360 owners paying $60 per game

Do you feel as if your being ripped off? I mean it's just a plain ole dvd disc. At least PS3 owners get Blu-Ray formatted disc with 5 times more space. Seams like MS is taking advantage of its customers.

im gonna take a guess here and say chances are this might turn into a Dvd vs Blu-ray threadGarchomPro

Probably. But I must say I dislike Microsoft. Simply for the fact that they seem to charge you for anything. Nice games tho.

Seeing as more space is not subjective to my definition of what makes a quality game, but is merely a nice addition, no, I don't.

The 360 can serve up the amount of physics, graphics, AI, and hardware I need.

Do you feel as if your being ripped off? I mean it's just a plain ole dvd disc. At least PS3 owners get Blu-Ray formatted disc with 5 times more space. Seams like MS is taking advantage of its customers.

caseypayne69

Funny how that doesn't make the game any better at all...

Plus, that is why I use GamezNflix.

The real question you should be asking is why PS3 owners are paying $60 for a bluray game that (for the most part) looks and or performs worse than it's 360 counterpart.. :?OhSnapitz

ha ha nice reply!!!!

and to answer the question no i dont feel deprived and i think they made me save my oney by not including the HD DVD drive in the 360!!!!!!!!!!!

I think the point is that blu ray discs cost more than dvd9s, so why do they cost the sameMorisUkunRasik

Because people will just complain even more and Blu-Ray sales would be even worse

Do you feel as if your being ripped off? I mean it's just a plain ole dvd disc. At least PS3 owners get Blu-Ray formatted disc with 5 times more space. Seams like MS is taking advantage of its customers.

caseypayne69

No you got it all wrong ! I pay 70 Euros per game =) And yes live costs 60Euros/year (about90$USD)

[QUOTE="MorisUkunRasik"]I think the point is that blu ray discs cost more than dvd9s, so why do they cost the samewhitetiger3521

Because people will just complain even more and Blu-Ray sales would be even worse

exactly, wouldn't MS want this?

The amount of money it costs to produce optical disks is very small. I'd be guessing less then 4 bucks topsfor a blu-ray disk. DVD's about 50 cents or so.

I think the point is that blu ray discs cost more than dvd9s, so why do they cost the sameMorisUkunRasik

becuase we're talking about 1 cent versus 2 cents...probably even less.

[QUOTE="whitetiger3521"]

[QUOTE="MorisUkunRasik"]I think the point is that blu ray discs cost more than dvd9s, so why do they cost the sameMorisUkunRasik

Because people will just complain even more and Blu-Ray sales would be even worse

exactly, wouldn't MS want this?

Ya but if they make more money on software then it's good for them and 3rd party's.. Development costs on DVD9's are cheaper than it would be for Blu-Ray as well.

[QUOTE="MorisUkunRasik"]I think the point is that blu ray discs cost more than dvd9s, so why do they cost the samewhoisryanmack

becuase we're talking about 1 cent versus 2 cents...probably even less.

dvds are much cheaper than blu ray discs

[QUOTE="MorisUkunRasik"][QUOTE="whitetiger3521"]

[QUOTE="MorisUkunRasik"]I think the point is that blu ray discs cost more than dvd9s, so why do they cost the samewhitetiger3521

Because people will just complain even more and Blu-Ray sales would be even worse

exactly, wouldn't MS want this?

Ya but if they make more money on software then it's good for them and 3rd party's.. Development costs on DVD9's are cheaper than it would be for Blu-Ray as well.

they could still turn a profit and hurt sony a bit if they were to lower the price even if only by 5 or so dollars

[QUOTE="whoisryanmack"]

[QUOTE="MorisUkunRasik"]I think the point is that blu ray discs cost more than dvd9s, so why do they cost the sameMorisUkunRasik

becuase we're talking about 1 cent versus 2 cents...probably even less.

dvds are much cheaper than blu ray discs

We're talking cost to produce here. That is the only number that would matter in feeling "ripped off".

Do you feel as if your being ripped off? I mean it's just a plain ole dvd disc. At least PS3 owners get Blu-Ray formatted disc with 5 times more space. Seams like MS is taking advantage of its customers.

caseypayne69

Oh? So you really think that bigger space means longer games? Don't be ridicilous. Up til now PS3 games have been pretty short.

