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?

[Tvensky]

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 ....

[Rageanitus]

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.

[irepbtown]

£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.

[platformmaster918]

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).

[fr0sty]

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.

[jadenkorri]

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

[knowyourstuff]

"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.

[bishop-br]

@irepbtown

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.

[ThanatosDMC]

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.

[admiralvic]

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_3]

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.

[Dmarc]

@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

[drizzom]

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_]

Most games are not worth 60 you instantly feel stupid

[elmaton98]

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$

[kratos17]

I actually think that game prices should reflect development cost.

[MikeMyers]

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?

[Arksine]

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.

[slayorofgods]

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

[ShaunCameron]

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.

[andslasher123]

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

[slayorofgods]

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.

[TronEOL]

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.

[JP1369]

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.

[SilentNegotiator]

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

[sarshelyam]

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.

[mydyingparadiselost]

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.

[Brutallyhonest]

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_snake3656]

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.

[xtremeimport]

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

[Gigglefist]

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.

[HammadTheBeast]

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

[juandren]

There are no royalties tied to PC games

[Tr10wn]

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

[TheRealSpy]

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.

THINK!

[3GenGames]

If the prices go up, the sales will go down....it'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.

[Avernus]

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 :(

[360ICE]

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.

[r21]

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

[madpuppy]

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

[Shadow Flare]

I know this is off topic, frankly I don't care, I am seriously getting sick of the adverts on n4g on my phone, filling half my screen, opening new windows, opening new windows and then sending me to the App Store. I am absolutely getting sick to death of the adverts.

I don't want work arounds, I want n4g to get rid of these frickin adverts and have back to what it used to be

Does anybody know how I can contact the n4g admin?

N4G is fast becoming actually unusable, and an utterly frustrating experience for me

[Rageanitus]

I am desensitized from all the Internet ad's. Im ok with it as long as I do not see popups.... its part of every day life i guess.

I do not think they will listien since it is a revenue stream, and alot of sites react the same exact as N4G.

good luck

[Shadow Flare]

Internet ads on pc don't particularly bother me. But I use n4g on my phone mostly. And the past few days suddenly adverts have stopped being a thing just on the side of the screen but now are pinned to the bottom of my screen wherever I look. If I try to close it sometimes it accidentally opens the ad. And then sometimes I get an advert fill half my screen, open new windows up and send me to the App Store. That is unbelievable. It's unacceptable.

N4g has existed for years with acceptable forms of advertisements. But this is ridiculous. If the admin really don't care, and its just a revenue source to them despite the sheer unusableness of this site now, then, tsch cya later then. I can't use a site like this, sorry. If that's the care n4g shows to its users, it's gonna lose a lot of people

[3GenGames]

Step into the 21st century of web browsing and install adblock! And use a good browser like Chrome. Chromium (Chrome-Google thingies), or even Firefox!

[Shadow Flare]

It's on my phone, and chrome doesn't fix it, nor do the ad block things I've tried

[Dark_Overlord]

I'd recommend adblock (for FF or Chrome) as I don't see any ads on here :D

Although are you sure you haven't picked up some adware crap? Malwarebytes anti malware is good for that :)

[Shadow Flare]

I can't get Firefox on my phone and chrome doesn't fix it at all. Even with the ad block stuff turned on

[biRdy]

Use adblock not sure if its available on every browser but its awesome.

[Bathyj]

Are you talking about mobile devices because Ive just noticed in the last couple weeks the banner down the bottom. Its so annoying, you have to close it on every new page and sometimes your just trying to scroll and you get whisked away to the app store. Its BS.

[Shadow Flare]

Yes exactly. You must be experiencing what I have. I use n4g on my iPhone mostly and it is utter BS to use now

Thank you, at least someone gets it too

[wenaldy]

Happened to me as well, annoying.

[otakukidd]

Its worse on tablets. When on the regular size website, it will give me a FULL PAGE AD every single page. I understand its revenue but be like IGN and make it so i see it ,at most, once a visit. Incorporate it into the ad into the Page, not a popup on a phone.

[stage88]

I 100% agree with you.
The site is LITERALLY becoming unusable on mobile devices.

Admins, please sort this out ASAP!

[Cam977]

I agree. I'll create a blog and advise you to do the same regarding this issue.
If nothing is done I'm returning to Eurogamer.

[Shadow Flare]

Thanks, ill create a blog tomorrow as its already past midnight where I am.

With enough pressure hopefully this can be fixed

I'm sure the n4g admin don't want their site to be unusable to mobile users either

[onyoursistersback]

lol....i thought it was only me!!!
Just last friday i downloaded Angry Bird for free....and i was thinking.
"well, that was the scam....getting a lot of spam form the game!!"

"BACK ON TOPIC"
image the damage done to the Xbox, if games where $10 cheaper on the ps4!!!

[jessupj]

You stole me avatar! Bastard!

I challenge thou to a duel!

[cr33ping_death]

Not that i enjoy it happening to you but...thank god its not just me... i thought it was just my phone. and yes very very very very annoying indeed. what the hell N4G???

