So, anyone else see price ignored for ps4 and xbox720?

[Negatempest]

So, I have seen many "professional" look into the possible specs of these new consoles coming out in a year or two, but no price.

So as a quick refresher about the price this generation.

ps3 599usd
xbox360 499usd
59.99usd games
Xboxlive price increase.
Brown/Gray games.

These are just at the top of my head, but even though they were few, they were major. Though possible consumers praise the next gen graphics of the consoles, seem to ignore the price they'll pay for it. It almost seems like the consumers believe these new power house consoles will cost less than 400 or even less than 500usd to own. Sure, the Wii-U isn't a graphical powerhouse, but the potential there compared to the obvious "make it look pretty" of the new consoles isn't as appealing.

So anyone else actually take into consideration the price of the next consoles

I would of figured that what prices I was speaking of should of been better stated >_<.

 

[Mr.Mattress]

Yeah, a lot of people actually keep pointing out that the next Xbox/Playstation are gonna be expensive unless they pull a WiiU and make it only barely better then the current Gen. Most gamers don't seem to care about it, but if the Nextbox is the powerhouse it's supposed to be, I can guarentee it's gonna be expensive (There is no way Sony could survive with another Expensive Console, so I doubt they'd do it).

 

[Soxafloppin]

I'd say they'd be around the same this time around, Probably sold at a loss.

 

[Esotera]

I can see the price being much lower than what started off the current gen, and the hardware specs being marginally better...a bit more RAM and better processors, but nothing ground-breaking. And whatever happens, the xbox store/playstation store will probably be the primary methods of buying games.

 

[Professor Lupin Madblood]

I'm still bitter that there's even going to be a next generation of consoles. I mean, Christ, the Xbox 360 and PS3 are capable of so much graphically and game-wise. There's no reason for them to update except for wanting to keep up with Nintendo's Wii-U bullshit.

And if you think I'm being unreasonable, I would like to point out that this was rendered on a PS3.


I know it's David Cage, and I know it's more theoretical than anything, but honestly, just look at it.

Plus, video games are already outrageously expensive and expensive to produce - I, for one, don't envy paying upwards of 80$ plus tax for the next CoD. In order to take advantage of any new technologies, devs will have to devote even more time to graphics programming and even less to actually making games.

I really wouldn't be surprised if there were some kind of market crash or recession in the game industry. It's ridiculous what the expect people to buy without question.
[small]Though given the sheep mentality of many gamers, I can't say it's entirely without reason.[/small]

Probably sold at a loss.

I'm honestly curious as to how you ended up with this conclusion.

 

[Realitycrash]

Probably sold at a loss.

I'm honestly curious as to how you ended up with this conclusion.

Well, from my experience as working within retail (GAME, specifically), any retailer who sold a previous-generation console (Xbobx360, PS3) sold so at a very, very minor profit. Something like 1-2% or so. A few dollars. All the actual profit came form games, controllers, paraphernalia of the sorts. So if they are going to keep the same average-price as they did last launch, they are going to be sold at a loss, since the hardware will probably be more expensive to produce (with it being better and all).

 

[CityofTreez]

I'm still bitter that there's even going to be a next generation of consoles. I mean, Christ, the Xbox 360 and PS3 are capable of so much graphically and game-wise. There's no reason for them to update except for wanting to keep up with Nintendo's Wii-U bullshit.

And if you think I'm being unreasonable, I would like to point out that this was rendered on a PS3.


I know it's David Cage, and I know it's more theoretical than anything, but honestly, just look at it.

Plus, video games are already outrageously expensive and expensive to produce - I, for one, don't envy paying upwards of 80$ plus tax for the next CoD. In order to take advantage of any new technologies, devs will have to devote even more time to graphics programming and even less to actually making games.

I really wouldn't be surprised if there were some kind of market crash or recession in the game industry. It's ridiculous what the expect people to buy without question.
[small]Though given the sheep mentality of many gamers, I can't say it's entirely without reason.[/small]

Probably sold at a loss.

I'm honestly curious as to how you ended up with this conclusion.

The "next gen" is already here on PC, and you don't see games costing $80.

This gen is done. The consoles can't do much more. It's time to move on. I don't want to be playing on the same console for the next 5 years.

