I've been subscribed to extra for a while, but recently cancelled. Not because there aren't good games on the service or that it isn't good value for money (for a rental service), but because I realised that the 'stress' of trying to make sure that I played the games I wanted to before they are removed, outweighs the value of any monetary savings I might make. So, personally, in future I will just stick to paying for the games I want - usually on sale - and play them at my own pace.
I don't play them myself, and as I say, the vast majority do seem to fail. But I still hear about the hits, and 'new' ones do still happen; from the last few years - COD: Warzone, Overwatch 2, Genshin Impact. Heck, Sony's own hit, Helldivers 2, must count, though I know player numbers have fallen off since launch. Anyway, just consider Genshin Impact, which absolutely prints money - $1 billion every six months (so says google). This is crazy money, which no single player game can hope to match. So, of course companies like Sony are going to want their own golden goose. We may wish that it wasn't so, but it is.
Like it or not, a successful live service game can generate far more long-term revenue than most single-player games could ever dream of - this is why so many companies keep chasing them. A single player game usually makes the vast majority of its money in the first few weeks, maybe months, of its release, whereas a successful live service game keeps making money for years to come. Compare, say, Fortnite to any big Sony single player game - God of War, Spiderman, Last of Us etc. We may all think that the latter are better games, but they (the first ones in these series) made their money for Sony years ago, which is why Sony has to keep making sequels to make more money from them. Fortnite, by contrast, keeps on making a shedload of money year after year after year. So, live service games are actually very different risk propositions to single player ones - high risk/high reward. Most inevitably fail, but the ones that hit big hit reaaaalllly big, generating billions of dollars. I, personally, have no interest in them, but I understand why Sony and others keep taking punts on them.
Not really. Personally, I was pretty happy with Sony's style of output - third-person, story driven - as there are plenty of third-party publishers for other genres (like FPS and multiplayer). And it's never been entirely true anyway - Gran Turismo, Returnal, Ratchet and Clank are a few that aren't in the same mold. Most to the point, I don't think anyone who was asking Sony for something different meant generic-looking live service games.
If only they would release a DLC that allowed you to play as the RDA, so you could go around exterminating all the tree-hugging, mystic mumbo-jumbo spouting blue aliens, it would definitely be a Day One purchase for me. Victory to the humans!
This is just a rehash of an article from Eurogamer! If I wanted to read it, I'd read it there. Summarising another website's game preview does not an original article make!
I think you underestimate massively here. There's every chance 'true green Xbox' games like Halo, Gears and Fable will be going to Playstation - Halo and Gears doing so are some of the biggest rumours circulating.
Even with the biggest hype games you mention - like Indiana Jones - no, probably not day one (yet), but they could go over a lot sooner than you think. I'd say Starfield is a dead cert, and Indiana Jones could easily be within a year of release.
My view is that, now the genie's out of the bottle, and Xbox fans have already gone through all their rage and anger, there's not much reason for Microsoft to hold back. Again, not that everything will immediately be day one - though some games might soon be - but now the floodgates are open, the trickle will soon become a torrent.
Not the greatest month, sure, but I feel people have a wrong idea of what PS Plus is for. If you're expecting lots of (recent) AAA games, then you're bound to be disappointed. But if you treat it as a way to explore smaller, less well-known games you might not otherwise play, then it's a really great service. For example, recently I've played and enjoyed Sea of Stars, The Last Stop, Tinykins, Call of the Sea and others - many of which I probably wouldn't have paid for.
This month, Dredge is the standout example - and for what amounts to a few pounds/dollars a month, how is this not very good value?
This is ridiculous, my attention span is just ... wait, is this a list of twenty celebrities from the 1990s, you won't believe what they look like now! Better just check this out ... oh, hang on a minute, now I need to read this list of ten best fruits in video games, ranked! ... Sorry, I've got to go now, there's a Tiktok life hack video I need to watch telling me I can absolutely, definitely lose weight by drinking a litre of vinegar with every meal ...
