I still just don't see how there is a properly logical reason as to how better hardware is cheaper. How does that work? When something is better should it not cost more? When you look at the price difference between what a new PS2 was and then a new PS3 there is definitely a difference. That's like releasing the best graphics card on earth and making it cheaper than the one before it. As nice as it would be for them to be cheaper, in these troubled times where making money is difficult I seriously doubt they will be cheaper. More expensive? Probably.
United Front senior producer Jeff O'Connell says next-gen hardware should be accessible to "average" consumers.
United Front senior producer Jeff O'Connell has expressed a desire to see next-generation game consoles priced in such a way as to be accessible to both core gamers and the wider mass market.
Speaking to Xbox World, O'Connell, who is currently working on the studio's upcoming action game Sleeping Dogs, said one of his primary concerns about next-generation consoles is the price point.
"For me, it's lowering the cost and making things more accessible for the average consumers," he told the publication.
O'Connell also expressed an interest in watching how Sony and Microsoft's new consoles make AAA titles more immersive for consumers by utilizing more RAM and graphical horsepower, as well as what the future holds for next-generation motion-tracking technology.
Sleeping Dogs--a revival of the cancelled True Crime: Hong Kong--is an open-world action game set in Hong Kong. The game puts players in the boots of Wei Shen, an undercover police officer fighting through the seedy criminal underworld of the sprawling city.
According to Square Enix, Sleeping Dogs will give players a variety of combat options. These include gunplay--which takes place in streets, harbours, and skyscrapers--as well as a hand-to-hand combat system that lets players use martial arts to bring down their enemies.
As for the next generation of systems, Nintendo's Wii U is the only future-generation console to be announced. The system is due for a worldwide release this holiday season.
i dont buy the rising cost of game development, companies have been licensing their game engines for decades. on almost every game i see the u3 engine logo. but did cost go down, no they went up. this cannot happen again as it will begin to invert the industries growth and give the casual console a fighting chance for market share. i dont mind the upfront price of a console being high as long as i can see the value in the upgrade or just wait til the price drop. the ps4 can cost $500 in the first year and sell well but the u4 engine and luminious engine needs to be running watever they put out
The collective industry needs to make up its mind about whether it wants good hardware or cheap hardware. Sony and Microsoft had already sold the PS3 and 360 at a loss before they managed to refine the production processes and eventually start making a profit on them, so whether they can drop the prices any further is doubtful.
You can have cheap hardware, but for that, you get the Wii - a console that was salt of the earth for about a year due to its installed user base and then fell out of favour for having low attach rates.
I haven't bought a new console since I pre-ordered the Sega Dreamcast back in the day. My ps3 and my 360 were purchased second hand because they simply cost too much new.
Darn right the new gen systems should be lower and more compatible with the
thin wallets these days , everyone is raising this and that and giving excuses why and most of them are lame , they should just admit to GREED and have one of the deadly sins erased so their torture may be lightened !
Looking at supply and demand from the current-gen, people were fighting just to buy at the highest price point yet. Why not do the same again if they get more profit?
Average customer here. For me why can't they go back to when I can buy new console for $249 and game for $39. I think that pricing is reasonable for all consumers. I own a PS3 but bought only few new games, unlike back in the days with PS1, I had almost every good game that came out.
@nunoaba Because consoles use a lot more powerful hardware, and games are much more complex to take advantage of it. However I'm still convinced that there's no excuse not to release games for digital distribution on day 1 and charge $40-$45. The point of dd is they don't have to pay for manufacturing the disk/case or give retailers a cut. If they sell dd games for $60 like they do now that money is just extra profit.
That sure would be nice. DVD players and Blu Ray players are going down in cost, aren't they? I haven't gotten any consoles from this gen except for Wii.
Yes, Console Developers should totally lower the cost of Next Gen Consoles, not see any profit from it at all for about two years....Smart move indeed......Hey.....How much is Sleeping Dogs going to cost? Oh yeah....60 dollars. Don't preach bullshit if you aren't going to follow suit.
The money should be coming from the software. They can sale systems at a loss if they actually make games people want to buy and stop screwing people over with DLC.
Yeah, 400 is the limit for what they should be charging. If they make a system they know has a high probability of breaking, like the 360 at first, then they should charge less. Although the whole RROD didn't seem to diminish the popularity of it. I am not hating. There is nothing wrong with the 360, just stating fact. And they should charge less for games that have say a 5-10 hour campaign as opposed to a 20-60 hour campaign. It makes so much sense it probably won't happen. Kind of like at my work.
Next-gen should be acccessible to average consumers? Who do you think has been buying consoles? Average consumers....
No matter what, an overpriced console will be doom for either company. They will have to find the right price mark.
I won't drop more than 250 on a console, nor more than 60 for a game. Hell, let's go back to 50 per game, and none of this DLC and subscription nonsense.
