If PS4 Games Only Cost $60, They’re Actually Cheaper Than PS3 Games

Kotaku - On CNBC last night, Sony CEO Jack Tretton implied that games for the company's newly-announced PlayStation 4 won't retail for more than $60.

"We're gonna welcome free-to-play models, games from 99 cents up to those 60 dollar games," he said. Later, he added: "We'll justify that $60 price point."

That might come as welcome news to gamers who expected another $10 price jump like the one we saw last generation, when $50 PS2 games led way to $60 PS3 games. But is a $60 price point really sustainable?

The story is too old to be commented.
isyourhouseonfire1881d ago ShowReplies(5)
SolidStoner1881d ago (Edited 1881d ago )

Its too much! some games plays 6 hours... and pay 60$ for it is too much, games should be in different prices based on quality, popularity, genre etc... also compared to regular random Blu-ray movies vs games... some games like GTA5 might get price 70$ for me, if latest WRC game will be worth 25$.. then im ok with it... but all games for 60$, not so good.. but not the worst.. it seems at least we will get used game market ....

Rageanitus1881d ago

IMO game prices have not changed that much for the longest time. It's not about how many hours you get from a game to make its worht.

I found this generation PS3 focused on single player experiences which brought not just gameplay,but also atmosphere and cinematic feel to the game. IMO this is worth 60$ inmany cases.

Just look at COD alot of ppl bought it for the multiplayer, and Im sure they spent more than 6 hours on it.

Remember quake 3... it was the shittiest single player every... but It retailed for about 60>70 on PC. Was the gameplay great.. yes multiplayer was awesome and spent hours on end on it.

irepbtown1881d ago

£40 (in your cases, $60) isn't terrible. However what annoys me is EA, with the ridiculous online code (which other Co's. will follow soon, mark my word).

Article says: 'Big video game publishers will inevitably find other ways to make up the bottom line, which may mean more downloadable content packs, more subscription fees, and more sneaky ways to get you to pay more for video games.'

EA will charge monthly for online (my bet). I do agree with what you're saying Rageanitus, however big publishers will keep coming up with ideas to rip us off. Take DLCs, great idea, very innovative. However now we see half finished games that get thrown into the shops, then indirectly forcing people to buy the DLC. This is far from innovative.

EA (I should say Dice) actually did wonders with BC2, with the Vietnam Pack. Completely new atmosphere brought into the Multiplayer. Rockstar did it with Lost and Damned, Ballad of Gay Tony - This is what DLC should be about. Now all you get from most Devs are a few maps, maybe new weapons etc.

Sorry about the rant.

platformmaster9181881d ago

That's why I buy Sony systems. For those rich immersive SP focused experiences. I've played through Infamous, Uncharted, Sly, Ratchet, Jak, Resistance 3, God of War, and many more games MULTIPLE times this gen and never had to touch MP to get my fix. PS+ has also given me a nice backlog to fill my Summer schedule with. I play through those aforementioned games about once a year when I get the itch to experience them again. Trophies are also a big incentive as I am going to go back to MGS3 soon to platinum it so thanks to Xbox for bringing that into the industry (one of the few things I like about what MS has brought to gaming but gotta give credit where credit is due). I know PS4 will give me 10+ years of great SP experiences and so I have no problem forking over $500 for a new system and definitely don't have a problem giving them $50 a year for plus with all the entertainment it's gotten me (over $300 worth of enjoyable games and I only got it 7 months ago).

fr0sty1881d ago

I've bought cartridge based games that were as much as $90 in the past, I welcome the idea of them considering $60 a price ceiling. The fact is, these games are getting more and more expensive to develop. I was reading an interview with one of the Naughty Dog guys who was talking about next gen and how they expected the size of these dev teams to increase to handle the extra load. These games are already costing as much as $60 million to develop. Movies cost that much or more to develop, but they have the advantage of appealing to a wider audience, as you don't have to have the technical skill required to operate a videogame to sit back and watch a film. Add to that the fact that gaming still heavily targets the 18-35 year old male demographic, further limiting it's potential sales, and you start to see why these games cost as much as they do.

