EA speculates higher prices for Next Gen consoles...

[Modeps]

Yep, after they've purchased most developers (They just aquired DICE today) and killed off much of their sports competition, EA's CEO is slyly planning on hiking up prices, by trying to attribute it to the game consoles becoming more advanced.... yeah, right. Now when they launch their next gen games at $60 a piece instead of $50, they'll just say "Well, we told you it was gonna happen!"

When has game price EVER increased because a new generation of consoles come out? They dont, the consoles themselves are priced high at launch instead. I hate these pieces of garbage.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/2...1/25/news_6117086.html

EA CEO says while strong demand supports current top-tier pricing, games for new handhelds and next-generation systems will be priced higher.

If Electronic Arts CEO Larry Probst and CFO Warren Jenson have a crystal ball, they aren't telling analysts where they keep it. Ball or no ball, the pair freely prognosticated in today's earnings call, held shortly after the US markets closed.

Click Here.

A couple of interesting comments flowed from the two gentlemen today on the longevity of top-tier titles' $50 price tags (they're not going away), premium pricing for PSP software (start rubbing those 20s together), and even higher prices for next-generation games.

As is typical with earnings calls, the presenters started out with one theory, but when pressed, they ended with others. For instance, Probst prepped listeners for good news by saying prices are coming down. "Overall pricing will trend downward over time," he said. "It's just going to happen."

But Probst's mantra of lower prices began to falter when pressed by additional analyst questions. "My comment would be that premium products will continue to command premium prices, so I would not expect a huge difference [in prices for calendar year '05]," said Probst, shifting slightly from his earlier comments. "If you take a look at the average selling price in the top 20 in calendar '05, compared to what it was in calendar '04?in fact, if you trend it over the last three or four years...that average selling price in the top 20 has been somewhere between $45 and $50. I would not expect a huge variance from that in '05."

But when the subject turned to pricing for next-gen console games, Probst acknowledged price hikes are likely. "It would not surprise me to see selected titles carry a higher price point on new-generation consoles, at least initially." (Emphasis added.)

On the topic of next-gen consoles, Probst was hopeful Microsoft would not cease production of the current Xbox console as it ramps up to manufacture Xbox 2 consoles, as some have speculated. He also made some modest predictions for who would be first to market with its new platform, Sony or Microsoft.

"I would not expect Sony to have a head start on the next generation of hardware console systems," Probst said. In fact, Probst laid out a scenario whereby the PlayStation 3 might not make it stateside until late 2006. "[It] remains to be seen whether there will be new console launches from either Microsoft or Sony [in calendar year '05], and [it's] probably impossible to predict whether it's early or late '06 for [the] PlayStation 3. It might turn out that [the] PlayStation 3 is launched earlier in Japan than it is in North America and Europe."

Overall, the execs were mum on specifics regarding the launches of Sony and Microsoft's new consoles. "With regard to when those systems are going to launch, you will have to speak with them," Probst said, but overall, Probst expects a much tighter race between the two leading console makers."With regard to market share, I would predict that the two companies are closer in market share than they were in this cycle." He did not make any mention of Nintendo's next-generation console, code-named "Revolution."

 

[episodic]

yet another case to stick with computers and computer games

 

[Modeps]

Originally posted by: episodic
yet another case to stick with computers and computer games

While the focus of this article is on consoles, I dont doubt they'll raise the price of PC games as well.

 

[ponyo]

Aren't prices always high initially for both hardware and software?

 

[shimsham]

as long as consumers continue to pay premium price for the same rehashed games, publishers will continue to milk as much money out of them as they can.

 

[imported_obsidian]

Originally posted by: Modeps
Yep, after they've purchased most developers (They just aquired DICE today) and killed off much of their sports competition, EA's CEO is slyly planning on hiking up prices, by trying to attribute it to the game consoles becoming more advanced.... yeah, right. Now when they launch their next gen games at $60 a piece instead of $50, they'll just say "Well, we told you it was gonna happen!"

When has game price EVER increased because a new generation of consoles come out? They dont, the consoles themselves are priced high at launch instead. I hate these pieces of garbage.

Yea, because no one else EVER does this. Hate to break it to you but both Half-Life 2 and Doom3 both commanded higher than $50 prices when released. Supply, meet demand.

