Sly Cooper: Thieves In Time Price Announced

The PlayStation Blog just announced that the new Sly Cooper is going to be priced at $39.99. That price point includes Cross-Buy which means a free Vita version. That's a heck of a lot of value.

Wow, I already paid $60 at Gamestop a while ago. Guess I'll throw the extra $20 I spent toward Hitman HD Trilogy then. :P

That's awesome though! Can't wait! :D

Nice.

Sounds good, might get the game that week, too bad I don't have a Vita, but looking forward to the game though

Many buys.

$40 for the PS3 and Vita versions combined insane. I'm all over it. I was only half expecting a $60 copy that included the Vita version...I guess Sony is getting really desperate for the Vita and/or wary this close to the PS4's launch.DJ_Lae

I do not think so. Why does everyone think that everything Sony does is because it is desparate. If Sony were desparate, the Vita would cost $180 bundled with a game and a 16 GB memory card. People forget that Sony's mainly struggling with TV's and other electronics. The PlayStation Brand is actually making money. The Vita is not doing so well, but then again, Who thought it was going to sell millions at basically $350 when all is said and done?

[QUOTE="DJ_Lae"]$40 for the PS3 and Vita versions combined insane. I'm all over it. I was only half expecting a $60 copy that included the Vita version...I guess Sony is getting really desperate for the Vita and/or wary this close to the PS4's launch.gamenerd15

I do not think so. Why does everyone think that everything Sony does is because it is desparate. If Sony were desparate, the Vita would cost $180 bundled with a game and a 16 GB memory card. People forget that Sony's mainly struggling with TV's and other electronics. The PlayStation Brand is actually making money. The Vita is not doing so well, but then again, Who thought it was going to sell millions at basically $350 when all is said and done?

I agree, although I think it's much more to do with poor marketing than price. Look at Apple, they can price things at whatever they want and people trip over each other to get it.

Cool could be a day one purchase for me now.

Wow, that's a steal. I'll definetly need to pick that up.

Oh wow, didn't expect that price. Looks like I need to hurry up and beat Sly 2 & 3 so I can buy this day 1.

I think this just goes to show that the 40$ price tag is just the perfect price people are willing to pay for games - at least the single player ones. 60$ is just way too much to pay for a single player game - I think the last game that came out at 40$ at or near launch was portal 2, and before that 3d dot game heroes. I bought both of those. I think game sales will go up if single player only games came out at 40, and those will multiplayer attached were priced at 50/60$. Just one of my hypotheses.

I think this just goes to show that the 40$ price tag is just the perfect price people are willing to pay for games - at least the single player ones. 60$ is just way too much to pay for a single player game - I think the last game that came out at 40$ at or near launch was portal 2, and before that 3d dot game heroes. I bought both of those. I think game sales will go up if single player only games came out at 40, and those will multiplayer attached were priced at 50/60$. Just one of my hypotheses.

glitch2424

Personally, I disagree. I think games should be priced for however much developers/publishers think games deserve to be, not based on what content can maximize a person's fulfillment of that purchase. For example, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 released in 2011 and its campaign can be completed in 6 hours with endless hours of multiplayer, special ops, etc. However, Skyrim boasts over 200 hours of content without multiplayer. Does Skyrim not deserve to sell for $60? Certainly sold plenty of copies at that price.

Another point is, what if someone purchases a game but only for the single-player and doesn't care about multiplayer? Should they be given a $20 discount since they're only interested in the single-player?

Basically, what I'm saying is I think it's good too if games lower their prices because they'll attract more sales but I don't think any particular game deserves to cost more than another just because it has more content/multiplayer (unless it's on PSN/XBLA).

[QUOTE="glitch2424"]

I think this just goes to show that the 40$ price tag is just the perfect price people are willing to pay for games - at least the single player ones. 60$ is just way too much to pay for a single player game - I think the last game that came out at 40$ at or near launch was portal 2, and before that 3d dot game heroes. I bought both of those. I think game sales will go up if single player only games came out at 40, and those will multiplayer attached were priced at 50/60$. Just one of my hypotheses.

DrRockso87

Personally, I disagree. I think games should be priced for however much developers/publishers think games deserve to be, not based on what content can maximize a person's fulfillment of that purchase. For example, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 released in 2011 and its campaign can be completed in 6 hours with endless hours of multiplayer, special ops, etc. However, Skyrim boasts over 200 hours of content without multiplayer. Does Skyrim not deserve to sell for $60? Certainly sold plenty of copies at that price.

Another point is, what if someone purchases a game but only for the single-player and doesn't care about multiplayer? Should they be given a $20 discount since they're only interested in the single-player?

