or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Gaming & Content Streaming › Home Theater Gaming › PlayStation Area › Official Playstation Vita Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Official Playstation Vita Thread - Page 32

post #931 of 1725
That's probably true, although the pie is getting bigger I think.

I want the PSV to do better. I think the PSV is the best handheld system ever, since it can handle main system games with ease as well as a lot more. But the market evidently isn't interested in that. People want a $2 game that lets them smudge their fingers all over the screen. I don't think dropping the price to $160 will convince as many people as some do.
post #932 of 1725
Quote:
Originally Posted by number1laing View Post

I think the PSV is the best handheld system ever, since it can handle main system games with ease as well as a lot more. But the market evidently isn't interested in that. People want a $2 game that lets them smudge their fingers all over the screen. I don't think dropping the price to $160 will convince as many people as some do.

I think there's interest, but at a price ceiling. $250 is probably at least $50 above that ceiling. I think at $160 the system would sell very well, but we're quite a ways off from the Vita being at that level, assuming it survives long enough to see it. Sony simply isn't in a position to absorb losses on the system, but I think Vita can 'survive' if Sony gets a grip on features that we've discussed here previously( ps1 support is finally here, albeit 6 months late), cross-buy, PS mobile,etc etc.

It also wouldn't hurt to have tiered pricing.... the standard price of $39.99 doesn't cut it, especially since games are dropping in price so quickly nowadays, and people have their own perceptions of which games are 'worth' that asking price. In particular some of these companies need a reality check when it comes to pricing portable versions of games already on home consoles: how many people are going to buy Rayman Origins at $40 when the home consoles are now half that( EXCELLENT game BTW)??

Back on the topic of pricing, there's many retailer deals going on now where you can get a Vita with a $50 gift card, which more or less equates to a price-cut. Perhaps Sony feels as long as these deals are going on they can get away with keeping the system at its current price. I actually sold my Vita a few weeks ago, as the system's future is a bit too uncertain for me, and I really wasn't using it so couldn't justify keeping it. I'm not unopposed to revisiting the system again as an owner down the line, particularly if it gets a decent selection of RPGs, but I don't otherwise feel compelled to own one. My gaming time has shrunk right down since getting married, and my Ps3/360 and Ipad occupy most of the rare moments of gaming time in my life.
post #933 of 1725
Sony just needs to come to a realization about pricing their content appropriately. The original Playstation came out in 1995. That's ancient history by now. Yet, they want to charge $9.99 for some of their PS1 games ? I just don't get it. I'm barely interested in paying $9.99 for something like Mutant Blobs, and you want me to pay $9.99 for an old PS1 game ? I just don't get it. The lowest priced PS1 games are $5.99 which is still too expensive.

Hasn't Sony ever heard of disposable gaming ? Games on the iphone costing 99 cents, $1.99 or $2.99 are selling extremely well, because the price point is low enough for it to be considered a disposable experience. When people buy a $1.99 iphone game, they aren't worried about whether they will get their moneys worth. It's so cheap, that they can buy it, play it a few times, and forget about it. If they never play it again, no big deal. But you start pricing things at $5.99 and $9.99, and it's not quite as disposable. Sony needs to come to the realization that if they priced everything much cheaper, people would buy a bunch more stuff, and in the long run, they will actually come out ahead. They are just so short sided. It's so hard for Sony to ever consider pricing something cheaply. It's not in their dna. They just can't bring themselves to price things rationally.

Nintendo is in the exact same boat to a degree. If you're going to have a portable device in 2012 or 2013, then you need to get with the times, and understand that people are willing to buy a ton of super cheap games, but they aren't interested in buying full priced games on a handheld. It's going to be a painful learning experience for both Nintendo and Sony, but eventually they will have to learn, either that, or they won't survive.
post #934 of 1725
Sony doesn't want to take part in the race to the bottom, no. They don't want to devalue their old games.