Really odd choice of words in the title - 'glut' means an excessive amount of something, more than is needed or wanted. Don't think that really applies to Sony's recent, or probably future, release schedule.
Seems to me there're a lot of very short-sighted comments on here. Everyone knows - or should know - that standard game prices have significantly failed to keep up with inflation over the decades, but if they had, prices we were paying back in the 1980s/90s would now mean AAA games would realistically be more like £80 or £90 (not £70).
But since gamers are unwilling to shell out more than £70 for games - even then, there are howls of complaint - companies have limited choices to recoup their costs. This is why we get the hated microtransactions, season passes etc., even in single player games.
Given this, I have no problem with companies putting out these seemingly expensive special editions - that no one is forcing you to buy - to make back some of their costs from the small minority willing to pay for them, so that everyone else can still get their (under-priced) games at £70. All you usually lose out on are some meaningless cosmetics or, as here, a single side mission from a game - if typically Ubisoft - that will be overstuffed with them anyway.
Personally, I never spend more than around £25 tops on games in any case - I just either wait a few months or buy second-hand - but I still understand how the economics of modern game pricing work, which I think people should consider a bit more deeply before ranting aimlessly.
Not sure what commenters on here are getting so upset about. PS5 came out in November 2020, meaning it's over 3 years old, and will be hitting its 4 year anniversary later on. Which ever way you cut it, it is coming up to the midway point in its life cycle.
Personally, I've had a great time with it over that period. Yes, there should have been more PS5 only games, but there is a good number: Ratchet and Clank, Returnal, Spiderman 2 etc. Plus, cross-gen games usually run at higher frame rates and resolution.
Even so, I can't wait for a new iteration - PS5 Pro or PS6. Four years is a long time in technology terms, and many people don't bat an eyelid at spending at least the price of a games console on a new phone much more frequently. The PS5 will still be supported for many years to come, but for those who can afford it, a new machine that supports at least 60fps and 4K on all games as standard can't come soon enough.
Not sure how you can criticise the PS4 for being 'sluggish' with a straight face while touting the virtues of PS3. Try syncing trophies or accessing the PS store on PS3, the very definitions of sluggish!
It's one thing to be deliberately contrary to try to get attention, but trying to claim in 2023 that PS3 is better than PS4 or PS5 is really pushing it ... I've been a playstation gamer since PS1, and there's no way I'd go back to the pre-PS4/5 eras. Time to stop living in the past!
I've played every ps console since ps1, and whenever I bought a third-party controller (for 1 and 2), it was always a substandard, compromised piece of tech. So, since ps3, I've always stuck with official ones.
Point being .... it's generally a false economy to buy a cheap knock-off alternative, and I don't really mind Sony (or Microsoft or Nintendo) being protective of their controller tech. If you're able to splash out £300-400 on a console, it's almost always worth paying (or saving up) for official peripherals.
Funny, I've been playing since the 1980s, too. But still ... you must've heard of the Plague Tales games, at least? I haven't played any of the three games either - so I dont know if they're good or bad - but Plague Tale (and Evil West) are fairly well known.
@naruball Glad you enjoy them, but both Age of Magic and Mirrorverse are pretty egregious at trying to squeeze money out players. Like so many mobile games that seem fun for a few hours, you quickly hit the point where you have to start spending real money, either to avoid tedious grinding, or simply to progress. This is why most gamers hate on mobile games.
Every so often, I've tried getting into mobile games as well, but the decent ones always start bludgeoning you around the head with demands for money in one way or another
I've been amazed at how good the portal actually is - no one needs it, but if you want it, go for it! I assumed it would only be good for puzzle and turn-based sorts of games, but the proper dualsense controllers and nice, large screen make it pretty viable for action games as well (if you have a decent router an WiFi connection). I don't think you want to be using it for competitive multiplayer (there's always going to be some lag), but I've been loving my second playthrough of Dead Space in bed and on the couch.