 

[Savagezion]

I think both will be priced around $4-500

It's just a hardware upgrade and blu-ray has had time to level out. I don't see them being super expensive and Sony's architecture will probably become closer to PS2. Backwards compatibility may be an issue because of it as well.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Well we can't discuss specifics until this shit is out on shelves, and if people don't have trepidations dropping 400-800 on their pocket devices(and each of the family members hasto have one) I really rather doubt they will for the consoles.

They will probably end up in the 500$ range which even for a PC means about 5-10x the power of your current Xbox (do note that 10x power does not mean 10x better looking, as graphics get closer to photorealism the difference becomes increasingly indistinguishable).

Also MS was already doing a rent-to-buy program much like you get with a standard phone subscription, that will get you get a console for $50 or so and then they squeeze the rest out of you over time.

 

[Soxafloppin]

Probably sold at a loss.

I'm honestly curious as to how you ended up with this conclusion.

PS3 was sold at a loss, I'd expect a more powerful machine would be the same, That is how I ended up with that conclusion.

 

[Professor Lupin Madblood]

Probably sold at a loss.

I'm honestly curious as to how you ended up with this conclusion.

Well, from my experience as working within retail (GAME, specifically), any retailer who sold a previous-generation console (Xbobx360, PS3) sold so at a very, very minor profit. Something like 1-2% or so. A few dollars. All the actual profit came form games, controllers, paraphernalia of the sorts. So if they are going to keep the same average-price as they did last launch, they are going to be sold at a loss, since the hardware will probably be more expensive to produce (with it being better and all).

Huh. I had no idea it worked like that.

Still, though, I can't help but wonder if that means the games will be even more expensive than the otherwise would have been. They have to make up the lost hardware profit somewhere, right?

 

[Realitycrash]

Probably sold at a loss.

I'm honestly curious as to how you ended up with this conclusion.

Well, from my experience as working within retail (GAME, specifically), any retailer who sold a previous-generation console (Xbobx360, PS3) sold so at a very, very minor profit. Something like 1-2% or so. A few dollars. All the actual profit came form games, controllers, paraphernalia of the sorts. So if they are going to keep the same average-price as they did last launch, they are going to be sold at a loss, since the hardware will probably be more expensive to produce (with it being better and all).

Huh. I had no idea it worked like that.

Still, though, I can't help but wonder if that means the games will be even more expensive than the otherwise would have been. They have to make up the lost hardware profit somewhere, right?

Well, retailers might. But they still make a tidy profit, even if they sell at a loss. Still, the reason they sell at a loss is that there is this whole issue with paying for a locale, staffing said locale, shipping, etc. Now imagine if digital publishers sold consoles. Do they have the same issues? No. So can they sell the same, but at profit? Maybe.
Another nail in the retail coffin.
Another reason I remember videogame-retailers taking a major fucking hit last release was that major Corps' (like Walmart or similar) specifically sold consoles much cheaper, at a heavy loss, but did so with the intent of crushing the competition. They can afford selling at a loss. GAME sure couldn't.

 

[DustyDrB]

If the rumors of the Kinect being integrated into the next Xbox are true, then I guess that will hike up the price a bit whether you like it or not. But meh...can't really see a reason to get another Xbox anyway.

I don't know about the next Playstation. Have we even heard rumors about it? They should be scared as hell about its launch, considering the Vita had an atrocious launch year [http://www.destructoid.com/ps-vita-one-of-the-worst-product-flops-of-2012--241462.phtml] and Sony has been struggling otherwise as well. Hopefully, desperation will bring something good.

As for pricing, I wouldn't be surprised if they copy the Wii U strategy. The console itself is sold at a slight loss, but becomes profitable when purchased with even just one game.

 

[Professor Lupin Madblood]

You're saying this while developers have to decrease the FOV and make weapon models larger to get stuff like Battlefield 3 and MW3 running on consoles. And they don't even look that great.

I don't suppose you'd happen to have a source for that?

Also, Modern Warfare 3 was released over a year ago. You might want to pick something more topical, like Black Ops 2 but oh would you look at that Blops 2 actually looks really good.

I have trouble believing they would get a game like that running on the PS3 with more than 10 frames.

Honestly, you might be surprised. Heavy Rain didn't run that badly, and stuff like Uncharted 2 and 3 have both a silky smooth framerate and great graphics.

Ever considered stronger hardware could be used for more than just making games look better on the surface? Of course you haven't, because you have even less of a clue about this stuff than I do.