When you have a product that is being released to a specific demographic, and has a development budget of tens of millions of dollars, you also see it limiting creativity. You just won't see a developer greenlighting a budget that large for a project like the unfinished swan, for instance. It'll only be a FPS, racer, or other type of genre already proven to sell well. This is one reason why I'm glad to see these online stores allowing devs to sell games at various price points. We still get that creativity, even if the dev is working under a tighter budget than a game like Killzone would be.

I just hope that the industry soon matures to the point where new types of gameplay are allowed to have the same production quality as these "AAA" titles we play today. We're already starting to see some of that, for instance with Quantic Dreams' games. I think that these developers owe that to lower budget games like Journey proving that these new gameplay genres can be profitable. Games like that, which enjoy a lot of success, are making publishers more comfortable with taking risks with their larger budget games. They see we like this sort of creativity and innovation, and will buy it.

So, if $60 is what it takes to fund the vision that developer had, as long as it's a good game I don't have a problem paying it. Sure, we have a lot of bad games released at that price point, but that's why we have game reviews and the used game market.

jadenkorri1881d ago

when the ps2 launched and throught most of its time being the "new" console, i saw games priced between 59.99-79.99, those above 59.99 didn't sell well, and they eventually dwindled down to 59.99. Ps3 been pretty standard, honestly never saw any game launch higher than 59.99 without extras. Ps4, i hope remains the same

knowyourstuff1880d ago

"Cheaper" is the wrong word. "Better Value" is a better phrase. However, that's if developers actually make better games with more play time. A 5 hour game isn't worth $60. Sorry Crytek, but Crysis 3 should have been free to play online, and 20 bucks for that tiny campaign.



It's not just EA anymore... Ubisoft, Activision, Sony, THQ, Warner and 505 all are reported to had used/will use some kind of online pass.

Online pass can be done right, like in SOCOM 4, where you get EXTRA content by getting your copy new instead of used. The problem is when you have to pay to access 50% of whatever is actually in the disc you already bought used, i.e. the multiplayer.

Online pass annoy me indeed, but as it only affects used sales, I'm much more concerned about the pay to win system that we see in free online games coming into paid online games by unballanced DLC.

ThanatosDMC1880d ago

Remember back then when it was said that the $60 price of PS3 games was due to Bluray... but then MS followed suit by charging $60 for their DVD games.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 1880d ago
admiralvic1881d ago (Edited 1881d ago )

The problem is subjectivity, play style and what you're looking for from the title. Since it was a recent "hot button" topic, lets look at Rising.

If you skip the codecs, every cutscene, know exactly what to do, rush through every scene and do everything in your power to beat the game quickly... then you can easily beat it in 1 hour. Now $60 dollars for a 1 hour game sounds absurd, but you skipped so much that the value is practically lost on you...

Codec's (even if you don't care) appear for virtually every situation in the game and there are over 400 of them total. (I believe 570 total) Listening to all of these not only adds hours of play time (giving the story more depth, adding commentary to the scenes and other stuff), but also shows you some of what you're paying for.
The cutscenes alone are an hour or two of additional play time.
A lot of collectibles are well hidden if you don't read a guide. Plus some of them require you to VASTLY change your play style to get them all.
Every collectible milestone unlocks a new weapon and VR missions unlock some items too. These items come with different stats, abilities, play styles and overall feel. For instance the wooden sword is a debuff weapon, where as the stun sword is to keep enemies off of you and finally the armor breaker over power enemies. You can easily play a completely different game if you simply change your weapon and adjust accordingly.
VR missions can be difficult and beating them all will take several hours to accomplish, that is... if you can accomplish it. (most can't beat Mission 18 or 19, but mostly 18)

So if you play like that 1 hour time and forget the game, then yes, it's not worth $60 dollars or even $40. However, if you invest time in all the side crap, then how do you figure that is not worth $40 - $60 bucks? This can be applied to virtually every game, which results in some people thinking some games are over / under priced.

Cupid_Viper_31881d ago

Speaking of contents and price. I still don't know how Polyphony Digital can pack so much content into GT5 plus frequent updates, and only charge $60.00 for it.

