Um...what did you do to your carts? Those 8/16-bit consoles and games are the opposite of unreliable.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
$65 for a video game!?!? Outrageous!
- Thread starter Pilgrimzero
- Start date
Um...what did you do to your carts? Those 8/16-bit consoles and games are the opposite of unreliable.
Hach...and again:
and 2 small ones:
- more readily awailable workforce
- better tools / engines / resources
So yeah.
Im thinking about puting the op on the ignore list, since this is such a low effort bad faith thread without even trying to argue or understand the points against the price increase, and just wants to belittle people that find the increase "outragious!", since they are in the right...
if, this was not what was meant, and the OP was really just confused since he saw old game prices for the first time...then okay. But my interpretation seems more plausible to me going by this forums usual threads about game prices...
- - niche market, selling 1million units was a huge hit, now selling 1m is a total flop by AAA standards
- - more ways to monotize (DLC, microtransactions)
- - game cartridges where EXPENSIVE, you can count half the price of those game just for that
- - digital distribution way cheaper and leaves a way bigger cut at the publisher and platform owner
than the old system where a huge chunk did go to production , transport, storage, and retail. - more readiliy available alternatives in the media space that are fighting for the users time
- And now the financial thing
- Disposable income was more readily availabe
- Weh have wage stagnation since forever
- people did not have to repay their education for half od their lifes in the early 90ties (this exploded around '08... and im not even from the us, so thats less of a factor here)
- we have record earnings for the big publishers with perversely high CEO bonuses (Kotick) while workers get layed off and dont even get payed enough to pay for the food in the cafeteria (we have enough threads about had publishers on this board, just search)
- Disposable income was more readily availabe
and 2 small ones:
- more readily awailable workforce
- better tools / engines / resources
So yeah.
Im thinking about puting the op on the ignore list, since this is such a low effort bad faith thread without even trying to argue or understand the points against the price increase, and just wants to belittle people that find the increase "outragious!", since they are in the right...
if, this was not what was meant, and the OP was really just confused since he saw old game prices for the first time...then okay. But my interpretation seems more plausible to me going by this forums usual threads about game prices...
"short games should be cheap" is one of the worst rhetorics in the gaming community, holy fucking shit
It's possible to both think that CEOs are overpaid and to also think that many people who complain about the $10 price increase are not being realistic, comprehensive, or particularly accurate in their recall of past game prices, as evidenced by sale ads like this. People are justified in being upset at prices going up, but it's not like with the internet, search engines, eBay, CAG, Black Friday, Wario64 tweets, etc that gaming can't be done at its cheapest ever in modern times compared to back then.
So I know much has been said about this reply already and I don't really have too much to add that hasn't already been said, but this feels like a comment form 2013.
Games with microtransactions are usually free to play now because it's a far more lucrative model and I cannot recall the last time I played a single player game with microtransactions. The last game with microtransactions I remember playing is... Dead Space 3?
People do still cite microtransactions exactly as you have. The fact you did so at the drop of a hat is evidence of that. But I have to ask: what games are you talking about when you say this? Are you complaining about multiplayer service games? Because this is a pretty specific section of games built around this model specifically and I am pretty hard pressed to think of a video game outside the service model with microtransactions.
The fact that the last game you've played with micro transactions was Dead Space 3 is amazing to me .
Most games I play (but as you've said that's because so many games try to be live services ) Even single player ones like Assassins Creed are loaded with them lol
This has to be Canadian prices or something?
NES games were usually $30-$40 in the US. I was there, man.
Now, SNES / Genesis games really did get super expensive though.
NES games were usually $30-$40 in the US. I was there, man.
Now, SNES / Genesis games really did get super expensive though.
Good thing there was a Blockbuster or Family Video on every corner then. Renting was the thing back then, not buying (as much). Two-day rental for $5 was a steal for those types of games. The games that were actually worth buying were the fighting games and a select few RPGs.