[garos82]

i dont mind ads here and there but the latest n4g ad model is a complete cluster f**k . cant browse it on my phone any more as pretty much around 40% of my activity leads to a pop up window elsewhere with some bull crap ad im not interested in the slightest.
well said bubs shadow flare and mods please rethink or change this ad model

[tigertron]

Just use an ad blocker. It removes pretty much all adverts, and I don't get adverts on N4G at all.

[garos82]

the problem is not through the lap top its on mobile devices. i use both nexus 7 and GS2 for mobile browsing and ive tried using ad blocker and a few other similar apps but they havent really delivered.
like i said i dont mind ads as long as they are not forcing me onto other websites and are covering a large percentage of my screen and almost impossible to get rid of once they are there

[level 360]

It's a different story here in Oz where *speculative price on PS4 games will be higher.

*Prices still subject to change of course but here's what EB games and JB hi-fi Australia has put on their websites.

EB Games - scroll down for game price ( https://www.ebgames.com.au/... )

JB hi fi - ( http://www.jbhifionline.com... )

[Bathyj]

Yeah but EB games even say Placeholder price. They have no idea just like everyone else. EB games dont even know what used games are worth, they often have games that are $10 more than the new version. Idiots.

JB has cheap games all the time. Hitman and Farcry were only 69 and games are actually cheaper than theyve ever been, even from SNES days. ($135 for StreetfighterII). I dont think PS4 games will really rise. Some PS3 games like Crysis are 89 and occasionally theres a 99 dollar but its usually the Special edition. I dont think PS4 games are going to be over 100 bucks and I think the console will have a 600 and 700 dollar version which is what we paid for PSOne, but hopefully it will be 500 and 600.

[coolbeans]

The thing we have to consider is how much more the average development cost between the average 6th-gen game and 7th-gen game had rose dramatically ( http://www.gamespy.com/arti...

Although I'm sure they're going to continue going up in cost, I think publishers can find ways to grab more revenue through other means: DLC, books, soundtracks, etc. etc.

[EverydayGuy]

Ps4 is easier to develop for, don't see why the price of games would go up more.

[ShaunCameron]

Um. The XBox 360 was the easier of the two HD consoles to develop for and yet the prices jumped from $50 to $60 anyway.

[medman]

I agree with 3gengames. I wouldn't have a problem paying 80 dollars for a game, however, that would mean my buying less games. I would still buy the big titles I want, but downloadable or indie purchases would see less of my dollars and games I'm on the fence about and not certain of would not be purchased. I own a 360 and PS3 currently, and pricier games would probably mean me only buying one system next gen, at least until console prices were reduced considerably. I'm curious to see what happens. But these companies are going to have big problems if, for example, a game like Watch Dogs costs $80 dollars for the PS4 and "only" $60 for the PS3 and 360. How can that be justified, as essentially it will be a similar gameplay experience, with what I will assume will be a more detailed experience on the PS4. But if the gameplay experience doesn't last any longer, or the A.I. isn't vastly better for these multi system games, how are they going to justify price increases? If you want us to pay more, you better deliver a heck of a lot more. Otherwise, everybody loses. Oh, and I hope Microsoft wakes the #%#$ up and stops nickel and diming it's fanbase next gen. I'm sick of it, and if they don't show me how they will approach next gen differently, my feet will be firmly planted in the PS4 only camp.

[AngelicIceDiamond]

My question is how much are we truly gonna get out of the 60$ package come next gen?

"When in doubt, ask the federal government. Check this out: according to the U.S. department of labor's inflation calculator, $60 in 2006 would have the spending power of $68.54 in 2013. And if the PS4 is around for the next 5 or 6 years, that number could just keep growing and growing. A $60 price point in 2013 really means that games are now cheaper."

"So yes, $60 PlayStation 4 games are actually cheaper than $60 PlayStation 3 games. Which means we shouldn't be too excited just yet. 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."

So expect more scams from Capcome and EA and others? Just perfect.

Or how bout devs don't make crap games like Duke Nukem Forever next gen and make worthwhile product? And gearbox had o stones to rip people off with a 60$ price tag.

Devs need a better pricing structures next gen. Gears, Gow, Uncharted and the upcoming Last Of Us are well worth every penny. That's the thing about exclusives Sony and MS demand quality.

Personally the 60$ game is still heavy to me. But I hope its well worth it come next gen.

[theWB27]

I remember buying MK for the N64 for 80 bucks. Games started at what..45 bucks back then. We are getting a considerable amount of gaming for prices to have only jumped 15 bucks in almost 20 years. Some games arent worth it cause they only run 6 hours but on a whole...good value.

[nevin1]

Is he speaking on a 1st party standpoint or $60 will be the norm for all games?

[danthebios]

Thats good news but i wonder will there still be ps3 exclusives for the ps3 after the ps4 is out because i think most developers would prefer creating a game on the next gen rather then the past.Another thought came in mind,will ps4 games all be 1080p or will it be 720p...if 1080p i dont think one blu ray would be enough for a ps4 game or is it hmmmm

[sedx]

$39.99 should be the price for all games.

used games sales will completley drop and less trade ins.