Basically, what I'm saying is I think it's good too if games lower their prices because they'll attract more sales but I don't think any particular game deserves to cost more than another just because it has more content/multiplayer (unless it's on PSN/XBLA).

Sorry I should've elaborated. I'm sure you know there are games that are 10-20 hours long, and then there are games 30+ hours long (there are few games that are inbetween that time length). Games that are 10-20 hrs long should be worth 40, and those others should be worth full 60. There are also few single players games that you mentioned that are more than 100+ hours in length (the bethesda games are one, and so are some atlus games).

Also I respectfully disagree with that logic - you should pay what you get. If all games (like the 12 hour uncharted games, with a mulitiplayer that nobody even plays) continues getting the 60 dollar treatment, it just looks bad. I see plenty of "people like me" that wait for a price drop or wait till a new game gets on craigslist before they buy the game. It's just how it is. And I'm by no means a cheap person, either, and do I love games (and game development) to death, and I do wish more games cost different prices for their quality and quantity. Now, here's some logic to think about: why do some breads (or other food products) of different quality and quantity cost more than others? Why do some clothes cost more than others? Why do some computer mice cost more than others? Now, why do ALL games (great quality and bad quality alike) cost the same? Think about it.

[QUOTE="DrRockso87"]

[QUOTE="glitch2424"]

I think this just goes to show that the 40$ price tag is just the perfect price people are willing to pay for games - at least the single player ones. 60$ is just way too much to pay for a single player game - I think the last game that came out at 40$ at or near launch was portal 2, and before that 3d dot game heroes. I bought both of those. I think game sales will go up if single player only games came out at 40, and those will multiplayer attached were priced at 50/60$. Just one of my hypotheses.

glitch2424

Personally, I disagree. I think games should be priced for however much developers/publishers think games deserve to be, not based on what content can maximize a person's fulfillment of that purchase. For example, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 released in 2011 and its campaign can be completed in 6 hours with endless hours of multiplayer, special ops, etc. However, Skyrim boasts over 200 hours of content without multiplayer. Does Skyrim not deserve to sell for $60? Certainly sold plenty of copies at that price.

Another point is, what if someone purchases a game but only for the single-player and doesn't care about multiplayer? Should they be given a $20 discount since they're only interested in the single-player?

Basically, what I'm saying is I think it's good too if games lower their prices because they'll attract more sales but I don't think any particular game deserves to cost more than another just because it has more content/multiplayer (unless it's on PSN/XBLA).

Sorry I should've elaborated. I'm sure you know there are games that are 10-20 hours long, and then there are games 30+ hours long (there are few games that are inbetween that time length). Games that are 10-20 hrs long should be worth 40, and those others should be worth full 60. There are also few single players games that you mentioned that are more than 100+ hours in length (the bethesda games are one, and so are some atlus games).

Also I respectfully disagree with that logic - you should pay what you get. If all games (like the 12 hour uncharted games, with a mulitiplayer that nobody even plays) continues getting the 60 dollar treatment, it just looks bad. I see plenty of "people like me" that wait for a price drop or wait till a new game gets on craigslist before they buy the game. It's just how it is. And I'm by no means a cheap person, either, and do I love games (and game development) to death, and I do wish more games cost different prices for their quality and quantity. Now, here's some logic to think about: why do some breads (or other food products) of different quality and quantity cost more than others? Why do some clothes cost more than others? Why do some computer mice cost more than others? Now, why do ALL games (great quality and bad quality alike) cost the same? Think about it.

The price of a game should not depend on how many hours of playtime one receives. It should be judge into how much effort was put into the product. Take the games Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time vs Dragon Ball Z Budokai Tenkaichi 2. Tenkaichi 2 has a story mode that is 40 plus hours long while the Sands of Time is only clocks in around 10 to 12 hours. Prince of Persia is the better game because of care tha put into making the game. Tenkaichi is repetitive and gets old quickly. A more current example would be Uncharted vs. Dynasty Warriors. Are you really suggesting that it is ok for Dynasty Warriors to cost $60, but unfair for Uncharted to cost the same amount? Dynasty Warriors is as repetitive as can be. Yes, it takes hundreds of hours to finish the game a 100%, but the gameplay is extremely shallow. Uncharted has high quality production values and enough incentive to play the game multiple times. The enemies do not just stand there and do nothing as you keep hitting them again and again. Uncharted is obviously a better game despite not being as long as Dynasty Warriors. Experience is greater than how the length of a title. If length is the main factor a person chooses to purchase a one title over another, then he or she does not value gameplay all that much.