[QUOTE="MorisUkunRasik"][QUOTE="whoisryanmack"]

[QUOTE="MorisUkunRasik"]I think the point is that blu ray discs cost more than dvd9s, so why do they cost the samewhoisryanmack

becuase we're talking about 1 cent versus 2 cents...probably even less.

dvds are much cheaper than blu ray discs

We're talking cost to produce here. That is the only number that would matter in feeling "ripped off".

production is the same across the board but if the format that the content is put on, you'd think mass production of these would warrant a few dollars shaved off the retail price

[QUOTE="caseypayne69"]

Do you feel as if your being ripped off? I mean it's just a plain ole dvd disc. At least PS3 owners get Blu-Ray formatted disc with 5 times more space. Seams like MS is taking advantage of its customers.

Supafly1

Oh? So you really think that bigger space means longer games? Don't be ridicilous. Up til now PS3 games have been pretty short.

its not all about game length, it plays a role but being able to have uncompressed audio and not having to compress everything is nice

[QUOTE="whitetiger3521"][QUOTE="MorisUkunRasik"][QUOTE="whitetiger3521"]

[QUOTE="MorisUkunRasik"]I think the point is that blu ray discs cost more than dvd9s, so why do they cost the sameMorisUkunRasik

Because people will just complain even more and Blu-Ray sales would be even worse

exactly, wouldn't MS want this?

Ya but if they make more money on software then it's good for them and 3rd party's.. Development costs on DVD9's are cheaper than it would be for Blu-Ray as well.

they could still turn a profit and hurt sony a bit if they were to lower the price even if only by 5 or so dollars

I highly doubt $5 would make that much of a major difference. $10 would however

Gamefly

/thread

Gamefly

/thread

Deyee

or Gameznflix

/thread

[QUOTE="MorisUkunRasik"][QUOTE="whitetiger3521"][QUOTE="MorisUkunRasik"][QUOTE="whitetiger3521"]

[QUOTE="MorisUkunRasik"]I think the point is that blu ray discs cost more than dvd9s, so why do they cost the samewhitetiger3521

Because people will just complain even more and Blu-Ray sales would be even worse

exactly, wouldn't MS want this?

Ya but if they make more money on software then it's good for them and 3rd party's.. Development costs on DVD9's are cheaper than it would be for Blu-Ray as well.

they could still turn a profit and hurt sony a bit if they were to lower the price even if only by 5 or so dollars

I highly doubt $5 would make that much of a major difference. $10 would however

If I saw the exact same game for two different consoles but one was 5 bucks cheaper I would definetly go for the cheaper of the two. Imagine if you buy six games the same amount of money would only be able to get 5 games on the opposing console

[QUOTE="whoisryanmack"][QUOTE="MorisUkunRasik"][QUOTE="whoisryanmack"]

[QUOTE="MorisUkunRasik"]I think the point is that blu ray discs cost more than dvd9s, so why do they cost the sameMorisUkunRasik

becuase we're talking about 1 cent versus 2 cents...probably even less.

dvds are much cheaper than blu ray discs

We're talking cost to produce here. That is the only number that would matter in feeling "ripped off".

production is the same across the board but if the format that the content is put on, you'd think mass production of these would warrant a few dollars shaved off the retail price

Why? You're paying for development cost, liscensing fees, marketing, etc...the price or format of the actual plastic disc is insignificant compared to that. Further, who's to say that 60 bucks isn't a steal?

[QUOTE="MorisUkunRasik"][QUOTE="whoisryanmack"][QUOTE="MorisUkunRasik"][QUOTE="whoisryanmack"]

[QUOTE="MorisUkunRasik"]I think the point is that blu ray discs cost more than dvd9s, so why do they cost the samewhoisryanmack

becuase we're talking about 1 cent versus 2 cents...probably even less.

dvds are much cheaper than blu ray discs

We're talking cost to produce here. That is the only number that would matter in feeling "ripped off".

production is the same across the board but if the format that the content is put on, you'd think mass production of these would warrant a few dollars shaved off the retail price

Why? You're paying for development cost, liscensing fees, marketing, etc...the price or format of the actual plastic disc is insignificant compared to that. Further, who's to say that 60 bucks isn't a steal?

putting content on a few million blu ray discs would cost a pretty penny, it would be slightly cheaper to do so on a dvd. If you took the difference out of the retail price there has to be some room for a cut

$60 for a true next-gen game feels like less of a rip-off than $50 for a Wii game.WheresMyChippy

Can't say I agree with that but not all Wii games should start with a $50 price point.