[lee82988]

Totally agree with you sedx... I'm fortunate to by most games when they come out but only spend 60 on the ones that I truly want to play like a metal gear or final fantasy. The rest I'll just wait to either get it used or when the price drop. Selling games at 30 or 40 will definitely help game sales and the industry right now.

[sourav93]

As long as there are promotions from retailers such as amazon, it won't hurt the wallet as much.

[sway_z]

Believe it or not...PS3 development is more expensive than PS4 development for some studios, even at this stage...

Sony did well to abandon the Cell with PS4..it really was a total 'Bitch' to code for.

[danthebios]

If thats true,then the ps3 exclusives are really a work of art since the amount of effort and patience in making it:)

[sway_z]

The most expensive process of making video games are assets, engines etc..

Hence why I mentioned 'Some Studios' as a lot of studios will license the use of another (UE3/4) engine.

Some studios build their own engines for a specific purpose...the one's who must create from scratch will find the cost prohibitive, even tinkering with an already available engine can be costly depending on what assets these studios are using.

This is why many studios were either gobbled up, or disbanded.

In the early PS3 days...the cost for producing the same game available on 360 was almost twice the cost on PS3. It's primarily because Sony used 'Alien' hardware i.e. it did not exist outside of Sony/Toshiba/IBM.

[Xenomorph]

If a game sucks and is lackluster wait a month for it to drop $20 of its price. $60 only sustains against super popular and well received games. Even then wait a week and save $10.

[Qrphe]

I can't believe some of the comments on that Kotaku article are actually debating whether inflation applies to videogame sales.

Oh man, never grow up Kotaku.

[stuntman_mike]

I remember paying £55 for an japanese imported Street Fighter 2 turbo on the SNES!

[rulakir]

This so called DLC nonsense should be given for free to gamers via unlockables as the game progresses. That's a bunch of crap to pay 60 bucks for a game and beat it in 5-6 hours. The reason I love to play RPG's because I can play a game for 40-60 hrs and that's getting your money's worth. This generation is just dependent on this multilayer aspect of gaming and it's really annoying . I have nothing against multiplayer, but these so called gamers buy a game pop it in the system, and don't even touch the single player story mode but go straight to online gaming it sucks.

[ado908]

60 bucks is expensive for all videogames releasing. Every single PS3/xbox 360 game that released from the beginning of this gen should be 45$

[OpenGL]

If anything game prices should come down as they'll be easier to develop and cheaper to distribute with services like Playstation Network and Xbox Live.

[SpinalRemains138]

And my Mets tickets should be cheaper this year because the product on the field is inferior and cheaper.

Not going to happen. In a perfect world these things would happen as they make sense. In the real world, we are all milked for every last cent. Why? Why it's because we pay it.

[bigtrucknd]

I rarely pay 60 bucks for a game when I know if i wait i can get them for 20 bucks new. Once in a while a game is a must have day one but i always regret paying 60 when weeks later the price usually drops at least 20 dollars.

[SpinalRemains138]

Gamefly, Baby!

All games cost 17 a month! Play and finish 5 if ya can...........still 17 bucks. This alleviates two problems. Getting ripped off, and Backward compatibility. You learn to throw away what is finished. Ya can't sell it back, but you essentially trade it in for another new adventure.

Why ppl need to spend 60 bucks on games and then hoarde them when theyre finished, and complain when their new system won't play it 5 years later, completely bewilders me.

To each their own I guess. I have personally found Gamefly to be one of the biggest money saving, game world expanding experiences I have had during these last 4 years. I suggest everyone use it.

[RavageX]

I rarely pay full price for a game, and IF I do it has near-infinite replay value. The Rockband games are an example.

Open world games with multiplayer..Red Dead Redemption is an example there.

Long ass RPGs, or ones with replay value...Dragon's Dogma.

The last two I mentioned I didn't pay full price for, but they would be worth the full $60 imo.

I just can't get behind paying $60 for a game like God of War III. I know(still haven't played it) that it's a good game and that I'll like it, but once I beat it thats it, I have no reason to do it again.

I just can't buy games like that. Rent...sure, but not buy.

Oh, and I think games shouldn't ever cost more than $60 unless they have extra stuff.

Playstation Plus has saved me a bit of cash by allowing me to play games that I probably wouldn't ever buy. I've thought about Gamefly a few times, and have used Redbox every now and then.

[nigelp520]

Uncharted 2 was worth 59.99
Folklore was worth 59.99
MAG was worth 59.99
Heavy Rain was worth 59.99

[kingPoS]

We've been dealing with $60 this long, why change it now. Nothing to complain about here!

[gamern4g]

This is so unfair! Pc Steam version of the same game cost you about $40 and todays PS3 game is about $60-$70.

[SDF Repellent]

None of my games are $60, I usually buy them on sale for $20-$30 cheaper. I just have to wait a month or two and problem solve.