PS4 NewsPS4 First-Party Games Priced At $60 - PS4 News

Members Login: Register | Why sign up? | Forgot Password?

PS4 First-Party Games Priced At $60

How much will you be paying for your first-party games next generation? $10 more than you were paying this generation?

Nope. After Microsoft confirmed that first-party Xbox One titles would cost $60, Sony confirmed the same, which is certainly good news.

This means that the first-party lineup of software for the PS4 will hold the $59.99 price tag; that's what you'll pay for Killzone: Shadow Fall, DriveClub, Knack and inFamous: Second Son. When Sony first announced the new console back in February, they said first-party games would cost anywhere between $0.99 and $59.99, so this falls in line with that announcement. Obviously, the one-dollar games will be little downloadable pieces of entertainment.

However, don't forget that the major third-party publishers haven't officially revealed the price point for their games just yet. Don't be surprised if some of those turn out to be $69.99...

Tags: ps4 games, ps4 first party games, ps4 game price

6/18/2013 10:35:59 AM Ben Dutka

Put this on your webpage or blog:
Email this to a friend
Follow PSX Extreme on Twitter

Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on Google Share on MySpace Share on Delicious Share on Digg Share on Google Buzz Share via E-Mail Share via Tumblr Share via Posterous

Comments (39 posts)

MRSUCCESS
Tuesday, June 18, 2013 @ 11:09:47 AM
Reply

If third party games are indeed $69.99 I won't be buying any games unless it's MGS5.

Agree with this comment 9 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

cLoudou
Tuesday, June 18, 2013 @ 1:38:36 PM

Or you can just buy used as an F U to publishers.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Beamboom
Tuesday, June 18, 2013 @ 2:18:02 PM

... Or just wait a very few months before you buy the game.

Agree with this comment 5 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

MRSUCCESS
Tuesday, June 18, 2013 @ 2:50:06 PM

No, no. Not MGS, it's my favorite franchise.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

JROD0823
Tuesday, June 18, 2013 @ 5:43:03 PM

No standard edition game is currently worth $70, not even MGS.

I thought all of these next-gen games were supposed to be easier to develop for since the systems are running off of x86 architecture.

So wouldn't that be saving developers and publishers time, and more importantly, money?

And if that is the case, then shouldn't that savings be getting passed on to the consumer as well?

$60 is plenty for the standard version of any game, asking for anything more than that just smacks of greed.

Last edited by JROD0823 on 6/18/2013 5:46:46 PM

Agree with this comment 2 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

fatelementality
Tuesday, June 18, 2013 @ 6:01:51 PM

Increased digital sales should also have lowered production costs majorly. It would have been great if Sony had announced their games at 49.99. That would have driven the nails in the coffin.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Sithis
Tuesday, June 18, 2013 @ 11:17:37 AM
Reply

60 bucks is hard enough as it is, 70 will be way too much.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

MRSUCCESS
Tuesday, June 18, 2013 @ 11:26:28 AM

imagine buying two games that are $69.99? That would be $140+tax. Most people don't earn that in a day's work.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Tuesday, June 18, 2013 @ 3:07:20 PM

Really? That's about average here...

Agree with this comment 0 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

newchef
Tuesday, June 18, 2013 @ 11:25:11 AM
Reply

selling games at $70 whole most others are retailing at $60 is a good way to make sure no one buys your games

Agree with this comment 7 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

bldudas1
Tuesday, June 18, 2013 @ 11:37:18 AM
Reply

At least Sony's games are not going up in price. If third parties are $70, then I won't be buying them until they go down in price.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Tuesday, June 18, 2013 @ 11:49:47 AM
Reply

Video games for the Super Nintendo often cost $70. Twenty years worth of extremely rapid technology, soaring multi-million-dollar game budgets and inflation later, and they cost the same?

You all need to thank your lucky stars they don't cost $100 apiece because by all rights, they should.

And every single generation since the PlayStation, when games cost $40 apiece, the price rose $10 for every subsequent generation. And every time, gamers whine and bitch and moan and say they won't buy the games...and every time, they do.

Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 6/18/2013 11:50:52 AM

Agree with this comment 4 up, 8 down Disagree with this comment

MRSUCCESS
Tuesday, June 18, 2013 @ 11:57:28 AM

I know you're generally speaking and you do make a point, but the economy when Super Nintendo was released compared to now is very different. Times are rough nowadays and it's harder for people to get jobs. Try walking around any streets in NYC and you'll see plenty of people begging for money.