A lot of these PS1 games are not disposable junk like iOS games. They are excellently crafted titles that provide a lot of gameplay. Final Fantasy VII is like $10, that's a great value. There aren't that many games on iOS as well done with as much gameplay (and many of them are by Square). These titles are worth more than $1.99.
post #935 of 1725
Quote:
Originally Posted by number1laing View Post

Sony doesn't want to take part in the race to the bottom, no. They don't want to devalue their old games.
A lot of these PS1 games are not disposable junk like iOS games.
It's this kind of thinking, though, that may actually hurting Sony. There are a lot of games on iOS. Most of them are junk, but many of them are genuinely excellent (and highly profitable). There are a lot of misconceptions by the console manufacturers and (clearly) by consumers about mobile gaming. And pricing is a big part of that misconception. Whenever I see fellow gamers or company spokespeople saying that iOS games are "disposable junk" or are in a "race to the bottom," I instantly assume that they've never spent much time playing iOS games.

Luckily, Sony looks to finally be getting their act together and getting PS Mobile out the door and up and running. If it's done right, it could be a more "curated" version of the App Store that gets rid of the junk and only publishes the good stuff. Remains to be seen how successful it will be, but it's the right idea. It just may be too little too late.
post #936 of 1725
Quote:
Originally Posted by number1laing View Post

Sony doesn't want to take part in the race to the bottom, no. They don't want to devalue their old games.
A lot of these PS1 games are not disposable junk like iOS games. They are excellently crafted titles that provide a lot of gameplay. Final Fantasy VII is like $10, that's a great value. There aren't that many games on iOS as well done with as much gameplay (and many of them are by Square). These titles are worth more than $1.99.


Look, I like old PS1 games just as much as the next guy, but you really think a "digital" version of a PS1 game that is being emulated is worth more than 5 bucks ? No freaking way. Sure, there are collectors on Ebay that will pay a fortune for the real, physical game, if it happens to be a rare game, but a freaking digital version that is just being emulated ? Look, FF7 might be an exception to the rule, because Square can get away with charging $9.99 for that, but is anybody really going to buy 2Xtreme for $5.99 ? I'd much rather go to Togo's (west coast sandwich chain) and get a medium hot pastrami sandwich. Or Jet Moto, for $5.99, really ?

Those games should be 2 or 3 bucks max. Tomb Raider should be $5 not $10. Oddworld should be $5 not $10. Hell, I can get a complete, original Tomb Raider off craigslist for $5 easily. In that scenario, I'd actually have a real, tangible, physical item that can be resold to somebody else if I so choose, and it has the instruction booklet and jewel case artwork, etc, etc. Yet, Sony is going to sell me some 1's and zero's, that are simply being emulated for $10. Something I can never resell to anybody else? Look, PS1 stuff is from 1995 and 1996 and 1997. We are currently in the year 2012. That era is LONG gone. These games should be super cheap, to encourage people to buy a ton of them. Sure, maybe Final Fantasy should be $9.99, because they can get away with it, but 85 percent of the catalog should be 3 or 4 bucks at the maximum. Some of it should be 99 cents or two bucks.
post #937 of 1725
Pricing is a mystical art.

And if you want to compare prices, Square Enix's PS1 games are actually a lot more expensive on iOS than they are on PSN.

And there are good reasons why PS1 games are $10. Publishers have to think about maintaining the perceived value of a brand. Once you release a game digitally for a particular price, it becomes almost impossible to ever sell that game for more. And since no one knows what the future of digital distribution will be, they're playing it safe by sticking to a higher price-point. Those old games probably don't sell very well, so you have to price them high enough to make up for lower volume--despite the fact that it's a virtual good. This is still a relatively new type of commerce, so a lot of traditional game companies are playing it very safe (some might say too safe). And Sony's solution has been to set a (mostly) standard price for PS1 and PS2 games. Keeps publishers happy.

Unfortunately for consumers, digital pricing for old games on consoles is not keeping up with modern consumer habits. Sony, at least, has found some worthwhile alternatives like PS+. But on the whole, they've ensured that a lot of those old catalog titles won't get sold. But since there's no overhead to worry about, there's no incentive to lower prices. Those old games are practically free money.
post #938 of 1725
Quote:
Originally Posted by confidenceman View Post

. But since there's no overhead to worry about, there's no incentive to lower prices. Those old games are practically free money.

