Jump to content
rllmuk
Eighthours

PlayStation 5. Sony event on 11 June showed console and games

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, HarryBizzle said:

 

How much were microtransactions in 1993?

funnily enough I spent the same on micro transactions this year as I did in 1993 . 
 

  • Upvote 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point is about the price of games, not the spending of PeteBrant. Microtransactions make up 40% Of Take 2’s revenue, so the idea that inflation can be used to hand wave a price increase (or that this is anything other than a cynical early adopter tax) is clearly flawed. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I miss when Ken Kuturagi was in charge and we could count on Sony really shitting the bed in some inventive way. Like on the PS3, not only were developers expected to make games using only the Cell (no GPU) until Naughty Dog showed it was impossible shortly before the planned launch date, but Ken Kuturagi decided late in the chip’s development that it needed 8 cores, not 6, completely obliterating IBM’s ability to turn a profit manufacturing it. And so IBM used literally every bit of contractually permissible thing they had learned in also developing an Xbox 360 CPU for Microsoft, to salvage the situation. 
 

Just outstanding bullshit. Whatever happens with the PS5 it will sadly be too similar to the Xbox Series X to really screw things up.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, HarryBizzle said:

The point is about the price of games, not the spending of PeteBrant. Microtransactions make up 40% Of Take 2’s revenue, so the idea that inflation can be used to hand wave a price increase (or that this is anything other than a cynical early adopter tax) is clearly flawed. 

It’s Entirely optional . If people want to buy micro transactions they can. In the same way they can decide to buy the game . Or they can steer clear of games loaded with MTA.  It’s entirely up to them . As a single off payment £55 is better value than many previous years. And even more so given the enormous budgets some of the some them have . 
 

Of course if you decide that it’s too much then that’s entirely reasonable too . 
 

But when you say things like “imagine thinking that £55 is a good deal “ it’s you ridiculing individuals that think that’s it’s ok to pay that (or even more) . People spend their money in all sorts of silly ways , and you make your choices accordingly . 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem to be conflating two arguments. People can spend their money on what they like and I don’t think Harrisown will be crying his eyes out over my post. 
 

But “inflation” isn’t a particularly good argument when you look at all the other changes in the games market. Console piracy is essentially dead, the second hand market has shrunk massively, publishers take a larger chunk of sales from digital marketplaces and they are making money hand over fist from microtransactions (that they’re optional is irrelevant from a revenue perspective - they make up a huge chunk of it) . So the idea that this price increase is somehow justified due to inflation, when their profits are at an all time high, is farcical.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there’s a £100+ price difference between the two PS5 models for a sub-£50 component then it will feel uncomfortably like I’m being enticed into consumer-unfriendly position. 
 

With the Series S and X the difference in spec and price will likely be a simple ‘standard’ vs ‘pro’ choice for people to decide what’s important to them. 
 

I still don’t trust Sony with my digital game collection so it’s very unlikely I’d go all-digital but I really wouldn’t be happy paying over £100 just to keep control of my purchases. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Series S could very likely be digital also. People always say the drive is only £30 or £50 but it’s not just the parts, there’s the license fee too, and where can you find a stand-alone UHD Blu-ray player for under £100 never mind £50? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Pob said:

If there’s a £100+ price difference between the two PS5 models for a sub-£50 component then it will feel uncomfortably like I’m being enticed into consumer-unfriendly position. 
 

With the Series S and X the difference in spec and price will likely be a simple ‘standard’ vs ‘pro’ choice for people to decide what’s important to them. 
 

I still don’t trust Sony with my digital game collection so it’s very unlikely I’d go all-digital but I really wouldn’t be happy paying over £100 just to keep control of my purchases. 


I think I’d make the £100 back pretty quickly. I tend to buy games, finish them and sell them on for about £30+. About 3 or 4 sales of games and I’d be sorted. The savings over the generation would be huge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On £65 game prices...

 

It is the same every time something "new" appears - they try to raise the price. Nothing to do with justification, nothing to do with inflation - all to do with seeing what the market will pay. They will always dress it up in irrelevance but it is simple capitalist behaviour.

 

Microtransactions. Will anyone buy them? oh they will! - will they pay more? - yes! And more? - yes! what if we made the game free and really milk them? - yes! Do we make them cheaper if more people buy them? NO! Do we make them cheaper if not enough people buy them? Maybe - or cancel the game/investment

Game prices. everyone charges £40 - nextgen comes so can we get away with charging 45? yes! etc

 

Fact is that companies will charge what they think the market will pay. It has nothing to do with what is a "fair" price (whatever that is). if it costs them £10 to make they'll still charge £65 if they can AND add microtransactions on top AND loot boxes and anything else they will get away with. That is capitalism. Noone is sitting and saying "ooh now this game cost us £x to make so we will only charge £y"

 

As consumers we have the power (in theory). We choose to buy or not, we choose to pay for microtransactions and loot boxes etc. In practice there are enough gamers to milk it seems.