They pay $200 less on the console :| Sure it has more space, but it isn't needed.X360PS3AMD05

Wii owners are the ones getting ripped off for games. I mean come on. $50 for last gen visuals and almost everything is low budget and small or minigames. Not to mention the outrageous VC prices....

$60 a game is fine for anything next-gen with enough content. But I barely bought anything at launch price last gen and that is definitely not going to change.

[QUOTE="whoisryanmack"][QUOTE="MorisUkunRasik"][QUOTE="whoisryanmack"][QUOTE="MorisUkunRasik"][QUOTE="whoisryanmack"]

[QUOTE="MorisUkunRasik"]I think the point is that blu ray discs cost more than dvd9s, so why do they cost the sameMorisUkunRasik

becuase we're talking about 1 cent versus 2 cents...probably even less.

dvds are much cheaper than blu ray discs

We're talking cost to produce here. That is the only number that would matter in feeling "ripped off".

production is the same across the board but if the format that the content is put on, you'd think mass production of these would warrant a few dollars shaved off the retail price

Why? You're paying for development cost, liscensing fees, marketing, etc...the price or format of the actual plastic disc is insignificant compared to that. Further, who's to say that 60 bucks isn't a steal?

putting content on a few million blu ray discs would cost a pretty penny, it would be slightly cheaper to do so on a dvd. If you took the difference out of the retail price there has to be some room for a cut

Not really. You can only attribute the savings froma single dvd to each 60 dollar game. So you are arguing that the price should be 59.9994 instead of 60? Over 100's of millions of games, that would equal a big savings, but per game it is virtually nothing.

I think gaming in general has became very expensive.the ps3 is $600,the 360 is $400,games on both platforms are 60 dollars,not to mension what u pay for online content like maps,extra missions and downloadable games.I dont care which one u own your gonna be out some serious cash if u play regularly.loudharley

I feel I'm paying for talent, time and money/resourcesit took to produce the game, discs cost so little that there cost isn't in the equation.

Do you feel as if your being ripped off? I mean it's just a plain ole dvd disc. At least PS3 owners get Blu-Ray formatted disc with 5 times more space. Seams like MS is taking advantage of its customers.

caseypayne69

Do you feel as if your being ripped off? I mean it's just a plain ole dvd disc. At least PS3 owners get Blu-Ray formatted disc with 5 times more space. Seams like MS is taking advantage of its customers.

caseypayne69

So do PS3 owners feel ripped off paying $60 for games that don't even have online component and are short to boot... what the hell does it matter if it uses blue-laser instead of red-laser?

The real question you should be asking is why PS3 owners are paying $60 for a bluray game that (for the most part) looks and or performs worse than it's 360 counterpart.. :?OhSnapitz

Oh, snapitz! :)

Yeah, I would be ticked if I owned a $200 more expensive gaming machine and it wasn't being used to it's fullest.

Since a DVD is so much cheaper to produce than a Blu-ray disc, games should be cheaper. But if 360 owners are happy with that, let them be.

[QUOTE="OhSnapitz"]The real question you should be asking is why PS3 owners are paying $60 for a bluray game that (for the most part) looks and or performs worse than it's 360 counterpart.. :?Truth_Hurts_U

Oh, snapitz! :)

Yeah, I would be ticked if I owned a $200 more expensive gaming machine and it wasn't being used to it's fullest.

Yeap, we all know all consoles are used to its fullest on their first months.:roll:

Yeap, we all know all consoles are used to its fullest on their first months.:roll:

lusitanogamer

Hows your 15+ GB games?

Since a DVD is so much cheaper to produce than a Blu-ray disc, games should be cheaper. But if 360 owners are happy with that, let them be.

lusitanogamer

Any disc in large quatities are cheap as hell. It is the costs involved in developing the game that we are paying for and therefore they should cost the same. Maybe an exclusive PS3 game that fully utilises the disc should cost more, but only because it has taken an exponential amount of time to produce it, say 6 years instead of 3 or 4.

[QUOTE="lusitanogamer"]

Since a DVD is so much cheaper to produce than a Blu-ray disc, games should be cheaper. But if 360 owners are happy with that, let them be.

SgtWhiskeyjack

Any disc in large quatities are cheap as hell. It is the costs involved in developing the game that we are paying for and therefore they should cost the same. Maybe an exclusive PS3 game that fully utilises the disc should cost more, but only because it has taken an exponential amount of time to produce it, say 6 years instead of 3 or 4.

Hey, i agree with you. I'm just using the argument that everyone on SW uses the it's Blu-ray that makes the PS3 so much expensive.