 

[Schadenfroh]

i would rather them put ads in the games (as long as it does not decay game play too bad, i dont mind looking at anything i would see in real life in terms of advertisements, like signs on the side of the road, etc.) and make the price around $25 for new releases.

 

[Bojangles139]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
i would rather them put ads in the games (as long as it does not decay game play too bad, i dont mind looking at anything i would see in real life in terms of advertisements, like signs on the side of the road, etc.) and make the price around $25 for new releases.

um.... HELL NO!

brandon

 

[Malak]

I am, from this day forward, boycotting any and every publisher that refuses to give me at the very least a plastic DVD case with the game, along with a detailed manual, and a COLORED map where applicapable. Furthermore, I require official forums with customer support given by official representatives, not a forum thrown up so people can spam complaints and nobody has any answers.

For $60, wouldn't you expect that? I could list a couple publishers right now that won't give you ANY of that.

 

[Modeps]

Originally posted by: obsidian
Yea, because no one else EVER does this. Hate to break it to you but both Half-Life 2 and Doom3 both commanded higher than $50 prices when released. Supply, meet demand.

Sometimes I think you're around just to try and refute my posts. Yes, every once in a while, a publisher comes along and says "This game is hyped enough, everyone's gonna buy it even if we raise the MSRP to $55 for a few months". I dont recall Half Life 2 being one of them (You could buy it for $50, like most other games at launch with the option to pay more for more) but Doom 3 was. The higher prices are a rare occurance, this will make it the commonplace.

... and I really dont think there's a problem with the game supply. I can't recall any time in the recent future that I couldnt find a game that I wanted to buy... The last time it happened for me was with Goldeneye for 64, and that was still the same price when I finally did find it.

 

[blurredvision]

Originally posted by: Modeps

Originally posted by: episodic
yet another case to stick with computers and computer games

While the focus of this article is on consoles, I dont doubt they'll raise the price of PC games as well.

I honestly don't think they'll raise the price of PC games anytime soon, just for the fact that PC games do not require a developer to pay license fees to anyone. I think when the PS2 first came out, developers were having to pay Sony $10-$12 per game sold! That's outrageous. But with PC games, they pay no one.

That's why a lot of PC games come out at around $40, with some special games like UT2K4 debuting for $30 with an aluminum metal cover for the case and a mic headset. Only those who know they can get the money charge it (i.e. Valve, id, and Blizzard).

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: Bojangles139

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
i would rather them put ads in the games (as long as it does not decay game play too bad, i dont mind looking at anything i would see in real life in terms of advertisements, like signs on the side of the road, etc.) and make the price around $25 for new releases.

um.... HELL NO!

brandon

whats the differance between seeing an advertisement in Counter Strike on a board for fictional "Pop Dog Cola" and a ad for "Coca Cola"

 

[imported_obsidian]

Originally posted by: Modeps
Sometimes I think you're around just to try and refute my posts. Yes, every once in a while, a publisher comes along and says "This game is hyped enough, everyone's gonna buy it even if we raise the MSRP to $55 for a few months". I dont recall Half Life 2 being one of them (You could buy it for $50, like most other games at launch with the option to pay more for more) but Doom 3 was. The higher prices are a rare occurance, this will make it the commonplace.

... and I really dont think there's a problem with the game supply. I can't recall any time in the recent future that I couldnt find a game that I wanted to buy... The last time it happened for me was with Goldeneye for 64, and that was still the same price when I finally did find it.

All I am is saying, is that this isn't a new thing. Game devlopment costs have been rising and inflation does exist. You're portraying it as some big evil that only EA would dare do is my problem. All companies do this when they know they can.

 

[mugs]

This is why I wait until the games and systems have been out for a long time before I buy them... my current systems are PS1 and GameCube. I never pay more than $20 for a GC game, $10 for a PS1 game. But then I'm not a hardcore gamer like some of you guys.

 

[HardcoreRobot]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
i would rather them put ads in the games (as long as it does not decay game play too bad, i dont mind looking at anything i would see in real life in terms of advertisements, like signs on the side of the road, etc.) and make the price around $25 for new releases.