Yeah, and because it's basically "Free Money", why do they have to be so damn greedy ? You say there is no incentive to lower prices. How about maximizing as much money as you can possibly get. Honestly, the prices of digital goods should work just like the stock market price of a stock. It should move up and down automatically, constantly adjusting itself to the current level of demand. There should be no "set" price. In fact, Sony should have the ability to have the pricing custom tailored to the individual consumer. What I mean by this, is that somebody that buys a bunch of games at full price, should see a much different price than somebody that only buys things on sale. Take the maximum amount of money you can from each individual consumer. If Sony was smart, it would look at my past history, and know that I'm only buying things from them on extreme discount. Then it should automatically adjust the prices that I see on my Vita or PS3.

Companies do this type of thing all the time. They will take the same exact product, put it into different packaging, with a different brand name, and sell it to vastly different consumers. It will be priced high to the affluent, and priced low to the lower end. It's time companies like Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft learn from the big boys.
post #939 of 1725
Quote:
Originally Posted by confidenceman View Post

It's this kind of thinking, though, that may actually hurting Sony. There are a lot of games on iOS. Most of them are junk, but many of them are genuinely excellent (and highly profitable). There are a lot of misconceptions by the console manufacturers and (clearly) by consumers about mobile gaming. And pricing is a big part of that misconception. Whenever I see fellow gamers or company spokespeople saying that iOS games are "disposable junk" or are in a "race to the bottom," I instantly assume that they've never spent much time playing iOS games.
Luckily, Sony looks to finally be getting their act together and getting PS Mobile out the door and up and running. If it's done right, it could be a more "curated" version of the App Store that gets rid of the junk and only publishes the good stuff. Remains to be seen how successful it will be, but it's the right idea. It just may be too little too late.

I've been playing iOS games since I got my first iPod Touch four years ago. I've tried games across all genres - high-rated games, popular fads, etc. And my conclusion is that it is mostly disposable junk in a race to the bottom.

That said, there is fun to be had. Zookeeper Battles is one of the best multiplayer games out there (it's also not exactly cheap). But in general? The quality is just not there. It's stuff designed to be played with half a mind somewhere else for a few minutes. Two dollars is the right price for something like that. These old PS1 games were not designed to be played like that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony1 
is anybody really going to buy 2Xtreme for $5.99 ? I'd much rather go to Togo's (west coast sandwich chain) and get a medium hot pastrami sandwich. Or Jet Moto, for $5.99, really ?

Truthfully, I don't think anyone would buy 2Xtreme or Jet Moto for any price. They aren't very good games. But a game like Oddworld is still extremely excellent. Find me a better platformer on iOS. I don't think it exists. $6 is a reasonable price for a top-notch platform game. I know, I bought it on PSN.
post #940 of 1725
Quote:
Originally Posted by number1laing View Post

Truthfully, I don't think anyone would buy 2Xtreme or Jet Moto for any price. They aren't very good games.


The thing is, there is a certain price, where you would buy both of those games. There is a certain price, where everybody would buy both of those games. It's up to Sony, and other companies that sell these virtual goods, to figure out a system where it can some how determine what you're specific magical buy price is. For me, I'd buy Jet Moto at $1.99. I'd bu 2Xtreme for 99 cents. Instead, Sony is going to put a flat $5.99 price on both of those games, and they are going to see zero money from me. However, if Sony as a company got with the times, and could create a pricing system that adapts on the fly, then they could reap the benefits.
post #941 of 1725
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony1 View Post

It's time companies like Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft learn from the big boys.
Totally agree. But like I said, they're operating according to an outdated paradigm, and clinging desperately to the old ways. But luckily these companies aren't monoliths that only have one opinion. I'm confident that there are smart, forward-thinking at each of these companies who are working to get things done right, and in a way that makes sense for modern gamers. The trick is convincing the old guard dummies to change their ways.
post #942 of 1725
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony1 View Post

It's time companies like Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft learn from the big boys.