So even though they might be making profits they will still try and add on £5 or £10 to the price next time round.

 

And the reverse occurs, the race to the bottom. Food has been cheap for years and years because consumers want CHEAP when it comes to food.

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bear said:

For practically every console launched since the Euro was introduced the way console pricing has worked is that they replace the dollar symbol with a euro symbol and base the UK price on the European prices. 

 

 

Historical Euro to GBP exchange rate:

 

PS4: Nov 2013 0.8371 = €399 - 65 = £334 (£349)


PS4 Pro: Nov 2016 0.8674 = €399 - 53 = £346 (£349)

 

Current Euro to GBP exchange rate:


July 2020 0.9009 = €399 - 40 = £359

 

Looks like Sony were shafting us back in 2013 with a £16 difference, had almost parity with the PS4 Pro in 2016, and if PS5 launched today, they would lose around £10 per console sold in the UK compared to Europe (If sold at €399/£349).

 

So I assume then the price would look like this (if launched today):

 

$399, €399, £359

 

With Brexit on the horizon, I agree it could end up being $399, €399, £399.

 

Which was the lower end price I guessed the PS5 Digital Edition would launch at. So...what was the point again?
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, HarryBizzle said:

You seem to be conflating two arguments. People can spend their money on what they like and I don’t think Harrisown will be crying his eyes out over my post. 
 

But “inflation” isn’t a particularly good argument when you look at all the other changes in the games market. Console piracy is essentially dead, the second hand market has shrunk massively, publishers take a larger chunk of sales from digital marketplaces and they are making money hand over fist from microtransactions (that they’re optional is irrelevant from a revenue perspective - they make up a huge chunk of it) . So the idea that this price increase is somehow justified due to inflation, when their profits are at an all time high, is farcical.

Inflation is a perfectly acceptable reason for price rises . Not all games have MTA . 
 

You can vote whether you buy into that with your wallet . 
 

I feel I get I get value for money for £55 . I will feel I get value for money at £60 . It’s entirely subjective . 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Down by Law said:

When the PS4 came out Killzone and Cod Ghosts were £59.99 each in game. Launch prices always take the piss cus you've only got a handful of choices. Luckily Resogun was so good that kept me busy for the first 6 months and I still had my 360 set up. With decent back compatability this time I'll be in no rush to buy games at 50-60 quid a pop 


Driv3r pre-owned is probably £58.99 in GAME.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, HarryBizzle said:


I think I’d make the £100 back pretty quickly. I tend to buy games, finish them and sell them on for about £30+. About 3 or 4 sales of games and I’d be sorted. The savings over the generation would be huge.

Yeah I agree and that’s what I’d do, especially with the big story-driven single player games Sony specialise in. It’s just a black mark in the ‘do I buy a PS5 a launch?’ column if I’m essentially paying an extra £100 up front to avoid being fucked over. 
 

@Stanley I’m going by Digital Foundry’s analysis re cost of Blu Ray drive to Sony. Also, agreed, the Series S could well be digital only but the combination of Game Pass and MS better track-record of handling digital game collections would take the sting out of it. I’m happy being mostly digital with Xbox - I can’t say the same about Sony. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PeteBrant said:

Imagine not understanding inflation .


How much are Blu-Ray movies now compared to DVDs in 2000? How much are albums on CD now compared to the mid-90s? I’ll wait.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Pob I’m not suggesting the parts cost more, I just think it’s naive to think that they will only charge the bare minimum extra for its inclusion. So I think anyone only expecting a £50 price difference between the two is going to be disappointed, on the other hand it does make the digital version more attractive from a price perspective if it’s £100 cheaper. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Eighthours said:


How much are Blu-Ray movies now compared to DVDs in 2000? How much are albums on CD now compared to the mid-90s? I’ll wait.

How much does going to a movie at the cinema cost ? How much does going to a football match cost ? How much does a round of golf cost? What’s a pint cost ? whats the average wage ? What’s the average house price ? How has your Netflix sub price changed ? 
 

just because Blu-ray and cds have remained at a fixed price doesn’t mean you can apply that to everything . 
 

the costs of producing games  if everything remains on 2000 terms has gone up inline with inflation , I mean that’s indisputable .
Then you factor in Productivity improvements cancelled out by the huge increase in what is being delivered ; purely from a measure of data that is being shipped it is a order of magnitude higher . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Down by Law said:

The demand for DVD's , Blu Rays and CD albums dropped off a cliff though. 