I once heard rumours of someone actually buying an Xbox, but when I assembled a crack team to investigate, it turned out to be just another wild goose chase. Time to go back to hunting yetis or the Loch Ness monster, more chance of a real sighting!
@DaniPooo OK, now I see your misunderstanding. Buying digital may bypass the 5% or so of the physical costs, but it doesn't bypass the seller's markup! It's either Gamestop or Sony who add that extra 25% (in truth, Sony adds 30%, I don't know the exact figure for GameStop, I simply used this for illustration).
@DaniPooo With physical, it is GameStop (or whoever) taking their percentage ... with digital it is Sony (or whoever) taking their percentage. In both cases, the rest is taken by the game's publisher (who will get most of the price). Not sure who you mean is the 'reseller' - either Sony or GameStop is the seller.
As I indicated, both Sony and GameStop add a percentage, that's where their profits come from. Physical or digital doesn't fundamentally alter how capitalism works.
@DaniPooo And ...? You know how capitalism works, right? A retailer stocks items from a manufacturer, adds their own markup (let's say ... 25%) and that's where they get their profits, minus costs. I just don't know how more simply I could explain this.
@chrichtonsworld All I can suggest is that you Google the cost of physical games media - you'll soon see that discs, packaging etc. represent only a small % of a game's sticker price. In the days of CDs and DVDs, this was obviously more significant for music and movies, since they were relatively cheaper items. But for a game that is £60-£70 (in the UK, or whatever your equivalent is), it is only going to be 5, at most 10, percent.
@chrichtonsworld Denial about what? 95% of an average game's costs come from development, overheads, marketing etc. Digital is a little cheaper, sure, I never denied this - but the mode of delivery (physical or digital) really has very little to do with why you pay the price you do for a game.
@DaniPooo Now you've completely lost me. I never said anyone produces physical games for free - physical discs and packaging cost very little, but the bulk of the cost of a game is from its development (and marketing etc.). But I have no idea what any of this has to do with GameStop, they don't make games, they sell them
@DaniPooo Probably, but that's true regardless of whether individual games are sold physically or digitally. My point stands, which is that digital gaming is not inherently significantly cheaper - most of the cost of games is from development, salaries etc. not the means of delivery.
@bluesylvanite Yes, I think that's all true as well. But the lawsuit is aimed at Sony specifically, so it is presumably trying to hold them responsible for all pricing on the PS Store. Regardless, there's nothing illegal about how Sony, or other publishers, price their games - we (including me) may not like paying up to £70, but that's a different matter.
@DaniPooo Well, even running a digital storefront, hosting downloads etc. costs Sony some money. So, maybe they should be giving us, I don't know, a 3% discount? That would be nice, I guess, but people are still simply wrong to assume that digital automatically means much cheaper.
@DaniPooo OK, but the whole cost of physical v digital is a bit of a red herring. Manufacturing and distribution of physical discs accounts for only about 5% of a game's costs - so about £3.50 of a £70 game. In other words, it doesn't really make much of a difference.
An utterly absurd and frivolous lawsuit. Here's the point: the price of video games is not a legal, or even a moral, issue. If Sony decided to charge £1000 for a game, that is their right as the service provider - and it is my right as a consumer to decide whether or not to pay this; which, obviously, I would not. What next, suing Cartier because their watches cost tens of thousands of pounds, which most people can't afford? Or Rolls Royce, etc. etc.? Personally, I can't afford to spend £60-70 on new games, which is why I never do. But if I started suing every company whose products I couldn't afford, I'd never be out of court.
Comments 88
Re: PS Plus Extra's September Cull Has 4 More Great PS5, PS4 Games Added to It, 16 in Total
I've been subscribed to extra for a while, but recently cancelled. Not because there aren't good games on the service or that it isn't good value for money (for a rental service), but because I realised that the 'stress' of trying to make sure that I played the games I wanted to before they are removed, outweighs the value of any monetary savings I might make. So, personally, in future I will just stick to paying for the games I want - usually on sale - and play them at my own pace.