Problem is, the market has established that we will pay $50 for a new game. So, the only conclusion is that games will still cost $50, but we will also have to view advertisements and the publishers get rich.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
i would rather them put ads in the games (as long as it does not decay game play too bad, i dont mind looking at anything i would see in real life in terms of advertisements, like signs on the side of the road, etc.) and make the price around $25 for new releases.

let me try to break this to you gently . . . .

you're gonna get BOTH ads AND higher game prices.
:roll:

it's progress
:shocked:

movie ticket prices are up, new automobile prices and housing costs are ridiculous, gas is high . . . . welcome to the 21st century.
:shocked:

 

[Modeps]

Originally posted by: mugs
This is why I wait until the games and systems have been out for a long time before I buy them... my current systems are PS1 and GameCube. I never pay more than $20 for a GC game, $10 for a PS1 game. But then I'm not a hardcore gamer like some of you guys.

I'm starting to feel the same way.

 

[Modeps]

Originally posted by: obsidian
All I am is saying, is that this isn't a new thing. Game devlopment costs have been rising and inflation does exist. You're portraying it as some big evil that only EA would dare do is my problem. All companies do this when they know they can.

And all I'm saying is that previously it was only HUGE titles that would come out at a premium, now it's just going to be the norm. I dont think any EA games, save the Collectors Madden PS2 game that came out this past year, have been above the industry average.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Modeps

Originally posted by: obsidian
All I am is saying, is that this isn't a new thing. Game devlopment costs have been rising and inflation does exist. You're portraying it as some big evil that only EA would dare do is my problem. All companies do this when they know they can.

And all I'm saying is that previously it was only HUGE titles that would come out at a premium, now it's just going to be the norm. I dont think any EA games, save the Collectors Madden PS2 game that came out this past year, have been above the industry average.

Chronicles of Riddick:EfBB(DC) - my GotY - was released for $29.95 . . . . so some companies are bucking the trend.

Hopefully Serious Sam II will come out for $20-$30 . . . . i will support THOSE publishers and WAIT for the overpriced ones to become bargain bin.

Vote with your wallet. You don't need the latest.
:shocked:

 

[onelin]

Anyone remember how high-priced N64 games were at first? I thought I recalled a highschool friend buying Quake for N64 for like $89.99.

Still... screw EA.

 

[xSauronx]

Originally posted by: onelin
Anyone remember how high-priced N64 games were at first? I thought I recalled a highschool friend buying Quake for N64 for like $89.99.

Still... screw EA.

i remember that a return of the jedi game for SNES was somethinkg like $75 or $80 when it came out.

 

[bamacre]

I remember people paid $85+ for Super Mario Brothers 2 on the NES, and that was a LONG time ago.

For the past 10 years, game prices have not really got that high. May I remind you all...

Freedom Fighters $20 when it came out.
I paid $35 for Far Cry when it came out.
I paid $27.50 for Chronicles of Riddick when it came out.

In fact, most of the games I have bought in the past few years were less than $50.

This is yet another reason I refuse to own a console.

 

[sswingle]

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
i would rather them put ads in the games (as long as it does not decay game play too bad, i dont mind looking at anything i would see in real life in terms of advertisements, like signs on the side of the road, etc.) and make the price around $25 for new releases.

Problem is, the market has established that we will pay $50 for a new game. So, the only conclusion is that games will still cost $50, but we will also have to view advertisements and the publishers get rich.

Exactly. Computer Gaming World had an interview...last month or 2 months ago about ads in games. They said the ads won't be obtrusive, they'll be more like the ones found in need for speed underground 2. Your game will connect to the internet to download new ads and report back on how many times you have seen each ad in game, and the games price WILL NOT go down.

 

[Modeps]

Originally posted by: apoppin
Vote with your wallet. You don't need the latest.
:shocked:

I used to need the latest, I was addicted to getting everything that was good... that made me lose out on playing most games through and I wasted a lot of money in my younger years. My wallet stays in my pants much more these days anyway... but now, my purchases I feel will get further and further apart. I'm almost tempted to get with WoW... almost.

 

[ubercaffeinated]

lol, they want to charge MORE for games that suck? granted a FEW games are pretty good, but i seriously doubt i, or any of my friends will pay anything above 50 for a game. either 1) people will just buy less games, or 2) they'lll be a moddin. we'll just have to see what game publishers really do.