??? Who are the big boys?
post #943 of 1725
Quote:
Originally Posted by TornadoTJ View Post

??? Who are the big boys?

Apple, Steam and Amazon I guess.


You know how Amazon is constantly changing their prices ? Their prices on something will be low one day, then go back up for awhile, then go back low temporarily, then go back up. I think that type of pricing model would be the best way to go for Sony with PSN. Have constantly fluctuating prices. Somebody was saying that you can't devalue your back catalog, because once you do, you can never raise prices. What about just having tons of temporary sales, and fluctuating prices. I don't think that would devalue their back catalog. Plus, if you have tons of one day sales, you're going to get news stories and press about how such and such game is on a one day sale. Look at Steam. They are always getting news stories about how a certain game is on sale.

From a psychological standpoint, you also have this class of consumer that is trained to only buy things when they are on sale. If you have a temporary one day sale, you can get those consumers to buy it, and the next day the price is back to normal, so you're not devaluing your entire back catalog.
post #944 of 1725
For those interested in Soul Sacrifice, there's an hands-on report from Wired:
Quote:
The Tokyo Game Show Soul Sacrifice demo was set to support up to four players, like the full game, but a technical snafu meant I was paired with just one partner. It also left me without any sound, but that proved to be a cloud with a silver lining. With no headphones and no guidance from the Sony staff (they were all trying to fix the hardware issues), it was up to me and my partner to work together to figure out the game’s mechanics — an old-fashioned cooperative gaming experience.

Soul Sacrifice has a very macabre atmosphere, much spookier than the other Monster Hunter wannabes. The “host” of the game is a talking Necronomicon who lets you customize your character and choose your magical armaments. For a demo, the variety of attack options was impressive. I could have played three or four times and not seen all the available attacks.

Three of the four face buttons are attack buttons, so it’s no surprise that Soul Sacrifice places enormous emphasis on offense. Magic attacks vary in range, elemental property and overall damage. I spent most of my time using a long-range projectile that used a lock-on feature like Rez and Child of Eden.

When an enemy is slain, the player has two choices: “rescue” the creature’s soul, or “sacrifice” it. Rescuing monsters restores player health and boosts defense, while sacrificing monsters empowers player attacks. The effects are cumulative, meaning it pays to consistently choose one option rather than take turns rescuing and sacrificing.

This choice extends to your co-op partners as well. Should a fellow adventurer fall, you can “rescue” them and bring them back to life at the cost of your own health or “sacrifice” them to access more powerful magic. If you’re the one who’s lying on the ground, you can try to influence your allies’ decision by pressing a button to ask them to rescue or sacrifice your character, a helpful tool if your co-op partner isn’t within earshot in the real world.

Downed players can also choose to die rather than wait for other players to help or harvest them, but this is a last resort. In our game, my partner wanted to save me but was bogged down by an angry Cerberus. He suggested I die in the hopes I would respawn with more health.

As it turned out, death in Soul Sacrifice is death, and when my partner fell seconds later our game was over.

Ultimately I got only a glimpse of Soul Sacrifice at the Tokyo Game Show, one that was hampered by outside interference, but I was intrigued.

And here's some gameplay footage:
post #945 of 1725
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony1 View Post

Apple, Steam and Amazon I guess.

I am pretty positive Microsoft is bigger than any of those three, and without looking up their size Sony and Nintento are probably up there too. wink.gif
post #946 of 1725
Quote:
Originally Posted by TornadoTJ View Post

I am pretty positive Microsoft is bigger than any of those three, and without looking up their size Sony and Nintento are probably up there too. wink.gif
I think the reference was specifically to the "big boys" of digital download game sales. I don't think he was referring to the biggest or most profitable company in general.
post #947 of 1725
I thought he was going to let us know the 'big boys' who do targeted pricing. I believe any company that would dare do that would be setting themselves up for major backlash. One story about them pricing differently per consumer habits, and it'd be a hard sell. I think Amazon tried that years ago, and put a quick stop to it once it was uncovered.
post #948 of 1725
The new Youtube app for the Vita is really good. Good enough to make the Vita my go to portable youtuber device. Be nice if they would update the browser to link vids to the youtube app. Anychance of Chrome on the vita?

