gaming. Just like ads have killed everything else

wait...that doesn't make any sense

[Agent Helix]

I think you're really overstating the effect of advertisements in videogames, Serik.

[Serik]

I see ads (and microdownloads) as half-baked ways of increasing revenue while sacrificing the creative integrity of a game.

When I played PlanetSide, I hated seeing ads for Deuce Biggalow: European Gigolo around our main base - especially since I was paying $10/month for the game. The ads ruined any immersion I had.

Ads can work in some games – sports, racing – but they should stay away from others. It boils down to me not trusting many game studios to effectively implement the ads without ruining my experience.

And I’m also against them in principle as I stated earlier.

[Agent Helix]

Okay, but most people really don't care.

[Perry Holley]

Serik, ixnay on the profanity.

[hoffmandu]

I see ads (and microdownloads) as half-baked ways of increasing revenue while sacrificing the creative integrity of a game.

When I played PlanetSide, I hated seeing ads for Deuce Biggalow: European Gigolo around our main base - especially since I was paying $10/month for the game. The ads ruined any immersion I had.

Ads can work in some games – sports, racing – but they should stay away from others. It boils down to me not trusting many game studios to effectively implement the ads without ruining my experience.

And I’m also against them in principle as I stated earlier.

To be fair, have you seen Duece Bigilo?
Duece-"You know that the Dutch are the ones who invented th slave trade, right?"

Griffin- "Those Mutha F&^kers!"