[QUOTE="glitch2424"]

[QUOTE="DrRockso87"]

Personally, I disagree. I think games should be priced for however much developers/publishers think games deserve to be, not based on what content can maximize a person's fulfillment of that purchase. For example, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 released in 2011 and its campaign can be completed in 6 hours with endless hours of multiplayer, special ops, etc. However, Skyrim boasts over 200 hours of content without multiplayer. Does Skyrim not deserve to sell for $60? Certainly sold plenty of copies at that price.

Another point is, what if someone purchases a game but only for the single-player and doesn't care about multiplayer? Should they be given a $20 discount since they're only interested in the single-player?

Basically, what I'm saying is I think it's good too if games lower their prices because they'll attract more sales but I don't think any particular game deserves to cost more than another just because it has more content/multiplayer (unless it's on PSN/XBLA).

gamenerd15

Sorry I should've elaborated. I'm sure you know there are games that are 10-20 hours long, and then there are games 30+ hours long (there are few games that are inbetween that time length). Games that are 10-20 hrs long should be worth 40, and those others should be worth full 60. There are also few single players games that you mentioned that are more than 100+ hours in length (the bethesda games are one, and so are some atlus games).

Also I respectfully disagree with that logic - you should pay what you get. If all games (like the 12 hour uncharted games, with a mulitiplayer that nobody even plays) continues getting the 60 dollar treatment, it just looks bad. I see plenty of "people like me" that wait for a price drop or wait till a new game gets on craigslist before they buy the game. It's just how it is. And I'm by no means a cheap person, either, and do I love games (and game development) to death, and I do wish more games cost different prices for their quality and quantity. Now, here's some logic to think about: why do some breads (or other food products) of different quality and quantity cost more than others? Why do some clothes cost more than others? Why do some computer mice cost more than others? Now, why do ALL games (great quality and bad quality alike) cost the same? Think about it.

The price of a game should not depend on how many hours of playtime one receives. It should be judge into how much effort was put into the product. Take the games Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time vs Dragon Ball Z Budokai Tenkaichi 2. Tenkaichi 2 has a story mode that is 40 plus hours long while the Sands of Time is only clocks in around 10 to 12 hours. Prince of Persia is the better game because of care tha put into making the game. Tenkaichi is repetitive and gets old quickly. A more current example would be Uncharted vs. Dynasty Warriors. Are you really suggesting that it is ok for Dynasty Warriors to cost $60, but unfair for Uncharted to cost the same amount? Dynasty Warriors is as repetitive as can be. Yes, it takes hundreds of hours to finish the game a 100%, but the gameplay is extremely shallow. Uncharted has high quality production values and enough incentive to play the game multiple times. The enemies do not just stand there and do nothing as you keep hitting them again and again. Uncharted is obviously a better game despite not being as long as Dynasty Warriors. Experience is greater than how the length of a title. If length is the main factor a person chooses to purchase a one title over another, then he or she does not value gameplay all that much.

Uncharted may not be a good example on your part, actually, b/c I personally think uncharted is one of the most shallow games ever created. I (and I think a lot of my friends) will agree to WATCH a let's play of uncharted 3, rather than play it. THAT's how shallow that game is.

You do have a point though - it really depends, like i SAID, on quanity AND quality. I don't think you read that part. I also love it how some people on the forums look foward to insulting another (ie, implying I don't "value" gameplay) if they don't agree with their opinions. Please just stop that, the backlash is not needed.

It really depends on quantity and quality, and so far no one has argued why games ALL cost the same. All games should cost differently - this is seen in other products like electronics (ie, cameras, computers) and clothing (ie, peacoats vs hoodies). What's the difference? That the price is "sticky" (economics term)? It's absurd, and developers can easily lower down their price if they wanted distributors to do so. Anyway, I'm not checking back on this forum. This is something for you gaming "kiddies" to think about.

Im glad it is releasing at $40 instead of $60, who wouldnt be.

But there is also this small bit of doubt in the back of my mind wondering if content is being cut to save time but then shoved back into our face later as paid DLC. Though Im hoping this doubt is wrong.

[QUOTE="gamenerd15"]

[QUOTE="glitch2424"]

Sorry I should've elaborated. I'm sure you know there are games that are 10-20 hours long, and then there are games 30+ hours long (there are few games that are inbetween that time length). Games that are 10-20 hrs long should be worth 40, and those others should be worth full 60. There are also few single players games that you mentioned that are more than 100+ hours in length (the bethesda games are one, and so are some atlus games).