Additionally the technology was still new and probably difficult to produce. Blu ray has several years in the market and it's similar to DVD. I have no problem waiting for the price to get slashed. I have plenty of PS3 and PS2 games that I never played twice.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Tuesday, June 18, 2013 @ 11:59:13 AM

If they cost $100 the industry would die.

Agree with this comment 5 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

KidPresentable
Tuesday, June 18, 2013 @ 12:19:31 PM

We're already paying 80 to 100 now if you count the the nickel and dimeing with DLC. I refused to buy Injustice for that very reason that to get a complete experience I'll have to pay 80. I'll pull out my NES, pop in Blaster Master and watch this industry crumble before I pay 70 dollars for a game.

Last edited by KidPresentable on 6/18/2013 12:21:32 PM

Agree with this comment 4 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

telly
Tuesday, June 18, 2013 @ 12:27:44 PM

Phantasy Star IV was NINETY dollars at launch. Patently absurd to freak out about price increases, when you consider inflation and the rising costs of game production.

What I'd like to see this gen is some FLEXIBILITY in that pricing, though. The next elder scrolls costs $70? Fine by me, that's an enormous game I'm incredibly excited to play that will last for months, if not years. But the next, say, Mirror's edge, a game with a much shorter campaign, budget (I assume) and less pedigree -- why not charge, say, $50 for that? We see lots of flexibility in the cost of PSN games. Hopefully we'll see that translate to bigger, retail release games as well.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

bldudas1
Tuesday, June 18, 2013 @ 12:57:04 PM

I remember some N64 games used to be $80. I never had many games before I could start buying them myself.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

VampDeLeon
Tuesday, June 18, 2013 @ 2:03:10 PM

I think compared to now, games are continually being seen as more mainstream and less as for the strictly hardcore. To continue that growth, the price has to be made affordable for everyone, regardless of the economy to increase the sales of new games over used games.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Kryten1029a
Tuesday, June 18, 2013 @ 3:18:36 PM

Sixty dollars is the sweet spot for consumers and about as much as they're willing to pay for a new game. You're correct that based on inflation, they're a better value than ever but I don't think that devs have much room to push prices up without hurting sales. Warren Spector even stated recently that you wouldn't have a used market if games weren't even as expensive as they are.
There's a market for shorter, cheaper experiences like Journey and a market for multi-hour epics like Skyrim. JRPGs aren't a mass market genre, but there's enough of an audience that they could be profitable if they were in Japanese with English subtitles because how much of the expense in localization comes from hiring voice actors? It's up to the industry to experiment and see what new approaches they can come up with. Better budgeting, better scheduling and avoiding the trap of trying to make everything like Call of Duty would be more positive steps than simply raising prices.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Tuesday, June 18, 2013 @ 3:35:39 PM

I got news for you MRSUCCESS; in the early 90s, this country was in a huge recession, far worse than anything that's being labeled a "recession" nowadays.

And the technology was not all that difficult to produce at all. Video games were the biggest rip-off on the face of the planet in the early days. No chance those cartridges were worth $70 and $80.

Kid: Nobody forces you to buy any DLC, and I've yet to play a single game that didn't feel complete without extra content. You don't have to do anything you don't want to do; if there was extra content available for Blaster Master, they would've undoubtedly charged for that, too.

VampDeLeon: Just because something is niche doesn't mean it can survive high prices. That would imply that anybody who participated in the hobby would have to have a lot of money. In the old days, they were TOYS. PARENTS bought the majority of games and hardly all were rich.

And I see no evidence of any electronic accessibility issues with a gazillion iPhones being sold at several hundred dollars apiece, which is entirely unnecessary in all walks of life and a total luxury item.

Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 6/18/2013 3:40:50 PM

Agree with this comment 2 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

MRSUCCESS
Tuesday, June 18, 2013 @ 4:48:06 PM

Valid argument based on what I read on in statistics provided by Bureau of Labor (http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2001/11/art1full.pdf). I guess this recession is probably more magnified.

Last edited by MRSUCCESS on 6/18/2013 4:48:34 PM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

JROD0823
Tuesday, June 18, 2013 @ 6:24:39 PM

@Ben,

You neglect to mention in your original comment that games that used cartridge technology were inherently more expensive to produce per unit compared to games that are produced on optical disc media.

If games still came inside cartridges today, then I could see your point about them possibly costing $100, but they don't, so I think it's pretty clear that games shouldn't cost anywhere near that price for a standard edition, ever.

