I don't think it's the discs themselves so much as the expense Sony has gone to to get Blu-ray up and running. Apparently it's been a bumpy ride, so they don't want to take too big of a loss on hardware that has likely cost them a pretty penny.

I realize a lot of that can be made up with the system's price, (OMG price so hueg like Xbox) but then you're paying for blu-ray capability as well as a game system, and they're selling that at a loss. I'm just talking out of my ass here, but I'd like to think there are other motivations than pure greed.

Seeing that the first standalone blue-ray players are in the $1000-1500 price range. And we get the first one with hdmi version 1.3 spec aswell as being an console and a media PC. I'd say the price is cheap. But if you want to look at it just as a console its pricey. But Sony has always said they wanted the PS3 to be more than just an console.

Jus thinking, i'm not sure about how this went in America, but when PS2 came out, brand new PSX titles were sold at around £30 too, and PS2 games were selling at £45-50, so if this does come out at around £50-60 I wound't be suprised. At least by then I will have a job in a store that can get me 30% off software!

Seeing as I only play £39.99 for all my Xbox 360 games, (just shop around Tesco's is ace) paying £70 - £90 for a game equates to roughly 1/5th of the cost of buying the system; ouch. So far it seems Blu-Ray has been more of a hinderance than a fantastic god send feature with those sorts of prices.

But lets see what happens Sony have to make the majority of the money lost on the PS3 back from the software if games simply fail to sell in huge numbers they would consider putting the price down.

It can't make a difference of 30 bucks whether it's a 'Blu-Ray disc' or an ordinary DVD =/

A price of 99$ per game would be lethal, nobody's gonna pay that.

Oh dear.

Let's say $US80 for your predictable NBA 200*/Call of Duty 7. That's $AU109, and of course Myer and DJ will jack it up as per usual.

Look forward to shelling out $135.95 a title, my fellow Strayans. Console gaming is fast becoming the one pastime where you get much less than you pay for.

Well hey, we're pretty close. Need for Speed Seven Hundred Million on Xbox 360 already costs $120. YOU CAN TASTE THE VALUE.

XG2, Myer: $119. Years and years ago, it feels like.

BUT IT'S YOUR STORE. IT'S YOUR STORE, MYER. YOURS. GIVE US YOUR MONEY WE'LL PUT IT IN YOUR STORE.

Quoted for truth.

I paid £60 for Killer Instinct on the SNES back in 1996 which is about £90 or so by modern standards. Kids these days just don't realise how lucky they are. I wouldn't object to paying £60 or more for a game that was worth it and had a decent lifespan. That's about the same price as a gram and a half of coke and that would generally only last you a couple of hours...

Anyhow either suck the price up and get some quality games. Or just buy another console. Not hard people whinging and flaming the maker will not make the games cheaper. And if you can't afford it you aren't in the group Sony is targetting with this console. And honestly I think many of you can honestly afford it you just don't want to pay more than you do today well though luck kiddo.

That's why my SNES game collection was a quarter the size of my collections from the PS1 onwards. I wouldn't want to return to those days, because it would mean that I'd only buy about 2 games a year, per system. Not because I only have that much money, but because I'm only willing to budget that much to gaming.

I wouldn't know about coke, but sixty quid will get you at least a half-ounce of good skunk, and that would last me longer than most games... :-D

SNES games > PS1 games. I'd hit it. :p

Also in Norway games cost £75 already. I have no problems paying that nor have I ever had. And I've been pretty strained for cash many periods of my life.

I don't know about that at all. The very best SNES games are better than the very best PS1 games, in my opinion, but the average standard seems to be higher on the PS1.

I actually disagree on that. I can pick out much more dung from the PS1 era than the SNES era. But perhaps that has something with me being less picky about my games then.

I'm very picky myself, and I was aware while writing that post that it was an oversimplification. Allow me to express my thoughts more clearly.

There is a greater volume of games for PS1 than for SNES overall, and it's true that there is a huge, honking great pile of horrdendous, pathetic, abysmal games for PS1. However, due to the greater size of the overall catalogue, this still means that there are more titles of a worthwhile nature than on the SNES, in my opinion. The quality bell-curve peaks a little lower on the PS1 than on the SNES, but the gems are there, if you want to look for them.

