lukilladog
Member
![]()
This is the reason why Sony doesn't need to raise the price of the PS5 in the US. The strong dollar means they're earning more yens with every PS5 sold even with inflation.
That doesn´t fly for other regions like Mexico.
![]()
This is the reason why Sony doesn't need to raise the price of the PS5 in the US. The strong dollar means they're earning more yens with every PS5 sold even with inflation.
I directly responded to "How the f*ck, why the f*ck people here are defending price increase? It is not normal customer behaviour."So I guess we should stop pointing out Apple pricing practices etc. it is all okay as they provide "great" hardware. It is all okay. Yes we are dealing with inflation, energy price spikes (just to note energy companies, oil companies are reporting record profits, so it is not like they were on verge of losing money). It is more like them checking where is the line, first £70 games, now price increase where most of competents are cheaper than they were 2 years ago. Remastering remakes and selling it again and again. Shitty practices.
PC players playing on old PCs? Tale as old as time.I don´t think that´s a good metric to measure the success of a product. But from the steam survey we know that nvidia has had a hard time convincing gtx 1000 and rtx 2000 owners of replacing their gpu´s. https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/videocard/
Regardless it's still less then the Pound Sterling, always has been even on it's worse day..Because the US dollar is stronger than ever so there's no immediate need to do a price hike. They also want to beat Xbox.
1 Pound sterling equals![]()
This is the reason why Sony doesn't need to raise the price of the PS5 in the US. The strong dollar means they're earning more yens with every PS5 sold even with inflation.
Damn, you're right. Just found this post that quotes from Electronics Gaming Magazine and adjusts for inflation. So if this is the case, $70 two gens later isn't necessarily out of the ordinary, save for the fact that other, arguably more profitable, monetization options exist now.Disc based consoles were $40 to $50 for games. That was one of Sony's selling point to the PSX/PS2. (You pay more for carts).
When the 360 was launching, it was announced that 3rd party games would be $60 (to cover the $10 licensing) and their first party would remain $50. Which it did the first handful of games, until Halo 3 happened and it was $60 from there on out.
System (year) | Game cost in USD at system launch year | Adjusted for inflation as of December 2010 |
---|---|---|
NES (1986) | 29.99-49.99 | 59.79-99.65 |
SNES (1991) | 49.99-59.99 | 80.17-96.21 |
N64 (1996) | 49.99 | 69.60 |
PS2 (2000) | 49.99 | 63.41 |
Xbox 360 (2005) | 59.99 | 67.10 |
PC players playing on old PCs? Tale as old as time.
Damn, you're right. Just found this post that quotes from Electronics Gaming Magazine and adjusts for inflation. So if this is the case, $70 two gens later isn't necessarily out of the ordinary, save for the fact that other, arguably more profitable, monetization options exist now.
11 years ago
System (year) Game cost in USD at system launch year Adjusted for inflation as of December 2010 NES (1986) 29.99-49.99 59.79-99.65 SNES (1991) 49.99-59.99 80.17-96.21 N64 (1996) 49.99 69.60 PS2 (2000) 49.99 63.41 Xbox 360 (2005) 59.99 67.10
"It's only okay when we do it." - You
Kind of like MS and India a month ago as well. I know why you do this.
Not a huge jump but wow. I still miss the days of significant price cuts after 2 years, here we are going in the wrong direction.
Also, it's good to see such a busy thread here. Not often you see 1k+ replies in less than 12 hrs anymore
You mean EA, Activision, 2K, etc?I also don't forget MS ushering $60 in the 360 era, where prior it was $50 and below.
Why do you do this?
All we do is focus on the negative, more and more in this polarizing world.It's only stuff like this that acts as the "megaton news" of the week.
No shit... Due to MS's $10 licensing fee with the 360.You mean EA, Activision, 2K, etc?
![]()
Disc based consoles were $40 to $50 for games. That was one of Sony's selling point to the PSX/PS2. (You pay more for carts).
When the 360 was launching, it was announced that 3rd party games would be $60 (to cover the $10 licensing) and their first party would remain $50. Which it did the first handful of games, until Halo 3 happened and it was $60 from there on out.
MS has save me more than $600 with all these GP games theyre my friend lolCompanies are not our friends, never...
You mean EA, Activision, 2K,
Tell us you have no friends, without telling us you have no friends.MS has save me more than $600 with all these GP games theyre my friend lol
Gotem![]()
So the people playing with the older cards aren't PC players? Hum...Not the reason, Pc gamers recognize good fairly priced cards and ownership jumps within months on that survey.
https://www.republicworld.com/techn...sed-by-8-percent-to-rs-37990-articleshow.htmlFeel free to quote me if/when MS follows suit and marks up the Series consoles. I'll gladly eat crow and admit to being an asshat if I'm wrong. A global economy effects everyone, but the way a corporation adjust thier operational cost, debt management and product pricing is up to them. There's a number of measures a company can take to hedge losses or retain earnings. Digging deeper into the customer's pockets should be the last one imo
This is what I remember as well. Specifically when I went to Target one day and saw MK Mythologies Subzero for $80 I was thrown back cuz had a little more than 60 in my pocket to cover tax.This isn't accurate. N64 games started at $59.99 in 1996. There might have been a rare one at $49, but the majority were $60.
microsoft had 10$ licensing fee for disc based games on 360?All we do is focus on the negative, more and more in this polarizing world.
