Not at all.

But companies need to start somewhere. This company has no experience and there are dozens of them. Sony isn't making it easy for them to jump into the industry.

Also, the PS3 won't fail, as you wrote, it's just showing how higher development cost can affect young companies.

It has never been easy to jump into the console industry and it never will be. You can't just decide to develop a game, have no publishing contracts and have no method to get your game licensed. Young companies must be picked up by a larger publisher in the console industry if they want to make a game. This goes for ANY console, be it the PS2, PS3, Gamecube, Wii, Xbox, whatever.

I'm willing to bet these guys simply could not pitch their game idea well enough for a PS3 publisher to pick up the game. More than likely this is due from the game or concept being pure shit. This is something to remember, while young developers might bring in fresh ideas once and a while, they also tend to bring in pure crap more often than not. And if this is the case, you can bet they aren't going to give this as the reason they aren't making their game for the PS3.

We'll have to wait.

If 'Theseis' turns out to be a sleeper hit or some sort of a mega success, which seems unlikely, then we'll know.

They're already making X360 and PC ports.

Not being able to develop for Sony is not the end of the world for any developer, last I've heard anyway.

£500 for a PS3? Ouch. Sounds about right though. :(
And we'll be the last to get them as well.

Blu-ray has some super-science coating technology that allows it to be cartridge-free. The data layer itself is very close to the read surface. The coating is called 'durabis', if I am not mistaken. It is highy resistant to scratches and other perils. Perhaps this has something to do with the high cost of blu-ray discs?

Everytime a bit of new info on this PS3 piece of garbage is released, it pushes me that much closer towards purchasing a 360 now, and totally writing off the PS3...

I expected a price hike since blue-ray is still new. PS3 being blue-ray playable is shoving new technology to us. This will kill their rival hd-dvd.

Well, the XB360 is a good console and will continue to be no matter how the PS3 turns out. It's worth picking up for the Xbox live network alone. :)

I am very pissed at Sony at the moment but I will have to cave eventually. I can sit on not playing FF12 for a year or two but damnit if Suikoden 6 comes out shortly for the system I'd have to buy the game and then buy the console that runs it. :/

What is Sony's track record for introducing new media types? Betamax and UMD bombed. Stupid me for getting a PSP, the DS completely owns Sony. :(

I just hope that if games really are more than $59.99 brand new, then people won't cave in and buy lots of them, no matter how good the game is. I'm used to seeing $69.99 as the absolute highest price in a video game store, not counting uber rare games. If we just give in and buy the games at, say, $99.99, then the price of all games might eventually spike up, and it'll be highly unlikely that game prices in general will ever go down from there. Inflation = Enemy#1!

I can't say the same for Betamax, but was UMD supposed to become the "new" media format? I don't think any media format released strictly in a handheld is going to take a place in the flow of things. The PS3's Blu-Ray capability may have a shot at it - mainly because Sony boasts this as a home entertainment system altogether not just a handheld to compete with Nintendo/iPod/Portable DVD players - but comparing Blu-Ray to UMD is a big no-no. I don't think UMD ever had any hope of toppling DVD. Blu-Ray, at least, being introduced in the PS3, has a chance.

On a side note, having just bought a DS, I'd have to agree that the DS owns the PSP in terms of the volume of good games. (At least good games in my opinion, nothing on the PSP interests me).

I don't believe that a layer of highly stratch-resistant coating to a technology would cause the same technology's price to get higher.

That said, I mainly concur to what others said here. I'm not paying about 120 Canadian for a single game.

Ok, NO!. I hate it when people say this. Just because prices were incredibly shitty in the past, it doesn't justify shitty pricing for today, and it certainly doesn't make a craptacular $70 pricepoint the average standard for this gen or the next.

You can't just factor in inflation when looking at pricing in the past and suggest that, in comparison, an increase in prices now wouldn't be so bad. That'd be inacurate. What about other circumstances that warrent cheaper prices for games now that weren't the case back then? Circumstances like today's much, much larger and actually mainstream market for gaming.