I've owned the game since day one, own a Logitech GT 5 wheel and I play the game regularly, and there's are still some tracks that I've yet to race on, and Some cars that I have yet to use. Plus all the seasonal events that I haven't even thought about touching yet.

Just when you think you've mastered a track, a little rain f*cks gives you a little reality check.

Best $60.00 I've spent this generation.

Dee_911881d ago (Edited 1881d ago )

@cupid viper
wow come to think of it.There are some tracks I havent raced on yet either lol
a few of the rally tracks and one of the fuji tracks.
*turn on gt5

drizzom1881d ago

I agree with this but what about DLC?

DLC weapons change the experience of play in some games. They are priced at very low amounts. How do you think DLC fits into the logic you've stated?

Spoon_1881d ago

Most games are not worth 60 you instantly feel stupid

elmaton981881d ago

Well contra 3 was like 45 mins long but it was enjoyable but then again i wouldnt want a game to be so short and still be 60$

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1881d ago
kratos171881d ago

I actually think that game prices should reflect development cost.

MikeMyers1881d ago (Edited 1881d ago )

I agree as well but that's not how things work in music or the movie industry either.

Will Nintendo lower the price of Wii U software and will Microsoft and Sony for their current gen games once the PS4 and next Xbox come out?

Arksine1881d ago

The current model works. If you have to play the game day one and its worth $60 to you, then that is what you will pay for it and the cost is justified. Otherwise you can wait a couple of months and the price will drop unless its a game that had a limited production run.

There are also a ton of promotions that bring down the price of games. For example, I preordered Dead Space 3 and got a $20 gift certificate.

slayorofgods1881d ago

Or you could get steambox or a pc with steam and see a different current model for game pricing..

ShaunCameron1881d ago

The fact that this generation sold more software than all previous generations is testament, in the face of economic turmoil. It seems the only people who think $60 is too expensive are either kids or expect the real world to give them a handout.

@ slayorofgods

I could have sworn I read somewhere that Steam's prices are subsidized by Valve's royalty revenues, and that's why video game prices on Steam are low.

andslasher1231881d ago

He's basically saying what would you prefer to waste 60 Dollars on Skyrim or Alien colonial marines? Exactly

slayorofgods1881d ago

We've been paying 60 dollars (give or take) since the NES days.. It's a die hard model even though it is a bad one. Don't blame Sony, blame the game industry on that one. Hopefully the PSN can come up with a better model as it evolves and attempts to fill the void where used games and game rentals used to be.

TronEOL1881d ago

But this is exactly it, don't pay $60 for games you don't like by just not buying them. That dude from Gaikai was talking about this at Sony's PS4 press conference. He was talking about playing games as you feel, and only buying them if you love them. Which is what every gamer should do.

Now if Sony wanted to make a good system with this, they'd just allow all PSN games to be streamed using Gaikai for free with pop-ups and ads (IE Youtube) while disabling trophies. Therefore if gamers don't want to invest fully into a game, they can play and enjoy it still, and only purchase it if they want the "full" experience.

This wouldn't even hurt Sony or anyone, since they'd be making money on ads and gamers get to play all games for free if they will. In the long run, it'd actually make Sony more money since they'd be making money on each time the game is played, rather than once.

JP13691881d ago

That would require enough bandwidth that Sony would be forced to charge for the service. I'd be fine with paying for a service that applies the Netflix model to games, but to expect that to be supported by ad revenue is unrealistic.

SilentNegotiator1881d ago

Considering inflation, at least $60 is getting closer to a fair price point for the typical game.

sarshelyam1881d ago

You know...with that logic, you've justified the pricepoint.

Point 1: I can remember lining up for the midnight launch of The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, a game I gladly and willingly paid $79.99USD MSRP for over 14 years ago. Come to think of it, I paid $84.99USD for Chrono Trigger on the SNES as well, again, willingly.

Point 2: The average movie ticket price costs roughly $10 for 2 hours you'll never get back. If you like the film, you'll probably buy it on DVD/Blu-Ray, further extending the initial investment of a 2 hour movie to somewhere around $30.