My dad spent like $80 on super mario rpg and that was only possible after winning a toys r us gift certificate from work
I used to get 1-2 games a year because they were expensive
Crazy how quick games go cheap now
I used to get 1-2 games a year because they were expensive
Crazy how quick games go cheap now
Perhaps we play different games. I admit I haven't played an Ubisoft game in a long time. If you play all their yearly releases and they are all full of these elements as you say I can see how this would affect your perspective.
However none of Sony or Nintendos games have microtransactions. Nor do Arkane or Remedy's games. Platinum games don't. Square Enix games don't usually either, right? RDR2 didn't. Outer Worlds didn't. I'm just trying to think of all the games I've played this entire generation and can't think of anything I played that had them.
Rather these games get exploitative preorder or deluxe releases, which all things considered I'd prefer.
Toys 'R' Us ad from 1996:
Physical game cartridges, many of which had a lot of memory on them for their time.
I've officially revised my entire argument / lecture on this topic to one word: no.
Don't worry, Sony brought back stand-alone expansion packs . Just like the good old days
and if a glitch got through cert (Mario Kart infinite track,) you were just completely fucked unless the publisher decided to do a second print run and even then, how often did recalls happen so the busted carts could be replaced/fixed? Sometimes, you do have to take the "good" with the "bad"
How many micro-transactions have you bought in Demon's Souls Remastered?
The beauty of being into retro games is my mind is already used to high prices after paying multiple hundreds for games lol
While there hasn't been any long-term trend for inflation-adjusted hardware prices, console games have been trending downward over time. It's a lot more affordable to buy a game now than it was back then.
Now for some quick rebuttals to some objections over this observation:
1) Cartridges. Yes, that was part of the reason. N64 games were more expensive than PS1 games, for example, because of the expensive ROM carts. However, early PS1 games were quite expensive themselves, many of them retailing for $60 in 1995-96 dollars. While they had gotten cheaper in 1997, a $40 PS1 game in that year was equal to around $65 in today's money, while a $50 one was equal to about $80 in today's money. The general trend in prices for disc-based games has trended downward over the past 20-25 years.
2) Microtransactions. These are technically optional (Jim Sterling would argue that they aren't optional in practice, but that's neither here nor there). You don't have to buy games with them, either. I've spent money on precisely one microtransaction ever, and that was the MP announcer voice pack in Halo 5. And aside from Halo, I don't even play any online multiplayer. Also, DLC in general has made at least one type of game cheaper: fighting games. Street Fighter II had three separate releases on the SNES due to roster expansions and various gameplay changes. If you bought all three brand new day one, that was $210 right there, or about $380 in today's money.
3) Rentals. You can still rent games today. There's Redbox kiosks every few city blocks, and Game Fly still exists. To be fair, though, most games these days are too long to finish in two days, and Redbox can have bad selection compared to the Blockbusters of yore.
4) The size of the market. While it is true that the console market did grow after the 16-bit era, it hasn't continued to grow. If we count only "conventional" home consoles (meaning no post-GameCube Nintendo consoles, since Nintendo has been doing their own unique thing since 2006), the total size of the console market in the U.S. has remained stable at about 70M units or so for three consecutive generations so far. Attach rates have remained relatively stable as well, meaning software sales have remained relatively stable as well. Despite this, inflation-adjusted software prices have continued to fall in the long term.
good job not reading and mentioning the same game everyone else did
Nah, the worst is "But THE MICROTRANSACTIONS."
Looking at my game bar on PS5 and not one of the 8 games I've played most recently have microtransactions. One or two have DLC and that's about it.
Shure, there is an argument there, but most of the people here dont ever try to adress the points against the increase (see my quoted post), and just come with "games wehere expensice, and are expensive to make, and somethingsomethign inflation" while ignoring the economical kontext of a lof ot those things.
You at least try to argue, and dont dismiss the critics like so many did.