Re: Forgotten PS Plus Shooter Foamstars Goes Free-to-Play in October
@Jonnyl
I don't play them myself, and as I say, the vast majority do seem to fail. But I still hear about the hits, and 'new' ones do still happen; from the last few years - COD: Warzone, Overwatch 2, Genshin Impact. Heck, Sony's own hit, Helldivers 2, must count, though I know player numbers have fallen off since launch. Anyway, just consider Genshin Impact, which absolutely prints money - $1 billion every six months (so says google). This is crazy money, which no single player game can hope to match. So, of course companies like Sony are going to want their own golden goose. We may wish that it wasn't so, but it is.
Re: Forgotten PS Plus Shooter Foamstars Goes Free-to-Play in October
@SamMR
Like it or not, a successful live service game can generate far more long-term revenue than most single-player games could ever dream of - this is why so many companies keep chasing them. A single player game usually makes the vast majority of its money in the first few weeks, maybe months, of its release, whereas a successful live service game keeps making money for years to come. Compare, say, Fortnite to any big Sony single player game - God of War, Spiderman, Last of Us etc. We may all think that the latter are better games, but they (the first ones in these series) made their money for Sony years ago, which is why Sony has to keep making sequels to make more money from them. Fortnite, by contrast, keeps on making a shedload of money year after year after year. So, live service games are actually very different risk propositions to single player ones - high risk/high reward. Most inevitably fail, but the ones that hit big hit reaaaalllly big, generating billions of dollars. I, personally, have no interest in them, but I understand why Sony and others keep taking punts on them.
Re: Reaction: It's Time for Xbox to Tell Us Which Games It's Bringing to PS5, and Which Games It Isn't
@bowzoid
Good grief, you know that 'bill gats' hasn't been Microsoft CEO since 2014?
Re: Round Up: Concord PS5 Previews Seem Torn on Sony's New Shooter
@BeerIsAwesome
Not really. Personally, I was pretty happy with Sony's style of output - third-person, story driven - as there are plenty of third-party publishers for other genres (like FPS and multiplayer). And it's never been entirely true anyway - Gran Turismo, Returnal, Ratchet and Clank are a few that aren't in the same mold. Most to the point, I don't think anyone who was asking Sony for something different meant generic-looking live service games.
Re: PS Plus Extra, Premium Lose 6 Games in Next Month's Update
@Member_the_game
If you haven't played any of them, surely that's a reason for giving one or two a try? Anyway, Tiny Tina is pretty fun, for example.
Re: Avatar: Frontiers of Pandora DLC The Sky Breaker Pierces PS5 in July
If only they would release a DLC that allowed you to play as the RDA, so you could go around exterminating all the tree-hugging, mystic mumbo-jumbo spouting blue aliens, it would definitely be a Day One purchase for me. Victory to the humans!
Re: Scathing Star Wars Outlaws PS5 Previews Unfavourably Compare Gameplay to PS Vita's Uncharted: Golden Abyss
This is just a rehash of an article from Eurogamer! If I wanted to read it, I'd read it there. Summarising another website's game preview does not an original article make!
Re: Xbox Bigwig Confirms Many More Microsoft Games Are Coming to PS5
@Fyz306903
You honestly think there will still be an Xbox in 10 years??? One more generation, yes, but I'd be amazed at anymore afterwards
Re: Xbox Bigwig Confirms Many More Microsoft Games Are Coming to PS5
@MrGawain
I think you underestimate massively here. There's every chance 'true green Xbox' games like Halo, Gears and Fable will be going to Playstation - Halo and Gears doing so are some of the biggest rumours circulating.
Even with the biggest hype games you mention - like Indiana Jones - no, probably not day one (yet), but they could go over a lot sooner than you think. I'd say Starfield is a dead cert, and Indiana Jones could easily be within a year of release.
My view is that, now the genie's out of the bottle, and Xbox fans have already gone through all their rage and anger, there's not much reason for Microsoft to hold back. Again, not that everything will immediately be day one - though some games might soon be - but now the floodgates are open, the trickle will soon become a torrent.