To make an accurate comparison would be quiet a task since there's so much to take into consideration. It doesn't really matter though, cause the bottom line is that regardless of what it was like in the past, any pricepoint above $60 per game (which is already pushing it) is just ridiculous.

Maybe you just don't realize how good of a deal we've been getting the past few years.

Personally, I could never believe that they were putting out new games at a $40 price point for major releases and have been waiting for them to go up ever since (especially with the size of games that are released nowadays and the sizes and budgets that are required to make top of the line titles).

Also, You must realize that the average Joe will not be taking any kind of inflation into account. Hardcore gamers will, of course, notice this, but I don't think the entire Sony fanbase is too keen on the inflation issue. For the most part, your average customer has no idea of this inflation crap. All they see is the price tag sitting at $60+. You've got people who have no idea what it was like way back because there's also a younger age group who doesn't exactly go back past the PS1/N64 era. When seeing games at the $30-$40 price was as high as it got. We, here discussing this issue, probably see inflation and its effects, but those guys out there buying games blindly because they heard it was good, will be completely oblivions of any comparisons made in the distant past. They'll just gawk at the $70 price tag. Compared to their old generation PS2 which will still be on the shelves sitting at a comfortable $40-$50 for new games.

That line of reasoning is why a lot of people are predicting a video game crash soon, because of the overemphasis on outragous production values.

The masses demand bigger, prettier, more time-intensive enhancements to their games, but at the same time there's only so much they're going to be willing to pay for said games, no matter how much development costs are. The budgets for these big ticket games are eventually going to spiral out of control, and either they charge outrageous prices for them, or gamers wind up disappointed at the lack of graphical advancement and quit buying games.

And meanwhile, in a distant land, Satoru Iwata is cackling madly.

Even though the PS3 will come at this outrageous price I plan on buying it (someday, never on lunch day).
To be honest, most of my games are pirated but every once in a while, when there is a game that I feel like it is worth all the money I buy original.

I guess Sony won't have that provilege anymore, not if they charge US$99 for a game. Unless I wait something like 4 months to buy it used from someone who would charge half price.

Sony lost their mind. I don't even want ps3 now, the prices are ridiculous.

If you think that those prices are horrible, you must be happy that mostly all here lives in USA, here on Latin America you need to multiplied the price x3, im very sure that "normal" games will be cost more than $100 US dollars...

So from the three pages of reading, I gathered this much: not many people are able to read very well. :(

That Sony rep clearly said ..."I don't expect it to be $100." Taking in the knowledge of the past, there are some games (sup Magna Carta, PD0 Coll. Ed.) that are released with higher price tags. But that has little to do with anything regarding the console itself, but more with the developers. They chose to add this extra content or make it a little more expensive, not Sony, Microsoft, or Nintendo.

Next, about that third-party shying away. In a fairly recent interview with Gamespot, Sony announced they had sent out 10,000 dev kits to 208 developers, more than the PS1, PS2, or PSP. See brief article - http://www.mozlapunk.net/homepage/?p=773

From what I've read, Sony has more developers on hand than any previous console iteration, they've shipped out more dev kits than any previous launch (in another article, I read that at this time last year, Microsoft had not sent out nearly the same amount of dev kits to their developers, and I don't even know the Wii's position on this), and the games are not gonna be $100 anywhere in the near future. The preorder list at Gamestop has two or three dozen PS2 titles, none of which are higher than $59.99.

Doesn't every company ship dev kits to all developers. You know to get a feel for the system to see and hopefully develop for it in the future. Doesn't mean that they WILL develop for it. Am I wrong.

Not that it matters. PS3 heh.

Not really. They have to order them and buy them from Sony. And with PS3 dev kits costing around $10,000 I really doubt Sony is shipping them out for developers to play around with. They went out so developers interested can make games.

Here in Australia, XBOX 360 games are gernerally $120 upon release. I hope the PS3 game prices don't really exceed this :(

damn, a 100 for a game, this will limit me acquiring games, i think this is too much, lets hope that when blue ray becomes more popular the blanks would drop in price.