Absolutely. Renting games is not comon anymore, back in the 90ties most games i play where either from the bargain bin or where rentals, @ home, @my cousins place, @ friends...or i borrowed games, and other borrowed games from me. That doesnt really happen anymore (and with increasingly more digital sales, it wont increase).
And buying 2-4 games year was common. Now? if i say i bought 2-4 games a year its as if i did not play at all.
On the other hand, it seems most people buy just a really small number of games, so lets try to milk them for what they got...
Its a remake, where half of the game is literally code from 10+ years ago. The original game runs in parallel to the new graphics engine, the gameplay/logic ist taken straight out of the original release. If a game where so much is already done and where the game is a safe bet since its a sought after remake with sony history, then how much should a full on new game cost? 100?
Also it had a FOMO-targeting digital deluxe edition for 100€...
So yeah, Demon Souls is not the best example. (Sony themselves examples this year that would have justified it better...LastofUs2...)
Sorry, but a) I said "one of the worse" not "the worst" and b) I definitely think that valuing length in direct equivalence to price is uncomparably worse.
Doom Eternal
Ghost of Tsushima
Bloodborne
Spider-man
The Last of Us Part II
Godfall
I could go on since the point is about the hot take you left.
Good job naming some more random games. You should be proud of yourself, as you have proven that games don''t have microtransactions anymore. Congratulations on your success
Nice, a solid respond for once.
While there hasn't been any long-term trend for inflation-adjusted hardware prices, console games have been trending downward over time. It's a lot more affordable to buy a game now than it was back then.
Now for some quick rebuttals to some objections over this observation:
1) Cartridges. Yes, that was part of the reason. N64 games were more expensive than PS1 games, for example, because of the expensive ROM carts. However, early PS1 games were quite expensive themselves, many of them retailing for $60 in 1995-96 dollars. While they had gotten cheaper in 1997, a $40 PS1 game in that year was equal to around $65 in today's money, while a $50 one was equal to about $80 in today's money. The general trend in prices for disc-based games has trended downward over the past 20-25 years.
2) Microtransactions. These are technically optional (Jim Sterling would argue that they aren't optional in practice, but that's neither here nor there). You don't have to buy games with them, either. I've spent money on precisely one microtransaction ever, and that was the MP announcer voice pack in Halo 5. And aside from Halo, I don't even play any online multiplayer. Also, DLC in general has made at least one type of game cheaper: fighting games. Street Fighter II had three separate releases on the SNES due to roster expansions and various gameplay changes. If you bought all three brand new day one, that was $210 right there, or about $380 in today's money.
3) Rentals. You can still rent games today. There's Redbox kiosks every few city blocks, and Game Fly still exists. To be fair, though, most games these days are too long to finish in two days, and Redbox can have bad selection compared to the Blockbusters of yore.
4) The size of the market. While it is true that the console market did grow after the 16-bit era, it hasn't continued to grow. If we count only "conventional" home consoles (meaning no post-GameCube Nintendo consoles, since Nintendo has been doing their own unique thing since 2006), the total size of the console market in the U.S. has remained stable at about 70M units or so for three consecutive generations so far. Attach rates have remained relatively stable as well, meaning software sales have remained relatively stable as well. Despite this, inflation-adjusted software prices have continued to fall in the long term.
1)cd production was still not as cheap as it would get in the late 90ties where everybody moved over to cds, and dvds became another big deal.
But when people talk about the prices back then they usually talk about the 80-100$ games, and those where on extremly expensive cartridges.
2) They are not optional. I cant dissable them in the gamedesign. The game is in 90% of cases designed, to make them more attraktive. You say its optional, i say it sours the game if i see real world transactions brought into it, and most of the time its for reducing meaningless grinding (which,....should not be there in the first place, its bad game design. But when they want to sell you stuff, its "value" that you can "play" to get the content...)
Then you have cosmetics. This was always an unlockable, an feature in the game, as a bonus for overcoming stuff, finding secrets, etc.
Now its "added value" that you can buy.