Yes, games have taken a $10 step up in cost each subsequent generation for the PlayStation brand so far, but there is absolutely no reason for that trend to continue, especially if the PS4 is as "easy to develop for" as developers keep claiming it to be.

And if that is truly the case because of the PS4 being based on x86 architecture, then the exorbitant game development costs that currently plague developers and publishers should be reduced significantly, or at the very least, they should be brought back to more reasonable levels.

And if games development costs aren't reduced at all when coding for an easier to develop for console, then it's their own fault for not taking advantage of the cost-saving potential put right in front of them with the x86 chipset.

I don't want this post to come off as a rant at all, (Like our friend Blank Line's often do ;).), but I just want to make sure that the facts are being looked at (and discussed) in an objective way, and that we are acknowledging that comparing the pricing of cartridge-based games from the SNES era to the optical disc-based games of the current era is the same as comparing apples and oranges.

And yes, I agree that game budgets have ballooned in the last two decades, but the developers and publishers have no one but themselves to blame for not trying to mitigate that cost in the first place before the budgets got out of hand like they currently are.

Last edited by JROD0823 on 6/18/2013 7:59:33 PM

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

vatoloco47
Tuesday, June 18, 2013 @ 6:32:27 PM

Wow i wish a game would cost $70 on release in Australia. Currently any new decent game would cost between $90-$99. Like The Last Of Us i got for $98 :/

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Tuesday, June 18, 2013 @ 10:18:28 PM

MRSUCCESS: We never were in a recession, in my opinion. A manufactured one with a political agenda but not a real one, like the one that almost sunk my family's business in the early 90s.

JROD0923: Not the point. The format is irrelevant. Technology has changed so significantly that all we can go by is the value of a dollar, inflation, and the entertainment experience delivered by the product. Comparing one against the other, nobody on earth would expect Super Mario Bros. 3 and Killzone: Shadow Fall to cost the same. It makes basically no logical sense, and yet it has happened.

I also didn't say games SHOULD'VE been more expensive this generation. I said we're lucky they're not $100 apiece because by all rights, given the general nature of business, they should be by now. And we can complain about crazy budgets all we want; when those are the games that seem to sell, and those are the games everyone OBVIOUSLY wants, don't blame the publishers. Blame the consumer for a certain demand.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Tuesday, June 18, 2013 @ 11:58:47 AM
Reply

If games ever get up to $70 I will stop buying them new.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Knightzane
Tuesday, June 18, 2013 @ 12:00:35 PM
Reply

EA Sports will all be 70$. Because Ignite engine brings you one step closa to sports.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Lord carlos
Tuesday, June 18, 2013 @ 12:22:03 PM
Reply

I remember Skate being priced @ 80 bucks when it first came out....i did not buy it!

Agree with this comment 0 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Condemnedsoul23
Tuesday, June 18, 2013 @ 12:47:22 PM
Reply

I for one have no problem paying $70 or even more for CERTAIN titles. If it's something like God of War that can be completed in a weekend and it's the same game playing through it the second time I won't pay that, BUT if it's something like Borderlands 2 which can be damn near FFVII long and has all these different characters to play then $70 wouldn't make me hesitate.
Ben is right, people do complain and still end up buying the games and what about all those people who buy these over priced collectors additions and get all this crap that is entertaining for like a day then gets dusty on the shelf like statues. You'll pay $80-$150 for extra accessories that don't enhance the game but won't pay $70 for a quality next gen title?

Agree with this comment 5 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Beamboom
Tuesday, June 18, 2013 @ 3:33:49 PM
Reply

Games should be more individually priced.

Like, what's the reason behind Alice In Wonderland: Madness Returns being priced the same as Skyrim on launch. That's madness. :)

I could pay a full hundred for the next Fallout, easily. But for *most* games I wait for a price drop before I buy.


Last edited by Beamboom on 6/18/2013 3:34:26 PM

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

PC_Max
Tuesday, June 18, 2013 @ 4:38:32 PM
Reply

Don't be surprised that I won't be buying those 69.99 games until they get cheaper. I can wait and not in any big rush to be first to play them. I mean I don't think they reward you or give you extra content... just for being first. Granted they will more than likely come out with the old pre-order and get something for free along with the 69.99 price tag. Pre-orders have been disappointing for me these days. Extra content amounts no to so much. And usually ends up on the store at some point. So wait for the price drop and decided later on the extra content. A lot cheaper than buying it day one.... if the prices are that high.

