dude, TC why do you have to have a sensational headline, the guy sounds like he doesn't even know the final price, he said MAY, also sony said 99% to 60. No one is going to pay 70 for games, also with DLC so prevalent I see games staying at 60 for a while.
WHen i look at my gaming libary, the only EA game i can find is Battlefield 3 and FIFA13, im very sure i can continue enjoying games without those and also that puts EA exposed in an industry filled with intense competitionÂ
Stop complaining. $60 in 2006 is equivalent to ~$69 today. They have to adjust for inflation some time. Plus, we get more content than ever. I don't think I've ever really played a game that didn't feel "complete" because they held off some of it as DLC.
But again, you guys don't understand inflation. People here were denying it existed, despite me proving that milks and eggs in 1910 were about $0.03.
That pass won't be needed if you buy new I think. Sony has already said they won't block used games and thats up to the devs. This thread is bullshots.
Haha. Even $60 is a laughable ripoff for about 90% of all games today. I guess that means I'll be buying all EA games for $20 from now on. Oh and probably used to.
dude, TC why do you have to have a sensational headline, the guy sounds like he doesn't even know the final price, he said MAY, also sony said 99% to 60. No one is going to pay 70 for games, also with DLC so prevalent I see games staying at 60 for a while.
Chris_Williams
oh so like every other rumor that has been taken as unsubstantiated fact on this forum for the past month? Just yesterday the boss from Eidos, when referring to the next xbox said it, "supposedly" is always online... a word that by its very meaning escapes fact. Wish you were here fighting for justice yesterday Chris... you coulda squashed a whole slew of "sensational headlines"...
Yes, well I don't see the problem considering I understand inflation.
Â
Though I've always been under the idea that devs should just charge whatever they want for games. It works that way on the PC... for the most part.
Â
Some games could easily sell for more than $60, and some should definitely be less than $60, and it would most likely help their sales if they were to just release at $30 or $40.
Probably only EA and Activision would be the ones to price their games at that price.  They do that on the EU PS Store.  Games are like £60 whilst everyone at least  has the common sense to put it to £50.  Even though £50 is still a pretty outrageous price for games.
No way am I paying $70 for a game, which will probably have tons of DLC and microtransactions in it as well. No goddamn way. Go ahead EA, try this, I'll be laughing as you crash and burn.Â
"I think typically at the start of a cycle you've seen the pricing raise to $69 for a core piece of software and then over the life of those it's drifted down to the introduction price, typically now around $59," he said. "We haven't yet set pricing on our [next-generation games], but you'll probably see a similar trend during the start of the next cycle."
An EA representative confirmed with GameSpot that Jorgensen misspoke during his presentation, meaning to use examples of $59 and $49, not $69 and $59.
"I think typically at the start of a cycle you've seen the pricing raise to $69 for a core piece of software and then over the life of those it's drifted down to the introduction price, typically now around $59," he said. "We haven't yet set pricing on our [next-generation games], but you'll probably see a similar trend during the start of the next cycle."
An EA representative confirmed with GameSpot that Jorgensen misspoke during his presentation, meaning to use examples of $59 and $49, not $69 and $59.
Stop complaining. $60 in 2006 is equivalent to ~$69 today. They have to adjust for inflation some time. Plus, we get more content than ever. I don't think I've ever really played a game that didn't feel "complete" because they held off some of it as DLC.
But again, you guys don't understand inflation. People here were denying it existed, despite me proving that milks and eggs in 1910 were about $0.03.
Drasonak
Inflation and the cost of living HAS gone up but the earnings of the general population HAS NOT. The only people doing better off are surprise! these dumb ass CEO types making these dumbass statements. Â
Stop complaining. $60 in 2006 is equivalent to ~$69 today. They have to adjust for inflation some time. Plus, we get more content than ever. I don't think I've ever really played a game that didn't feel "complete" because they held off some of it as DLC.
But again, you guys don't understand inflation. People here were denying it existed, despite me proving that milks and eggs in 1910 were about $0.03.
Drasonak
No it isn't the country is in better shape since 2006 so how does that make anysense?
Stop complaining. $60 in 2006 is equivalent to ~$69 today. They have to adjust for inflation some time. Plus, we get more content than ever. I don't think I've ever really played a game that didn't feel "complete" because they held off some of it as DLC.
But again, you guys don't understand inflation. People here were denying it existed, despite me proving that milks and eggs in 1910 were about $0.03.
Drasonak
 No we don't.. Games have not gotten longer, in fact you can argue many genres have gotten shorter.. Due to the heavy emphasis on graphics and theaterical set pieces. Â
Log in to comment