You're right, though. The average standard is not higher, it's just that with more games overall, the yield of quality titles can be good, even with a poor ratio of weak to strong titles. Some of the best titles for SNES never got translated into English, officially at least, so they were never really available to English-speaking gamers. I tend to not count those, no matter how good they were.

True enough, but still I find the SNES liberary to be an surperior one in queslity than PS1. Only category that I say is just as good on PS1 and SNES is RPGs. While PS2 has been kind of a dissepointment in the RPG category with a few exceptions(modern RPG = interactive movie).

I really think you're not looking hard enough. I'd list some titles, but I don't know your taste. Bear in mind, though, that the PS1 was home to the first popular rhythm-action games, and dancemat games to be available for the home console. Of those two genres, only Vib-Ribbon really does anything for me, but they are well-regarded by many. It was also home to the first popular 3d fighting game, and some of the major driving games.

I'm not trying to convince you, not in any way. Your opinion is your own business, but I am saying that from an objective viewpoint, the PS1 has been home to some important titles. It's not as though I even scratched the surface.

I'm not going to talk about RPGs, because you are already convinced. One area in which in really loses to the SNES, though is platformers. There realyl weren't that many. I'm a big fan of platform games, and the lack of them on PS1 really annoyed me for a while. There were a couple of nice ones, just not enough.

The higher cost of SNES games was party due to the cost of the media. Cartridges are considerably more expensive to produce than CDs or DVDs. Accounting for inflation, $50 for Grand Theft Auto is right about where it should be, as negligible as the price for the physical media is.

This is also why Sony is blatantly full of shit here when they start claiming that PS3 games are going to be so expensive because of the blu-ray discs. While I have no doubt that the hardware to burn the discs is a pricey investment, the physical discs themselves cannot be much more than a standard DVD. It's just a thin wafer of plastic and metal; the magic is in how tightly they can pack in the laser grooves.

For Sony's sake, let's hope their rep here is talking out of his ass. They've already nearly killed themselves with their $600 PS3. Charging $60 on the low end for games on top of that really WILL turn this into the 3D0 2.

Remember how when DVDs came out they were $5+ for one, while CDs you could get for free? It's the same thing with blue-ray. They don't have nearly the facilities pumping those suckers out as they do for DVD, so of course it's going to be more expensive.

Also, with inflation, $50 for a video game today isn't right when compared to $70 for a game 15 years ago. Money gets less valuable, not more. =\

Also, I never really go into the Nintendo forum, but what was the general response to them upping the release price from $30 for a Gameboy game to the $40 I see in stores now?

I don't know about anybody else, but I generally don't see $40 games. Not like I really look, because you can buy a good GBA flash cart for $100 and put on whatever you want (except the NES Classics. For some reason those don't work).

THIRD-PARTY CANCELS PS3 VERSION OF GAME DUE TO DEVELOPMENT COSTS!

LINK

Did you even read that link? They said it was never a PS3 title to begin with.

No, of course I didn't read it! I pressed ENTER and then came a link out of nowhere!

Even if the game WASN'T in development for the PS3, the fact that they didn't go forward with that version, as stated in their post, makes it so that the development costs were too much for a regular Third-Party studio.

Did you even read that link?

Considering companies like NIS, Cave, Treasure and many other extremely small developers are already making PS3 games I really don't think development costs are as big as an issue as they are made out to be.

Look at the company history of the Theseis developers. The actually don't even have a company history. This sort of thing is so common that normally it isn't even news worth. But digging up any amount of insignificant information on the PS3 and typing up a half assed article is what sites like Joystiq love to do these days.

Regular third-party studio? It's 12 people or so with no experience.

HAY GUYS I THOUGHT OF MAKING A PS3 GAME (IT'S JUST ME FOR NOW) BUT DECIDED IT WAS TOO EXPENSIVE. THIS OBVIOUSLY MEANS PS3 WILL FAIL