Sleeping Dogs dev says publishers should lower cost of next-gen consoles - Report

I still just don't see how there is a properly logical reason as to how better hardware is cheaper. How does that work? When something is better should it not cost more? When you look at the price difference between what a new PS2 was and then a new PS3 there is definitely a difference. That's like releasing the best graphics card on earth and making it cheaper than the one before it. As nice as it would be for them to be cheaper, in these troubled times where making money is difficult I seriously doubt they will be cheaper. More expensive? Probably.

i dont buy the rising cost of game development, companies have been licensing their game engines for decades. on almost every game i see the u3 engine logo. but did cost go down, no they went up. this cannot happen again as it will begin to invert the industries growth and give the casual console a fighting chance for market share. i dont mind the upfront price of a console being high as long as i can see the value in the upgrade or just wait til the price drop. the ps4 can cost $500 in the first year and sell well but the u4 engine and luminious engine needs to be running watever they put out

The collective industry needs to make up its mind about whether it wants good hardware or cheap hardware. Sony and Microsoft had already sold the PS3 and 360 at a loss before they managed to refine the production processes and eventually start making a profit on them, so whether they can drop the prices any further is doubtful.

You can have cheap hardware, but for that, you get the Wii - a console that was salt of the earth for about a year due to its installed user base and then fell out of favour for having low attach rates.

I haven't bought a new console since I pre-ordered the Sega Dreamcast back in the day. My ps3 and my 360 were purchased second hand because they simply cost too much new.

Darn right the new gen systems should be lower and more compatible with the

thin wallets these days , everyone is raising this and that and giving excuses why and most of them are lame , they should just admit to GREED and have one of the deadly sins erased so their torture may be lightened !

Looking at supply and demand from the current-gen, people were fighting just to buy at the highest price point yet. Why not do the same again if they get more profit?

Average customer here. For me why can't they go back to when I can buy new console for $249 and game for $39. I think that pricing is reasonable for all consumers. I own a PS3 but bought only few new games, unlike back in the days with PS1, I had almost every good game that came out.

Excelent idea and it would be even better it they had Backward Compatibility. 8-)

I wish they would, but I wait for price drops anyway so I can't complain.

That sure would be nice. DVD players and Blu Ray players are going down in cost, aren't they? I haven't gotten any consoles from this gen except for Wii.

Yes, Console Developers should totally lower the cost of Next Gen Consoles, not see any profit from it at all for about two years....Smart move indeed......Hey.....How much is Sleeping Dogs going to cost? Oh yeah....60 dollars. Don't preach bullshit if you aren't going to follow suit.

YOu TELLEM Sleeping dogs!!

has anything dropped in price ever?

@buccomatic Thats why a $499 and up iPad is selling like crazy?

The money should be coming from the software. They can sale systems at a loss if they actually make games people want to buy and stop screwing people over with DLC.

Gaming is so expensive now a days :(

they can`t lower it coz MICRO$OFT too greedy and SONY is having huge losses

Yeah, 400 is the limit for what they should be charging. If they make a system they know has a high probability of breaking, like the 360 at first, then they should charge less. Although the whole RROD didn't seem to diminish the popularity of it. I am not hating. There is nothing wrong with the 360, just stating fact. And they should charge less for games that have say a 5-10 hour campaign as opposed to a 20-60 hour campaign. It makes so much sense it probably won't happen. Kind of like at my work.

Next-gen should be acccessible to average consumers? Who do you think has been buying consoles? Average consumers....

No matter what, an overpriced console will be doom for either company. They will have to find the right price mark.

@buccomatic

I hope the next consoles are backwards compatible and not download only.

I won't drop more than 250 on a console, nor more than 60 for a game. Hell, let's go back to 50 per game, and none of this DLC and subscription nonsense.

Cheaper consoles would be great, but even better would be cheaper games. Can we get back to new games at $50, or are we going to see them continue to rise and reach $70 in the next generation?

No doubt the devs would love to see the hardware-makers eat a loss so that they can boost their sales, but what hits are those devs prepared to take in order to increase their market share?

That would be nice but I don't see it happening.

It probably won't happen though....

Hey, dummy, if you lower the price of the next gen consoles, either the manufacturers suffer with losing money per console sold or the tech in the consoles is outdated and thus cheaper to produce. If the hardware isn't going to produce graphics that are noticeably better than what we have now in favor of a palatable price point then there's absolutely no point in releasing a new system at all.

Look at the cell phone industry... not everyone has to have the latest Android/iOS/W7 device every time a new one comes out. Just don't kill off this generation. Let this generation run concurrently with the next one and mark down this generation's hardware so the 'social' people can still game just fine.

Holy shit...and industry insider who actually AGREES with consumers. Nonetheless, the developments costs also need to be lowered. Otherwise, we're still looking at $60 games and dlc rackets.

It sounds great but if the consoles become cheaper, the games will be more expensive which would deter people from buying them.

How about lowering the cost of games. Specially games like Sleeping Dogs. No matter what you do, it won't be as good as Mass Effect 3 or Arkham City like you compared it to, but you will still charge $60.

Wouldn't it be smarter to charge $40 or so, get more people buzzing about it(if it is actually any good) and then have that develop into a franchise that you can sell a full priced game of down the line? Instead of charging full price now, have many people pass because of the risk(including me) and lose the buzz opportunity.

"Sleeping Dogs dev says publishers should lower cost of next-gen consoles"

Yes. Yes they should.

so if the big 3 lower the cost of the consoles, will the publishers lower the cost of games too? Probably not.

won't happen

So if according to O'Connell it's all about "lowering the price point and making it more accessible for the average consumer", then let's see what the price of Sleeping Dogs is when it comes out. If it's $59.99, which is what it is looking like, then it's hard to take value in what he is saying. You can't tell other companies to lower their prices if you're unwilling to do it yourself.

It's worth it to me to pay more for a pc to play games than a console and wait for the console prices to go down.A console is basically a barebones pc that's built to just play games and be affordable.I know a console does more than play games but I want a console to play games if I want to do more than it's a pc.