Re: PS Plus Essential Games for June 2024 Announced
Not the greatest month, sure, but I feel people have a wrong idea of what PS Plus is for. If you're expecting lots of (recent) AAA games, then you're bound to be disappointed. But if you treat it as a way to explore smaller, less well-known games you might not otherwise play, then it's a really great service. For example, recently I've played and enjoyed Sea of Stars, The Last Stop, Tinykins, Call of the Sea and others - many of which I probably wouldn't have paid for.
This month, Dredge is the standout example - and for what amounts to a few pounds/dollars a month, how is this not very good value?
Re: Bombshell Report Finds Players Becoming Less Interested in Deep Strategy Games
This is ridiculous, my attention span is just ... wait, is this a list of twenty celebrities from the 1990s, you won't believe what they look like now! Better just check this out ... oh, hang on a minute, now I need to read this list of ten best fruits in video games, ranked! ... Sorry, I've got to go now, there's a Tiktok life hack video I need to watch telling me I can absolutely, definitely lose weight by drinking a litre of vinegar with every meal ...
Re: It Really Sounds Like the Next Glut of Big PS5 Reveals Is Coming Soon
Really odd choice of words in the title - 'glut' means an excessive amount of something, more than is needed or wanted. Don't think that really applies to Sony's recent, or probably future, release schedule.
Re: Stellar Blade PS5 Fans Irate Over Alleged Censorship
Removed
Re: Ubisoft Responds to Star Wars Outlaws Exclusive Jabba the Hutt Boondoggle
Seems to me there're a lot of very short-sighted comments on here. Everyone knows - or should know - that standard game prices have significantly failed to keep up with inflation over the decades, but if they had, prices we were paying back in the 1980s/90s would now mean AAA games would realistically be more like £80 or £90 (not £70).
But since gamers are unwilling to shell out more than £70 for games - even then, there are howls of complaint - companies have limited choices to recoup their costs. This is why we get the hated microtransactions, season passes etc., even in single player games.
Given this, I have no problem with companies putting out these seemingly expensive special editions - that no one is forcing you to buy - to make back some of their costs from the small minority willing to pay for them, so that everyone else can still get their (under-priced) games at £70. All you usually lose out on are some meaningless cosmetics or, as here, a single side mission from a game - if typically Ubisoft - that will be overstuffed with them anyway.
Personally, I never spend more than around £25 tops on games in any case - I just either wait a few months or buy second-hand - but I still understand how the economics of modern game pricing work, which I think people should consider a bit more deeply before ranting aimlessly.
Re: PS5 Is Entering the 'Latter Stages of Its Life Cycle', Says Sony
Not sure what commenters on here are getting so upset about. PS5 came out in November 2020, meaning it's over 3 years old, and will be hitting its 4 year anniversary later on. Which ever way you cut it, it is coming up to the midway point in its life cycle.
Personally, I've had a great time with it over that period. Yes, there should have been more PS5 only games, but there is a good number: Ratchet and Clank, Returnal, Spiderman 2 etc. Plus, cross-gen games usually run at higher frame rates and resolution.
Even so, I can't wait for a new iteration - PS5 Pro or PS6. Four years is a long time in technology terms, and many people don't bat an eyelid at spending at least the price of a games console on a new phone much more frequently. The PS5 will still be supported for many years to come, but for those who can afford it, a new machine that supports at least 60fps and 4K on all games as standard can't come soon enough.
Re: There Are More People Playing PS5, PS4 Than Ever Before
@zekepliskin
Not sure how you can criticise the PS4 for being 'sluggish' with a straight face while touting the virtues of PS3. Try syncing trophies or accessing the PS store on PS3, the very definitions of sluggish!
It's one thing to be deliberately contrary to try to get attention, but trying to claim in 2023 that PS3 is better than PS4 or PS5 is really pushing it ... I've been a playstation gamer since PS1, and there's no way I'd go back to the pre-PS4/5 eras. Time to stop living in the past!