Bought the Gravity days. I really like the animated comic cut scenes that you can move the vita around to see inside the panels.
post #949 of 1725
We got a Nyko Power Grip yesterday. My first impression is that the Vita now feels like something I'll game with for more than 15 minutes. I love how it feels in the hand. My daughter took it home with her, so we will have a week-long opinion this coming Friday.

http://www.nyko.com/products/product-detail/?name=Power+Grip+for+PS+Vita
Edited by TornadoTJ - 10/1/12 at 12:46pm
post #950 of 1725
So PlayStation Mobile went live yesterday and I picked up Aqua Kitty ($3.49) and Fuel Tiracas ($.49) with what was left in my PSN account. I didn't buy a Vita to play casual games, but it's a nice option to have. I use PSN cards to make my purchases and I can see myself spending the remainder on PSM games after buying a core game. I'll probably pick up Super Crate Box next (@$3.49, it's a bit more expensive than it is on iOS, but having physical controls is worth it). Sony needs to add trophy support to PSM though.

Also, I bought LBP and it really is an awesome game. I am quite disappointed that there is no ad hoc multiplayer support though. A portable device isn't always going to have access to Wi Fi, so local multiplayer should always be an option imo. Hopefully LBP and Unit 13 will be patched for this in the future. Though I have yet to see anyone with a Vita in the wild, I'll be picking up a couple as gifts in the near future.

In terms of game releases, things are finally starting to pick up.

NEXT TUESDAY

Spy Hunter
SunFlowers

OCTOBER 16th

Jet Set Radio
Silent Hill: Book of Memories

OCTOBER 23rd

Smart as...
Street Fighter x Tekken
Super Monkey Ball: Banana Splitz
Zero Escape: Virtue's Last Reward

OCTOBER 26th

DJMax Technika Tune

OCTOBER 30th

Assassin's Creed III: Liberation
LEGO Lord of the Rings
Need for Speed: Most Wanted
Ragnarok Odyssey

NOVEMBER 6th

Legends of War: Patton

NOVEMBER 13th

Call of Duty: Black Ops Declassified

NOVEMBER 20th

Persona 4: Golden
PlayStation All-Stars Battle Royale
Sonic & All-Stars Racing Transformed

There are other games that are supposed to be released this year, but still don't have a release date (Kickbeat, Oddworld, R & C) -- maybe they'll be pushed back into 2013.

Edit:

NOVEMBER 27th

Ratchet & Clank: Full Frontal Assault - $19.99
Edited by Mikazaru - 11/1/12 at 4:09pm
post #951 of 1725
Super Crate Box is overpriced ($3.49 versus the 99 cents it costs on iPhone/iPad) but it is HAWTness.
post #952 of 1725
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoThru22 View Post

Super Crate Box is overpriced ($3.49 versus the 99 cents it costs on iPhone/iPad) but it is HAWTness.

For what reason would that game cost 3x more through PS mobile? If this program is going to work, the pricing needs to be competitive with the IOS/Android versions of a game. Everyone has a smartphone nowadays...why would I buy i.e Angry Birds for $3.49 on Vita if the smartphone version is being practically given away at $.99?
post #953 of 1725
Well, not everyone has a smartphone. I get your point, but the comment isn't accurate. There were 5 of us working in my garage last night, two have iPhone 5 phones, the other three were plain old flip phones. The three with flip phones were 22, 34, and 41 years old, so it's not an age thing.
post #954 of 1725
Quote:
Originally Posted by TornadoTJ View Post

Well, not everyone has a smartphone. I get your point, but the comment isn't accurate. There were 5 of us working in my garage last night, two have iPhone 5 phones, the other three were plain old flip phones.