If the game are most costly to develop then lets go back to episodic game and let us choose the content whether we want to buy and continue or not. And yes I know episodic content these days is dlc.

Keep Playing!

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Dukemz_UK
Tuesday, June 18, 2013 @ 5:29:02 PM
Reply

Perfect solution: STOP playing games and watch tv, tv, sport, sport, tv.
(Ok I just trolled)

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Gordo
Tuesday, June 18, 2013 @ 6:01:26 PM
Reply

Most people only buy two games a year anyway. COD and FIFA. Doesn't matter what the price is for those! /s

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

fatelementality
Tuesday, June 18, 2013 @ 6:16:45 PM
Reply

This discussion has gotten way out of hand. Order, order!!! In all seriousness though, most people will go out of their way to pay for what they can't live without and a decent percentage of us will wait until the end of time for the price to drop in half or lower. I don't see developers rolling out $100-$150 "Limited" editions of games and people NOT buying them. I also notice that while a game is 60 bucks, a person will eventually buy another $60 worth of add-ons. I bought Deus Ex used a few months ago for 25. I later found that all the add-ons made the total come $60. Developers will make their money, people will spend their money until they're living under a damn bridge & this crazy world will keep on a spinnin'.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

AcHiLLiA
Tuesday, June 18, 2013 @ 6:30:47 PM
Reply

I agree of one the commentors mentioning having flexable prices when it comes to the third party games. We saw that in the PS1-PS2 era, for example I remember NFS: Underground being $40 bucks instead $50 which were some or all exclusives even third party I believe.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

YesterdysRising
Wednesday, June 19, 2013 @ 12:35:17 AM
Reply

I can't remember the last time I paid full price ($60) for a game. Every time I buy a game at launch, there's always a pre-order sale on Newegg ($10-$12 off) or a credit at Amazon ($10-$20). And almost all games are involved in a $20 off sale within the first month of them being out. Maybe I'm the minority in this, but I haven't purchased a game from a retail store in years. I have no problem with $60 games because if you put in a tiny bit of effort, there are always deals. And even without sales, I still don't think $60 is outrageous. I do think that they shouldn't go any higher if they want people to keep purchasing them at launch but for me, if they did go higher, I'd probably bite the bullet anyways.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Gamer46
Wednesday, June 19, 2013 @ 4:31:29 AM
Reply

Figured it would be $60 for Sony's games, which is a fair price. If third parties want to push for a higher price point it better damn well be a very, very high quality product or they can piss off. I could see EA charging $70 for some of its dumbed down crap.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

___________
Wednesday, June 19, 2013 @ 5:16:02 AM
Reply

by the looks of it games will be going back to 120 here for a few years like they did last gen.
dam it, we were just starting to get to a decent price!
well if you call 30 bucks more than every one else pays decent, but eh better than 120!
exactly why im importing all my games now.
the last of us from EB = $98.
the last of us from online stores like games101 or gamehead members get it for 60!
and they offer free shipping, JB and EB charge you for that too.
tight a$$e$!!!!!

i really wish though we would have a reglatory government controling the prices for each game.
just like how each game has to be age rated, we need a panel judging how much a game is worth as well.
for instance a 20 long hour epic such as skyrim is worth a dam side more than the 4 hour borfest COD has been churning out for the past few years!
length, quality, and replay ability should be taken into consideration and then decided what the RRP of the game will be.
instead of massive big blockbuster long games costing the same as your b grade cheesy flick.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Banky A
Wednesday, June 19, 2013 @ 8:31:11 AM

i cant pay more than $100NZD for a game anymore ae it just feels too crazy. import costs are really good but i opt to choose my region 4 PAL discs over import just cos of potential DLC problems.

EB/gamestop are whores but sometimes they do come out with a crazy sale like the one we have right now - i got Ni No Kuni for $57 brand new. brilliant! i would get it eventually for full price and support Level 5 and Studio Ghibli but that $57 was perfect

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

___________
Wednesday, June 19, 2013 @ 10:14:15 AM

thats the beauty of gamehead though, they only sell AU copies of games the same as what id buy from the shops.
otherwise most games would be useless because DLC is locked to the region of game you have, ie if you have a US copy of a game you can only use DLC off the US PSN store.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Leave a Comment

Please login or register to leave a comment.

Our Poll

Are you getting Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor?
Yup, I'm nabbing this one now.
Yes, but I'm waiting for a while.
Maybe...not sure yet.
No, not interested.

Previous Poll Results