@foxrock66 games are actually getting cheaper nintendo 64 games were around the 120 mark
ghost recon future soldier in jb hifi is 70 dollars
and for 250 dollars the only console youll get is a ds or an older generation console ps2 or original xbox so why are you looking up current gen games ??
@foxrock66 To the guys that live in US... you may think $60 is bad enough for a new game, in Australia, it's like effin' $120 for MW3 when it came out, I was like, WTF?
If they make the games $70 for next-gen in US, it'll be $140 and this would get out of hand.
Can someone please explain to me why in Australia, gaming items are double the US price?
Than you must wait years to get a console. It took the Xbox about 5 years to reach that price point, unless you pretty much stick to Nintendo consoles, which isn't much of a great gaming experience all by itself. But I agree with everything else. DLC has flat-out ruined gaming. Publishers/developers are modeling their games around the "secondary" sales with dlc instead of providing a complete experience out of the box. I also agree with willie that single-player campaigns have fallen by the way side. Now it's all about multiplayer because they can sell all sorts of crap with that. Unfortunately, I fear gaming will get much worse before it gets better. These greedy companies will try to milk gamers so much that gaming will become a hobby for rich people. Then the industry will crash again, because the publishers won't realize that they have to ask less for a COMPLETE game in order to make more sales on it. That fact will avoid their thinking and will be the downfall of this industry.
Or can we go back to single player campaigns longer than 10 hours.
@williebazerka 10hours+ Campaigns or $40. That's my deal. The only time I'll pay $60 is if it's a crazy long RPG, or if the multiplayer is REALLY good.
This comment has been deleted
@buccomatic Thats why a $499 and up iPad is selling like crazy?
I hope the next consoles are backwards compatible and not download only.
Cheaper consoles would be great, but even better would be cheaper games. Can we get back to new games at $50, or are we going to see them continue to rise and reach $70 in the next generation?
No doubt the devs would love to see the hardware-makers eat a loss so that they can boost their sales, but what hits are those devs prepared to take in order to increase their market share?
Hey, dummy, if you lower the price of the next gen consoles, either the manufacturers suffer with losing money per console sold or the tech in the consoles is outdated and thus cheaper to produce. If the hardware isn't going to produce graphics that are noticeably better than what we have now in favor of a palatable price point then there's absolutely no point in releasing a new system at all.
Look at the cell phone industry... not everyone has to have the latest Android/iOS/W7 device every time a new one comes out. Just don't kill off this generation. Let this generation run concurrently with the next one and mark down this generation's hardware so the 'social' people can still game just fine.
Holy shit...and industry insider who actually AGREES with consumers. Nonetheless, the developments costs also need to be lowered. Otherwise, we're still looking at $60 games and dlc rackets.
It sounds great but if the consoles become cheaper, the games will be more expensive which would deter people from buying them.
How about lowering the cost of games. Specially games like Sleeping Dogs. No matter what you do, it won't be as good as Mass Effect 3 or Arkham City like you compared it to, but you will still charge $60.
Wouldn't it be smarter to charge $40 or so, get more people buzzing about it(if it is actually any good) and then have that develop into a franchise that you can sell a full priced game of down the line? Instead of charging full price now, have many people pass because of the risk(including me) and lose the buzz opportunity.
Who said Mass Effect 3 or Arkham City are the measuring sticks for what constitutes a game worth $60.00?
@JohnMafia "No matter what you do, it won't be as good as Mass Effect 3 or Arkham City like you compared it to, but you will still charge $60"
what a strange statement. No matter what they do, at all, it will not be as good? So there is no hope of this unfinished game being as good? what exactly are you basing this on?
@JohnMafiaThen, when you charge full price, you'll have tons of people SCREAMING about how unfair it is that they are now charging more.
This comment has been deleted
so if the big 3 lower the cost of the consoles, will the publishers lower the cost of games too? Probably not.
So if according to O'Connell it's all about "lowering the price point and making it more accessible for the average consumer", then let's see what the price of Sleeping Dogs is when it comes out. If it's $59.99, which is what it is looking like, then it's hard to take value in what he is saying. You can't tell other companies to lower their prices if you're unwilling to do it yourself.
It's worth it to me to pay more for a pc to play games than a console and wait for the console prices to go down.A console is basically a barebones pc that's built to just play games and be affordable.I know a console does more than play games but I want a console to play games if I want to do more than it's a pc.
Content you might like…
Varied missions, hard-hitting melee combat, and a captivating setting make Sleeping Dogs an enjoyable escapade.
- Aug 14, 2012
Users who looked at this article also looked at these content items.
Avalanche Studios co-founder says developer's ambition is for action, not moments that make players cry; steampunk-style game on hold. Full Story
- Posted May 15, 2013 6:33 am PT
4A Games creative director Andrew Prokhorov thanks Jason Rubin for telling the studio's story, but says, "We deserve the ratings we get." Full Story
- Posted May 16, 2013 12:44 pm PT