Ok, saying 'everyone' has a smart-phone is a slight exaggeration, same as saying 'no-one' has a Vita. Obviously it's not meant to be taken literally.....the core point is, for those who have both Vita and smartphone and like to game on both, why would you buy the Vita version of 'x' game for $3.49 if the IOS/Android version is $.99? Yeah if you don't have a smartphone but own a Vita you don't have a choice, but I can't see anyone with both opting for the version that costs 3x more. Why is it that much higher? That's what I'd like to know.
post #955 of 1725
For Mikazaru, "having physical controls is worth it." If the Vita version of the game is exactly like the iOS version, with touch controls only, then the question is a good one.
post #956 of 1725
I'm almost certain the reasoning is that they won't sell as many for the Vita, so to make a profit they have to be more expensive.
post #957 of 1725
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonyeuw View Post

For what reason would that game cost 3x more through PS mobile? If this program is going to work, the pricing needs to be competitive with the IOS/Android versions of a game. Everyone has a smartphone nowadays...why would I buy i.e Angry Birds for $3.49 on Vita if the smartphone version is being practically given away at $.99?
The same reason that games are much cheaper on PC than on console. They're a totally different ecosystem with totally different uses. It's not a one-to-one comparison.

For Vita, that pricing difference makes sense. Unfortunately, PS Mobile is also trying to succeed on Android. That's where your criticism makes more sense. Highlights many of the problems in what Sony is trying to do.

It's admirable that Sony is taking a risk in being the first (that I can think of) to try bridging the mobile/console divide. But here's one small example of why no one else has done it yet. If they were to price games in line with iOS, it might "infect" the entire price structure for downloadable games on consoles. I understand the fear, but I think it's inevitable. Sony is just artificially shoring up the console market. We'll see how long it works.
Edited by confidenceman - 10/5/12 at 10:42am
post #958 of 1725
Quote:
Originally Posted by confidenceman View Post

The same reason that games are much cheaper on PC than on console. They're a totally different ecosystem with totally different uses. It's not a one-to-one comparison.
For Vita, that pricing difference makes sense. Unfortunately, PS Mobile is also trying to succeed on Android. That's where your criticism makes more sense. Highlights many of the problems in what Sony is trying to do.

I suppose that's a fair point but at the end of the day, I'm figuring people with both Vita and a smartphone will opt for the version that costs $.99, unless the Vita version has physical control options.

I suppose those who game on home consoles and PC have the same internal debate when it comes to which version of a multiplat game to get: the $49 PC version or the $59 360/ps3 version; having said that, generally speaking the PC version of a game can technically look superior to the home console version if the user has the proper gaming rig. The $3.49 Vita version of ,say, Angry Birds is likely to be technically identical to the $.99 Android version running on a Galaxy, which makes buying the more expensive version for Vita/smartphone owners a pretty tough sell.
post #959 of 1725
Quote:
Originally Posted by TornadoTJ View Post

I'm almost certain the reasoning is that they won't sell as many for the Vita, so to make a profit they have to be more expensive.

That's a fair point too, I guess I'm mainly thinking that anyone with both devices is going to balk at the $3.49 tag if they have a capable Android phone with the option to buy the same game for $.99. We'll see how it all works out, I suppose....
post #960 of 1725
I feel it will probably depend on the game. I can't imagine playing Little Big Planet on an iPhone, so there maybe the $30+ price tag is justified. But if I see a game I want and the controls don't matter, there's no way I'll buy the VIta version if it's higher than the iPhone version.

The real loser either way is the hardware sales - which then impacts software availability, for the most part. I say "for the most part" because the PSP had great hardware sales (it still sells more units than Vita), but since so many were running CFW, software sales were not as good as they should have been. But, there are rumors of Vita projects being cancelled due to slow Vita sales.

My opinion is that without a good selection of both high-end games that take advantage of the hardware, AND a large selection of CHEAP games, the Vita is not going to sell better than it has already. Another strike they have against them is Sony is stating there will be no price cut this year at all, and my guess is that this will hurt holiday sales.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PlayStation Area
AVS › AVS Forum › Gaming & Content Streaming › Home Theater Gaming › PlayStation Area › Official Playstation Vita Thread