By gaming standards and, specifically your point, if I'm paying $10/hour, I'm paying 150% for half as much time...but...I still have the product (in this case, the game) after the same amount of time a movie would end. Furthermore, if I'm done with the game, I can get a return of my initial investment through the resale of this product. You can't do that with a movie you didn't like.

By those standards I find it incredibly easy to justify the pricepoint. As I said, on the one hand we aren't so far removed from a generation of gaming that cost us far more than it does now. On the other, the perception of value is a delicate subject, but I can often justify any game that gives me a half dozen hours of enjoyment. I've been to far too many films and regretted the $10 I spent on my ticket, let alone the tickets of my children and/or spouse.

mydyingparadiselost1881d ago

1.Those games were expensive because of the cartridge format used at the time which has given way to MUCH CHEAPER ways of delivering games to people. Streaming just makes it even easier.
2. When you go to the movies your renting space to watch a movie in a format that is completely unreasonable at home, unless you have WAY too much money that is. Watching movies in theaters is a diferrent kind of entertainment and really should be used loosely when comparing to games.
And finally, the perception of value is whats important here and why the $60 price point is broken. The games we buy now have less value to them because of DLC. Having things that will be added to the game come out continuously for $10-$20 apiece means the that the entirety of the game can run you far more than the initial $60 price tag and should mean the initial offering has less value because it's almost guaranteed your not getting everything with it. $60 isn't the price of a game anymore, it's just the least amount publishers are willing to let you pay to play it.

Boody-Bandit1881d ago (Edited 1881d ago )

The duration of ANY game depends on the gamer. What skill level (difficulty setting) you choose, if you run through or or explore (collectibles), and how many times you complete the game.

DMC is roughly 8hrs (I'm guesstimating) yet I personally got about 30 hours of entertainment out of it by playing on varying difficulties and obtaining all abilities and collectibles.

Than again you can always rent a game. That's what I did with DMC. I usually only purchase games that I know I will put hundreds of hours into (shooters, racing, fighting and some RPGs).

solid_snake36561881d ago

Games nowadays aren't $60, infact games are rarely $60. Developers purposely keep content out of the game, so it can be sold as dlc. Its like a car dealership selling a car without tires, muffler, rims, seats, etc. Here's a good example, BF3 cost me $60, BF3 premium cost me $49. Thats $109 that they just made off of one customer. And as of Jan 30, 2013 2.9 million people purchased just the premium package for BF3 generating $108 mil just off of premium. Capcom is probably the worst though with the whole dlc thing.

xtremeimport1881d ago

Most Ps3 exclusives usually are $59.
Its the multiplat games that are usually a bit least thats what i've found with recent releases.

+ Show (9) more repliesLast reply 1880d ago
Gigglefist1881d ago (Edited 1881d ago )

I was expecting a price jump. Granted, $60 is still a large sum, but it's the same as last gen. Not much to complain about, considering the jump in performance we'll get.

...I just realized I'm already calling this generation "last gen"... Sigh.

HammadTheBeast1881d ago

Remember though, PC games are never more than $60. If PC can live with it, so can PS4 with the similar architecture.

juandren1881d ago

There are no royalties tied to PC games

Tr10wn1881d ago

Actually yes.... Steam, Origins and GFWL all take royalties.

TheRealSpy1881d ago (Edited 1881d ago )

NOTHING about this next generation justifies a price increase except for inflation.

Mo-cap, voice acting, music are already in place. The only leap is graphics...which is actually easier to do with new engines. Prices should actually come down.


3GenGames1881d ago

If the prices go up, the sales will go's just if they will still make enough sales to make it worth it.

Thankfully not, because they're not going to raise the price.

Avernus1881d ago (Edited 1881d ago )

Jack is such a cool person... would love to talk to him in person one day...but I doubt I'll ever get the chance :(

360ICE1881d ago

Well, you seem to be able to write a complete sentence, so that instantly qualifies you to be a games journalist. From there on, all you need is an E3 pass and some patience and you'd get your talk.

If you added a van, some rope and a dark plastic bag you'd get an even longer talk.

r211881d ago

Ok, now that was funny. Thanks for the laugh :D

madpuppy1881d ago

depending on if you wear a mask or not, you may need some cinder blocks as well....