No shit... Due to MS's $10 licensing fee with the 360.
![]()
That was the cart tax. Hence the selling points of disc based consoles.This is what I remember as well. Specifically when I went to Target one day and saw MK Mythologies Subzero for $80 I was thrown back cuz had a little more than 60 in my pocket to cover tax.
Yes. That was the reasoning behind the increase of $10 for third parties and MS "promised" they would not do it for first party since they didn't have to pay their own licensing fees. Then the hyped as fuck and great game I will add, Halo 3 happened. And it was $60 from there on out.microsoft had 10$ licensing fee for disc based games on 360?
I know patches cost a lot of money on 360. Or was it debunked?
I loved the 360. I still think it was the best gen ever
do you know the profits of the whole of Sony as a company?
MS is investing money in GamePass, so?coarse I know what revenue and profits are, according to you guys Microsoft is loosing money because of gamepass
I know... and?but when we talk about Sony having profits and increasing price of the console its Sony need bigger profits and yes that is quoting you from earlier
And they introduced paid on-line.That was the cart tax. Hence the selling points of disc based consoles.
Yes. That was the reasoning behind the increase of $10 for third parties and MS "promised" they would not do it for first party since they didn't have to pay their own licensing fees. Then the hyped as fuck and great game I will add, Halo 3 happened. And it was $60 from there on out.
For context on the Halo 3 boost in price.And they introduced paid on-line.
And I loved the 360 because of amazing games, ui (THE BLADES) and how awesome it just felt.
But I was a teen... I was not "financially aware" of everything... aka I pirated some... a bit.... Of course I've bought all the games as an adult(or at least on steam)
Microsoft is treating the "Halo 3" debut more like a movie release than just shipping a new game, and perhaps correctly so.
Unlike cinema tickets, which cost about $10 each, "Halo" game sales are boosted by a price tag of $50 to $60 per copy.
Microsoft added additional licensing fees to peripherals not software.All we do is focus on the negative, more and more in this polarizing world.
No shit... Due to MS's $10 licensing fee with the 360.
![]()
For context on the Halo 3 boost in price.
Microsoft confirms September release of ‘Halo 3’
The Master Chief's return now has an official date: Sept. 25, 2007.www.networkworld.com
Nope.microsoft had 10$ licensing fee for disc based games on 360?
I know patches cost a lot of money on 360. Or was it debunked?
I loved the 360. I still think it was the best gen ever
I will go out of my way to support companies in the future that chose to not chase short term profits now at the expense of the consumer.
So Microsoft so far is willing to eat the cost, Sony who are still making billions in profit would rather take more money off people. Consumer friendlySony FY2021:
Net Income ¥882.2 Billion which is ~$6.46 Billion at today's exchange rate (out of ~$72 Billion in revenue).
![]()
MS FY2021:
Net Income is $61.2 Billion, just ~10x... (out of ~$168 Billion in revenue... so well, you can see the comparative margins there).
![]()
MS is investing money in GamePass, so?
I know... and?
Yup. (all 3 charged licensing for software)Nope.
Nope.
Yup.
So the people playing with the older cards aren't PC players? Hum...
Defend what? Prices increasing is a reality. It's only going to get worse. If the consumer gave a fuck they wouldn't buy it. If they price hike bothers anyone don't buy it.Well dont defend it then. You dont have to attack your fave comapny if you dont want to, just dont fucking defend it. Just for once some of you look at this from our perspective, the consumer, not billionaire companies.
So Microsoft so far is willing to eat the cost, Sony who are still making billions in profit would rather take more money off people. Consumer friendly
Sad, but true. I wonder if some gamers live in another reality, and not see the cost of EVERYTHING that went up the past 2 years. A dollar store isn't even a fucking dollar store anymore. It's $1.25 store now. Car prices, gas prices, food prices, clothing, insurance premiums, housing, etc...Defend what? Prices increasing is a reality. It's only going to get worse.
Those are post release patch fees, not licensing fees to put a game on a platform. You have no clue what you are talking about.Yup. (all 3 charged licensing for software)
Yup. (see link below, they stopped in 2013 along with Sony)
Yup.
[/URL]
Reading comprehension is not your strong suit.Those are post release patch fees, not licensing fees to put a game on a platform. You have no clue what you are talking about.
Stop spreading misinformation.
![]()
So Microsoft so far is willing to eat the cost, Sony who are still making billions in profit would rather take more money off people. Consumer friendly
The sanctions are meant to crash western economies and nothing more.LOL, you can't just mention the sanctions off-hand without delving into the reasons as to why the sanctions happened in the first place. That's like complaining that a dog mauled your leg without mentioning that you jumped into a fenced enclosure that says "Warning, this dog is vicious".
IRONY AT IT'S FINEST.Reading comprehension is not your strong suit.