Understandable really when streaming is so much more convenient and cheaper. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah totally. If there were no other options you can guarantee HMV would gladly be selling us CD's at £19.99 a pop by now.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got Rocket League on plus for “free” And it turns out it’s probably the best game ever made and it’s full of Micro Transactions Of which I have bought absolutely zero of despite playing every single day.

 

Free to play is huge these days.


Sony and Microsoft finally understand digital sales.

 

I really do think there is opportunity for everyone to get on gaming next gen if they manage to pick up a console reguardless of the game RRP.

on day one we will probably be spoilt with content to play with Via Plus, free to play, backward compatibility, ps now and demos.

Who knows...they might even do full game trials where you download the whole thing and play the first 2 hours. Great for those people who are skeptics of a games worth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s weird in that respect how specialist stuff such as vinyl or UHD Blu-rays have risen in price in line with inflation, and streaming is cheap and mainstream, whereas games are the opposite, digital is still way more expensive. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Stanley said:

It’s weird in that respect how specialist stuff such as vinyl or UHD Blu-rays have risen in price in line with inflation, and streaming is cheap and mainstream, whereas games are the opposite, digital is still way more expensive. 


they can’t undercut bricks and mortar Retailers while they’re still required to sell the hardware.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Stanley said:

It’s weird in that respect how specialist stuff such as vinyl or UHD Blu-rays have risen in price in line with inflation, and streaming is cheap and mainstream, whereas games are the opposite, digital is still way more expensive. 

 

That's not quite true though, Kindle books can be more expensive than physical books, it can certainly be more expensive to stream a film from Amazon than to buy the Blu-ray or DVD. The simple fact is that companies sell a product for what the market is prepared to pay for it, very little else enters the equation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, SeanR said:


they can’t undercut bricks and mortar Retailers while they’re still required to sell the hardware.

I don’t see why not, no one buys games from them anyway, and they could still sell the codes. I think it’s more that there’s no competition because it’s a closed system with one store and they control the pricing - so they charge as much as they can. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, petrolgirls said:

 

That's not quite true though, Kindle books can be more expensive than physical books, it can certainly be more expensive to stream a film from Amazon than to buy the Blu-ray or DVD. The simple fact is that companies sell a product for what the market is prepared to pay for it, very little else enters the equation. 

Generally speaking the digital option is usually the cheapest. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Harrisown said:


I don’t really want to get into a “Harry’s toP £55 games” debate but upon release GTA V and RDR 2 would make the list absolutely.

 

Yeah I guess you could say they would be worth that price, well perhaps £50. But even that looks and sounds expensive. £45 on the otherhand, not so bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, HarryBizzle said:

The point is about the price of games, not the spending of PeteBrant. Microtransactions make up 40% Of Take 2’s revenue, so the idea that inflation can be used to hand wave a price increase (or that this is anything other than a cynical early adopter tax) is clearly flawed. 


That makes sense that games with micro transactions should be cheaper, if not free but doesn’t make any sense for games that don’t use them.

 

I’ve gotten about 200 hours from The Witcher III and GTA V. Had I spent £55 at launch that would have been about 27p for every hour of play. The fact I paid about twenty quid brings that down to 10p an hour. Now most games don’t offer anywhere near that length, but if you don’t buy any old crap, they still compare very favourably to other forms of media in terms of what you get for your money, even if you pay full-whack. Which I never do.

 

They try and hike-up the prices every gen but launch games rrp still seems to be about fifty of sixty quid, which is what the rrp was on some SNES cartridges back in the early nineties! The fact that after a year or two they cost the same as Spectrum games cost in 1983 is bonkers.
 

I think ultimately we’ll all be moving to subscription services anyway, with or without the option to actually buy individual games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, womblingfree said:


That makes sense that games with micro transactions should be cheaper, if not free but doesn’t make any sense for games that don’t use them.

 

I’ve gotten about 200 hours from The Witcher III and GTA V. Had I spent £55 at launch that would have been about 27p for every hour of play. The fact I paid about twenty quid brings that down to 10p an hour. Now most games don’t offer anywhere near that length, but if you don’t buy any old crap, they still compare very favourably to other forms of media in terms of what you get for your money, even if you pay full-whack. Which I never do.

 

They try and hike-up the prices every gen but launch games rrp still seems to be about fifty of sixty quid, which is what the rrp was on some SNES cartridges back in the early nineties! The fact that after a year or two they cost the same as Spectrum games cost in 1983 is bonkers.
 

I think ultimately we’ll all be moving to subscription services anyway, with or without the option to actually buy individual games.

 

It shouldn't be about how long it takes to complete at all. How a game makes you feel while you play it is the upmost importance to me. A game could last 10 hours, however if it made me smile or laugh. Perhaps even applaud how indigenous a puzzle or level design was then it's worth the money. Except £50.

  • Empathy 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.