Also I respectfully disagree with that logic - you should pay what you get. If all games (like the 12 hour uncharted games, with a mulitiplayer that nobody even plays) continues getting the 60 dollar treatment, it just looks bad. I see plenty of "people like me" that wait for a price drop or wait till a new game gets on craigslist before they buy the game. It's just how it is. And I'm by no means a cheap person, either, and do I love games (and game development) to death, and I do wish more games cost different prices for their quality and quantity. Now, here's some logic to think about: why do some breads (or other food products) of different quality and quantity cost more than others? Why do some clothes cost more than others? Why do some computer mice cost more than others? Now, why do ALL games (great quality and bad quality alike) cost the same? Think about it.

glitch2424

The price of a game should not depend on how many hours of playtime one receives. It should be judge into how much effort was put into the product. Take the games Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time vs Dragon Ball Z Budokai Tenkaichi 2. Tenkaichi 2 has a story mode that is 40 plus hours long while the Sands of Time is only clocks in around 10 to 12 hours. Prince of Persia is the better game because of care tha put into making the game. Tenkaichi is repetitive and gets old quickly. A more current example would be Uncharted vs. Dynasty Warriors. Are you really suggesting that it is ok for Dynasty Warriors to cost $60, but unfair for Uncharted to cost the same amount? Dynasty Warriors is as repetitive as can be. Yes, it takes hundreds of hours to finish the game a 100%, but the gameplay is extremely shallow. Uncharted has high quality production values and enough incentive to play the game multiple times. The enemies do not just stand there and do nothing as you keep hitting them again and again. Uncharted is obviously a better game despite not being as long as Dynasty Warriors. Experience is greater than how the length of a title. If length is the main factor a person chooses to purchase a one title over another, then he or she does not value gameplay all that much.

Uncharted may not be a good example on your part, actually, b/c I personally think uncharted is one of the most shallow games ever created. I (and I think a lot of my friends) will agree to WATCH a let's play of uncharted 3, rather than play it. THAT's how shallow that game is.

You do have a point though - it really depends, like i SAID, on quanity AND quality. I don't think you read that part. I also love it how some people on the forums look foward to insulting another (ie, implying I don't "value" gameplay) if they don't agree with their opinions. Please just stop that, the backlash is not needed.

It really depends on quantity and quality, and so far no one has argued why games ALL cost the same. All games should cost differently - this is seen in other products like electronics (ie, cameras, computers) and clothing (ie, peacoats vs hoodies). What's the difference? That the price is "sticky" (economics term)? It's absurd, and developers can easily lower down their price if they wanted distributors to do so. Anyway, I'm not checking back on this forum. This is something for you gaming "kiddies" to think about.

I believe you said this in your statment above"Games that are 10-20 hrs long should be worth 40, and those others should be worth full 60." This statement indicated that you feel that all 10 to 20 hour singleplayer only games should be worth $40. Your problem here is that you forget that the quality and quanity of any title are both relative things. Games that you feel are not worth $60 may be worth that money to someone else. Uncharted is a good example. You think that the game sucks, and you feel the $60 price is unjustified, but I paid $60 for each game and did not feel cheated at all. Between playing through the games themselves and getting a lot of the treasures, I have gotten at least 30 hours of gameplay out of each installment. I am sure some people think Dynasty Warriors is better than Uncharted as well. Who am I to say that DW is not worth $60 in an objective sense? I cannot do that because there is no objectivity when it comes to the pricing of games. Everyone's measurement of fun is different from person to person. Some games are cheaper when they come out such as 3D Dot Game Heroes and Wipeout HD. Both games had enough content to be worth the $60 price tag, and yet they were not. You cannot judge video games in a checklist type of manner. Developers and publishers should not sit there and say "our game is worth $60 because it has both singleplayer and multiplayer. Quality is in the eye of the beholder. Some people might think X game is bad while others might think very highly of the product. Developers and publishers do not know how a games multiplayer will be as far as traffic goes. They are not going to sit there say, "in two years, the community for this game is going to disappear, so why don't we just charge $30 for it day one." There are games that will be crap, but the people who developed these games are not going to say that the product they worked on for three years is not up to par with everything else and should cost less.

Nice. Might get it then. They did that with the newest Ratchet and Clank game. The PS 3 game was $20 and you got a free download code for the Vita version of the game.

low prices for games usually mean they suck...

kingoflife9

Im glad it is releasing at $40 instead of $60, who wouldnt be.

But there is also this small bit of doubt in the back of my mind wondering if content is being cut to save time but then shoved back into our face later as paid DLC. Though Im hoping this doubt is wrong.

svaubel

not a bad price at all