For sure, banks and governments fucked up way before and covid made it worse.Just a small reply here since it's off topic, but the western economies were collapsing before the war even started. Many news reports about inevitable recession (or worse) way before, even the major banks chimed in.
You are conflating two different arguments into one.IRONY AT IT'S FINEST.
LOL
"Microsoft eliminated fees for Title Updates on Xbox 360 Arcade games in April 2013," a spokesperson said, reiterating what Hryb and Whitten announced below. "We're constantly evaluating our policies and implementing feedback.
"While our development policies are confidential, and will remain so, we're pleased to say that this is just one of many ongoing changes and improvements we've made to ensure Xbox is the best place possible for developers and gamers."
UPDATE #2: Microsoft's director of programming Larry "Major Nelson" Hryb and Xbox corporate vice president Marc Whitten have both confirmed the dropped update charges on Twitter.
Both stated, "Microsoft eliminated fees for Title Updates on Xbox 360 Arcade games in April 2013."
"You forgot to tell people," Phil Fish responded.
UPDATE: Fez developer Phil Fish is looking into whether Microsoft's new policy is retroactive, so he can finally patch Fez for free. Previously, it would have cost the indie developer "tens of thousands of dollars."
"I will get in touch with them and see if their new policy is retro-active," Fish tweeted.
"But honestly, I feel it's kind of a long shot. Something tells me it won't be," he added.
Fish also noted that "You have no idea how much trouble I got into for talking about this. And you never will. So I'm pretty glad there's a happy ending here."
He then continued to rail against Microsoft for not promoting the game or even getting its digital box art ready in time for release.
ORIGINAL STORY: Microsoft no longer charges developers for Xbox 360 title updates, Eurogamer has been told by multiple development sources.
Microsoft made the policy change on the quiet earlier this year after charging developers tens of thousands of dollars to patch their games.
Microsoft has always charged a fee when developers first submit their games to Microsoft's certification process so they can be approved for release, and the company normally grants developers one title update free of charge. This remains the case, but sources have told Eurogamer that subsequent re-certification as a result of a title update is now free. This applies to Xbox Live Arcade games and full retail games.
There are caveats, we understand. If a developer is deemed to be making an excessive number of re-submissions due to an update failing certification, for example, Microsoft reserves the right to issue a charge. But the changes should make critics of Microsoft's closed platform happier - and align the Xbox ecosystem more closely with the likes of Steam.
Microsoft's title update fee was designed to encourage Xbox developers to spend as much time as possible making sure their games were up to scratch before they were released. The change comes over seven years after the Xbox 360 was released.
A number of developers have complained about Microsoft's patching costs over the years. In July 2012 Fez developer Polytron decided to re-issue a patch that corrupted a small minority of player's save files because fixing it would require the very costly process of getting the game re-certified.
At the time Fez developer Phil Fish praised Steam, explaining that the PC platform's model would have alleviated the problem. "Had Fez been released on Steam instead of XBLA, the game would have been fixed two weeks after release, at no cost to us," he said. "And if there was an issue with that patch, we could have fixed that right away too!"
Fish declined to comment when contacted by Eurogamer about this latest development.
All eyes now turn to Xbox One, due out in November, which many developers hope will be a more open system than the Xbox 360."
Point to where they are NOT talking about title updates aka patches here...
Or you can triple down on being wrong, your choice.
No, MS announced the price increase for the new gen.
In fact, I remember the conference clear as day since I was all in on Xbox back then. They announced $60 for third party (to cover the $10 licensing fees) and "swore" their first party would never be higher than $50... then Halo 3 happened and they raised their first party to $60 with that game going forward. Which a lot of us said would happen back then.
Why do you do this?
Not that I disagree, but do you think the insanely expensive $3.2 billion Bungie acquisition also forced their hand? That money has to come from somewhere, and they are clearly passing down the cost of the purchase to the consumer. Just like they did with the higher budget of their games.They are doing this because they are feeling all-time, godlike powerful with how demand has been outpacing supply.
It's a terrible move, but they are betting people are willing to pay for it. Inflation is only their excuse to try to get on those scalpers' money. Why can they sell so many consoles at high prices and they can't?
If supply had been stabilized with demand, they would've never raised the price.
I bet 1 million internet points that they even feel fortunate or even "blessed" by this situation.
Microsoft can't raise the price even if they wanted to because they haven't even got their targeted sales (although is in a comparable pace than 360).
Sony is being arrogant again, and this move comes after the stupid decision of making every game cross gen more than 3 years after release (because 2023 games will still be cross gen).
Had they switched to PS5 only games sooner, this move would be even accepted by many.
So no evidence whatsoever, so I will stick with my initial assumption that scalpers will go for a massive worldwide site like E-bay to re sell their consoles.Because ebay is but one of many places to sell scalped consoles, think facebook marketplace, craigslist or local alternatives in many countries. Many of these are more suitable for reselling consoles specifically because scalpers want to sell lots of consoles in a small area.
These websites certainly encourage scalpers, but they have no reason to care. More traffic is more traffic.