PS3 Games To Cost $75 To $84

21 Responses

1. Shaka

   September 25th, 2006 at 1:11 am

   1

   ‘ ‘ is that games are using the Blu-Ray format, which is quite expensive to manufacture at the moment. ‘ ‘

   Nuff said.

   now at 70$+ a pop. I am sure going to think real closely everytime im gonna drop that cash for a game.
   Resistance is one of those without a doubt games thats totally worth 70$+.
   Resistance+PS3=Perfect.

2. Emerald

   September 25th, 2006 at 1:20 am

   2

   …Can Sony honestly think people’ll spend this amount of money for games? First the $600 bombshell and now this.

   Sony has to figure out how to keep the prices down(Especialy Development Kits)if they want to appeal to consumers and developers.

   But still, they do look like good games.

3. Shaka

   September 25th, 2006 at 1:37 am

   3

   If you want really next gen. its going to cost you a bit.

4. Kaiser Soze

   September 25th, 2006 at 1:53 am

   4

   Ouch… A bit pricey. $80 for a game. Is this the last playstation we will see? I hope not. But as of right now, it looks like history repeats itself. Neogeo

5. GameGod

   September 25th, 2006 at 1:58 am

   5

   1st 600$ + tax, don’t forget the tax, around 50$ + the HDMI cable sold separatly, add 20$, add the warranty, because you know it’s a Sony after all(lol), another 50$,you are at 720$ & no game!!! add 1 game 70$ & an extra controller 50&, you have to shell 840$ to play one game & use an extra controller… I’ll have the decency not to speak about the HDMI compatible TV set to display 1080p… I’m not sure the PS3 will drive fantastic hardware sales this time…

6. GameGod

   September 25th, 2006 at 2:00 am

   6

   …nore software for that matter…

7. GameGod

   September 25th, 2006 at 2:12 am

   7

   I’m positive, in the US, where taxes change from state to state, the price is without tax, & yes I know you can find cheap HDMI cables for 10$, but the price range goes from 10 $ to more than 50$, you find these cheap cables mostly on the internet, the average joe is going to by his cable at the electronic store, so I guess 20$ average is fair, don’t you? take care!

8. John frew

   September 25th, 2006 at 3:19 am

   8

   You don’t need to buy it… I’m not.

9. Shaka

   September 25th, 2006 at 3:28 am

   9

   PS3 is not for poor people and PS2 still kicks mayor a$$ alot more then xbox 360 and wii combined.

10. Jason

    September 25th, 2006 at 4:16 am

    10

    “PS3 is not for poor people and PS2 still kicks mayor a$$ alot more then xbox 360 and wii combined.”

    …and Shaka says he’s not a Sony fanboy… LOL

    $70+ for a game is pathetic. Especially when you consider games that will be multiplatform and look identical on 360 and PS3…Sony sounds like they have a winner! At least they have some people who will buy anything with the Sony name on it (like Shaka) constantly telling themselves that it’s worth it.

11. Emerald

    September 25th, 2006 at 5:39 am

    11

    “and PS2 still kicks mayor a$$ alot more then xbox 360 and wii combined.”
    Really? Because the X360 has outsold the PS2 in America.

12. Zac

    September 25th, 2006 at 11:16 am

    12

    too much

    go buy a house shaka

13. Lemond

    September 25th, 2006 at 3:50 pm

    13

    Sony is looking more and more like a swirling vortex bent on sucking every last dollar it can straight out of people’s wallets.

    For some reason, looks like Sony are trying to go from mainstream to some strange niche market where people are willing to pay extra because of the Sony brand.

    “PS3 is not for poor people” - I think that’s just about right. Way to expand the market, Sony.

14. Interscription

    September 25th, 2006 at 4:09 pm

    14

    [...] According to Digital Battle, (quoting Impress watch), Sony spoke with reporters following a TGS press event, and dropped word that PS3 games will retail in Japan for about 8800, to 9800 yen. This works out to be in the $75.00 to $80.00 range. The story notes Sony’s statement that prices might not be as high in the US. [...]

15. Anuban

    September 25th, 2006 at 5:03 pm

    15

    Oh NO!! Hell No!! I will never spend that much on this current generation of games … for me to spend $70-$75 bucks for a title (and let’s not forget that the special edition versions will be $10 more) it would have to be at least two generations above where we currently are. At this moment that price is just to high and it really looks like Nintendo may end up winning this “next-gen” race in the long run. That said however, Sony is Sony and the PS/3 will still probably do well. Just count me out for the forseeable future. I’ll stick with my 360 and next year I’ll get a Wii.

16. Shaka

    September 25th, 2006 at 9:29 pm

    16

    Lets see.

    xbox 350 dvd games(8gb) = 60$
    wii dvd games (8gb)= 60$
    Sony PS3 Blu-Ray games (50gb) = 70$

    sounds about right actually sounds like a steal to me,dvd games are so last gen.
    welcome PS3 the one and only real next gen. system.

17. dominant

    September 25th, 2006 at 10:31 pm

    17

    haha… actually the reason wii and 360 games are on dual layer dvd’s is because developers haven’t been using nearly that amount of space. so having a 50gb disc that isn’t be utilized (until devs can come up with something that large) is a complete waste of money & space.

18. dominant

    September 25th, 2006 at 11:41 pm

    18

    remember it, write it down, take a picture, i don’t give a f**k. just because we have new technology doesn’t mean it needs to be immediately implemented. i never said it wouldn’t be useful in 10 years. i’m speaking about present time, not the future.

19. dominant

    September 25th, 2006 at 11:43 pm

    19

    not like it matters, any objective arguement anyone has on here is going to be picked apart by you sony fanatics. if sony was a pussy, you guys would definitely be whipped by it.

20. Emerald

    September 26th, 2006 at 12:46 am

    20

    “wii dvd games (8gb)= 60$”
    Oh wait, this isn’t true.
    Shaka yet again makes up false statements to support his arguments.

21. Jason

    September 26th, 2006 at 1:49 am

    21

    Considering the PS3 drive reads at 9 MB/sec think if you did have a 50 gig game… The only way they could make it that large is if they had every texture super high res and uncompressed so each level could potentially be 1-2 gigs…try loading that at 9 MB/sec and then when you have to wait 15-20 minutes to load a level tell me that all that extra space was worth it and “next gen”. Me…I prefer my short load times and it’d be wise for the PS3 to have similarly sized games so their load times are comprable to the Xbox 360/Wii. Not to mention the 50 GB discs are dual layered which would run slower than a single layered disc.

    In the end it really is about PLAYING the games right? Not waiting an additional 10 minutes for a level to load so it has slightly sharper graphics because their textures are uncompressed. If you think any developer is going to do this then you are a retard.