Re: Sony Hit with French Fine for Allegedly Manipulating PS4 Controller Market
I've played every ps console since ps1, and whenever I bought a third-party controller (for 1 and 2), it was always a substandard, compromised piece of tech. So, since ps3, I've always stuck with official ones.
Point being .... it's generally a false economy to buy a cheap knock-off alternative, and I don't really mind Sony (or Microsoft or Nintendo) being protective of their controller tech. If you're able to splash out £300-400 on a console, it's almost always worth paying (or saving up) for official peripherals.
Re: PS Plus Essential Games for January 2024 Announced
@Member_the_game
Fair enough - have fun playing them then!
Re: PS Plus Essential Games for January 2024 Announced
@Member_the_game
Funny, I've been playing since the 1980s, too.
But still ... you must've heard of the Plague Tales games, at least? I haven't played any of the three games either - so I dont know if they're good or bad - but Plague Tale (and Evil West) are fairly well known.
Re: PS Plus Essential Games for January 2024 Announced
@Member_the_game
Seriously?!? Have you only just started playing video games or something?
Re: Reaction: PlayStation's Finally Poised to Penetrate the Mobile Market in the Right Way
@naruball Glad you enjoy them, but both Age of Magic and Mirrorverse are pretty egregious at trying to squeeze money out players. Like so many mobile games that seem fun for a few hours, you quickly hit the point where you have to start spending real money, either to avoid tedious grinding, or simply to progress. This is why most gamers hate on mobile games.
Every so often, I've tried getting into mobile games as well, but the decent ones always start bludgeoning you around the head with demands for money in one way or another
Re: Sorry Xbox, But Even PS Portal Is Outselling You in Spain
I've been amazed at how good the portal actually is - no one needs it, but if you want it, go for it! I assumed it would only be good for puzzle and turn-based sorts of games, but the proper dualsense controllers and nice, large screen make it pretty viable for action games as well (if you have a decent router an WiFi connection). I don't think you want to be using it for competitive multiplayer (there's always going to be some lag), but I've been loving my second playthrough of Dead Space in bed and on the couch.
Re: Sorry Xbox, But Even PS Portal Is Outselling You in Spain
@Mreeezie "more like they would be saying my wife isn't beautiful enough, while she is."
Pics or didn't happen
Re: Sorry Xbox, But Even PS Portal Is Outselling You in Spain
I once heard rumours of someone actually buying an Xbox, but when I assembled a crack team to investigate, it turned out to be just another wild goose chase. Time to go back to hunting yetis or the Loch Ness monster, more chance of a real sighting!
Re: Court Rules £5 Billion Lawsuit Against Sony Can Go Ahead, Following Years of 'Excessive' PS Store Prices
@DaniPooo OK, I'm slightly bored now, so final comment ... I just think you don't understand how this all works, but have a nice rest of your day!
Re: Court Rules £5 Billion Lawsuit Against Sony Can Go Ahead, Following Years of 'Excessive' PS Store Prices
@DaniPooo OK, now I see your misunderstanding. Buying digital may bypass the 5% or so of the physical costs, but it doesn't bypass the seller's markup! It's either Gamestop or Sony who add that extra 25% (in truth, Sony adds 30%, I don't know the exact figure for GameStop, I simply used this for illustration).
Re: Court Rules £5 Billion Lawsuit Against Sony Can Go Ahead, Following Years of 'Excessive' PS Store Prices
@DaniPooo With physical, it is GameStop (or whoever) taking their percentage ... with digital it is Sony (or whoever) taking their percentage. In both cases, the rest is taken by the game's publisher (who will get most of the price). Not sure who you mean is the 'reseller' - either Sony or GameStop is the seller.
As I indicated, both Sony and GameStop add a percentage, that's where their profits come from. Physical or digital doesn't fundamentally alter how capitalism works.