Ah, yes, The Escapist. A place of level-headed individuals and thoughtful discussion.
Well, naturally, the new technology could be used for almost anything. It's just my personal prediction premeditated upon perspective and perspicacity that publishers push, primarily, polycount, picture quality, lighting, animation, etc. more than actual substance, like narrative, character development, level design, aesthetics, or innovative mechanics and gameplay.

Also, developing the graphical side of a game falls under making a game. Graphics are as much a part of game development as bug fixing or brain storming or whatever.

Of course graphics are as much a part of making a game as any other part - indeed, I never actually suggested to the contrary - but my concern stems from how much emphasis it'll get in comparison to the other, more important parts. Y'know, gameplay, characters, general creativity. I don't want the next console generation to be a bunch of Crysis 1s and Rages that look beautiful and have barely anything in them but bad design choices.

Yeah, fuck the sheeple. Wanting to play games in true 1080p? These guys obviously aren't thinking for themselves.

Yeah, fuck me. Wanting to have an industry full of games that are about gameplay and not visuals? Clearly I'm a delusional hipster who only plays Planescape: Torment and masturbates to the Monkey Island games.

 

[StriderShinryu]

I'd imagine they are likely to sit within a similar range to where they were this generation. Sure the technology ahs advanced, but they aren't going to be using bleeding edge tech and as tech ages it also drops very drastically in price. Combine that with it being common in hardware sales to eat some of the production cost to move more units. Simply, there's a price point that works and that consumers are comfortable with paying, and Sony and MS are well aware of this. I can, however, see even further proliferation of various option packages. Different connectivity options, different memory configurations, different control choices and pack in game options, etc. While I don't see the average price being any higher than this gen, I would bet that the higher end "deluxe" sets will most certainly end up costing more than has been paid in the past.

 

[Professor Lupin Madblood]

Probably sold at a loss.

I'm honestly curious as to how you ended up with this conclusion.

Well, from my experience as working within retail (GAME, specifically), any retailer who sold a previous-generation console (Xbobx360, PS3) sold so at a very, very minor profit. Something like 1-2% or so. A few dollars. All the actual profit came form games, controllers, paraphernalia of the sorts. So if they are going to keep the same average-price as they did last launch, they are going to be sold at a loss, since the hardware will probably be more expensive to produce (with it being better and all).

Huh. I had no idea it worked like that.

Still, though, I can't help but wonder if that means the games will be even more expensive than the otherwise would have been. They have to make up the lost hardware profit somewhere, right?

Well, retailers might. But they still make a tidy profit, even if they sell at a loss. Still, the reason they sell at a loss is that there is this whole issue with paying for a locale, staffing said locale, shipping, etc. Now imagine if digital publishers sold consoles. Do they have the same issues? No. So can they sell the same, but at profit? Maybe.
Another nail in the retail coffin.
Another reason I remember videogame-retailers taking a major fucking hit last release was that major Corps' (like Walmart or similar) specifically sold consoles much cheaper, at a heavy loss, but did so with the intent of crushing the competition. They can afford selling at a loss. GAME sure couldn't.

Very true, very true.

I suppose at that point it would be more about who can best make the leap to full digital distribution rather than who has more consoles in more locations.

 

[MorganL4]

I'd say they'd be around the same this time around, Probably sold at a loss.

You have to keep in mind, since the initial release of Current Gen consoles the world has fallen into serious economic troubles. Europe especially but here in the US we are only marginally better off. In other words, if the price is too high people will do with the current gen what they did with the PS2... Ignore the successor in favor of the device they already own, thus forcing the game companies to make games for the previous generation in order to make sales.


Also, with steam big picture you can play new release games on your TV without buying an expensive new piece of hardware. And since split screen is quickly becoming a thing of the past (not an advocate of this, but it is happening) why not just hook the PC up to the TV to play games? Especially when a number of games only require a wired controller if you want to use a non mouse/keyboard setup for a game.

 

[The White Hunter]

I forsee a steady increase in PC gaming into the next generation as this one becomes stale and old and the hassles of owning a console grow and grow and the benefits slowly diminish to the point where the PC cannot be ignored on any front except for price of entry.

And even then.

Nextbox/PS4 at £400?

Yeah I can build a gaming PC for that > > Probably perform about the same too.