3) dont know, here (central europe) there arent really any rental options left. And i asume that with most rentals, its way more hassle than just driving to the next blockbuster and renting it for a view days on a weeknight. (here would be the perfect place for a Gamepass/Stadioa/Geforce Now... advertisement)
4)huge increase in pc gaming, and last time i looked attach rates have gone up? for the switch i know that they are huge, and i think even for the others they increased?
5) The inflation stuff...:
For most U.S. workers, real wages have barely budged in decades
Adjusted for inflation, today's average hourly wage has about as much purchasing power as it did in 1978. Most wage increases have gone to the highest earners.
www.pewresearch.org
Price Of College Increasing Almost 8 Times Faster Than Wages
The cost to attend a university increased nearly 8x faster than wages did. While the cost of a four-year degree exploded to $104,480, real median wages only went from $54,042 to $59,039 between 1989 and 2016. There is a disconnect between the rising costs of education and the flattening of wages.
www.forbes.com
So yeah. You cant inflate prices for luxury goods the same way you do for essentials, when the wages dont increase proportionally.
I mean, they can try, but as they do, they will cut out more and more of the lower end market (at least for initial purchases), and like everywhere there will be a gap between lower income and higher income people. The whole system is currently on a trajectory to increase Economic inequality.
And shure, you can argue "but others are doing it to"... and that makes it okay? There are a bazillion studies why economic inequality is bad for a society.
I dont see the REASON to increase the price, as long as the CEO bonuses are so bloated, the companies put everything offshore, dont pay taxes, and have huge earnings every year. If we would see that they are showing effort to change that (lower CEO pay, no tax evasion, better pay for developers,...) shure, then i would be okay with price increase. But we dont. We see the oposit.
@no trend for inflation adjusted hardware prices: because they dont increase the prices and expect the customers to rise with them, they chose what hardware is available for that price at that time, and the way tech develops is that once the initial cost is recouped, it becomes cheaper to make the new stuff than to keep the old tech.
These comparisons are always so dumb. Comparing the cost of manufacturing and distributing cartridges to a digital download (which is almost free) is absurd.
It was a niche market back then. You paid to keep games alive.
Nowadays they make games live to keep you paying.
Feels different.
Nowadays they make games live to keep you paying.
Feels different.
Yeah I remember Sega Megadrive (Genesis) games being 130 - 150 Guilders. We rented a lot but I always got a new game for my birthday. Getting Sonic 2 was the best birthday ever.
Gawked at the demo in the local toystore for weeks. It looked so good. Good times man....
Gawked at the demo in the local toystore for weeks. It looked so good. Good times man....
Do all you do is complain? I've not seen a single post of value from you.
Only seen this after i asumed the worst.
With so many bad faith actors in that regard, and since we have those pictures every
2-3 days (or at least once a week) here, i asumed everybody was aware of them, and they would only be quoted in bad faith discussions.
Maybe just ignore the thread from now on, since i think the discussions will be the same as always ^^"
It's because I reply to the replies like yours.
But seriously I made a mistake about inflation that made me change my opinion about the original post . But people kept replying after I said I messed up. Even with micro transactions everywhere, the inflation thing makes my point invalid even to myself. But people only read the first page , should have edited it earlier .
Edit: complain about what ? Definitely wasn't complaining about anything . I was just responding in the same manner that that guy was. I guess I should have put the "/s" there
Last edited:
Three hours long would be long for most games then. A lot of games were 30 minutes or so. Some less. Marble Madness is like 10. Double Dragon games are 30 minutes. But yeah, games were very expensive for little content back then.
Redbox stopped renting games...
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/assets/941792/DSC_0952-VERGE.jpg)
Redbox no longer rents video games, and it will end game sales this year
But you might be able to buy some games for cheap before they’re gone.
www.theverge.com
Games were a lot harder to code in those days. And they lasted very long due to difficulty and replayability. Even if you completed them, you would come back for the challenge.