Re: Court Rules £5 Billion Lawsuit Against Sony Can Go Ahead, Following Years of 'Excessive' PS Store Prices
@DaniPooo And ...? You know how capitalism works, right? A retailer stocks items from a manufacturer, adds their own markup (let's say ... 25%) and that's where they get their profits, minus costs. I just don't know how more simply I could explain this.
Re: Court Rules £5 Billion Lawsuit Against Sony Can Go Ahead, Following Years of 'Excessive' PS Store Prices
@chrichtonsworld All I can suggest is that you Google the cost of physical games media - you'll soon see that discs, packaging etc. represent only a small % of a game's sticker price. In the days of CDs and DVDs, this was obviously more significant for music and movies, since they were relatively cheaper items. But for a game that is £60-£70 (in the UK, or whatever your equivalent is), it is only going to be 5, at most 10, percent.
Re: Court Rules £5 Billion Lawsuit Against Sony Can Go Ahead, Following Years of 'Excessive' PS Store Prices
@chrichtonsworld Denial about what? 95% of an average game's costs come from development, overheads, marketing etc. Digital is a little cheaper, sure, I never denied this - but the mode of delivery (physical or digital) really has very little to do with why you pay the price you do for a game.
Re: Court Rules £5 Billion Lawsuit Against Sony Can Go Ahead, Following Years of 'Excessive' PS Store Prices
@DaniPooo Now you've completely lost me. I never said anyone produces physical games for free - physical discs and packaging cost very little, but the bulk of the cost of a game is from its development (and marketing etc.). But I have no idea what any of this has to do with GameStop, they don't make games, they sell them
Re: Court Rules £5 Billion Lawsuit Against Sony Can Go Ahead, Following Years of 'Excessive' PS Store Prices
@bluesylvanite OK... you know it's not my lawsuit? Tell all that to the complainants!
Re: Court Rules £5 Billion Lawsuit Against Sony Can Go Ahead, Following Years of 'Excessive' PS Store Prices
@DaniPooo Probably, but that's true regardless of whether individual games are sold physically or digitally. My point stands, which is that digital gaming is not inherently significantly cheaper - most of the cost of games is from development, salaries etc. not the means of delivery.
Re: Court Rules £5 Billion Lawsuit Against Sony Can Go Ahead, Following Years of 'Excessive' PS Store Prices
@bluesylvanite Yes, I think that's all true as well. But the lawsuit is aimed at Sony specifically, so it is presumably trying to hold them responsible for all pricing on the PS Store. Regardless, there's nothing illegal about how Sony, or other publishers, price their games - we (including me) may not like paying up to £70, but that's a different matter.
Re: Court Rules £5 Billion Lawsuit Against Sony Can Go Ahead, Following Years of 'Excessive' PS Store Prices
@DaniPooo Well, even running a digital storefront, hosting downloads etc. costs Sony some money. So, maybe they should be giving us, I don't know, a 3% discount? That would be nice, I guess, but people are still simply wrong to assume that digital automatically means much cheaper.
Re: Court Rules £5 Billion Lawsuit Against Sony Can Go Ahead, Following Years of 'Excessive' PS Store Prices
@DaniPooo OK, but the whole cost of physical v digital is a bit of a red herring. Manufacturing and distribution of physical discs accounts for only about 5% of a game's costs - so about £3.50 of a £70 game. In other words, it doesn't really make much of a difference.
Re: Court Rules £5 Billion Lawsuit Against Sony Can Go Ahead, Following Years of 'Excessive' PS Store Prices
An utterly absurd and frivolous lawsuit.
Here's the point: the price of video games is not a legal, or even a moral, issue. If Sony decided to charge £1000 for a game, that is their right as the service provider - and it is my right as a consumer to decide whether or not to pay this; which, obviously, I would not.
What next, suing Cartier because their watches cost tens of thousands of pounds, which most people can't afford? Or Rolls Royce, etc. etc.?
Personally, I can't afford to spend £60-70 on new games, which is why I never do. But if I started suing every company whose products I couldn't afford, I'd never be out of court.