Yes. The minimum wage back in 1982 was a scant $3.35/hr. I really don't get inflation. Since prices AND wages both go up together, why doesn't everything just stay the same?Originally Posted by Gameguy
Yes. The minimum wage back in 1982 was a scant $3.35/hr. I really don't get inflation. Since prices AND wages both go up together, why doesn't everything just stay the same?
Apparently, you don't remember how much Street Fighter II was for the SNES in 1992.
The strange thing about this is that I hadn't bought a new game at full retail for well over a year before L4D. I paid full retail for that one, however.
Haven't played it in a while now. Still waiting on that new content.
To me it's all about the features a game offers. If it's a single player game I usually won't pay over $30 for it, period. I look at it as "I can just play that later". If it's a new game with online/offline/co-op/splitscreen/great single player I almost always will buy it at the full $60 retail.
If they started focusing on more options then it would justify at least "my" purchase. I can't count the number of times i've said (Damn, I wish GTA IV was splitscreen).
I would vote for more options versus less price and I think current prices can and should cover all those bases.
I don't understand your argument. Sure, I remember how much SF2 was when it came out for the SNES. Why should have anything to do with being put off at the price SF4 is?
I will never, ever, ever pay $60 for a new retail game again. I paid close to $100 for FFIII and Chrono Trigger back in the day, but that's when all I ever did was play video games, so it was money well spent.
If you want to pay an extra $20 to "support the industry" instead of waiting 2 or 3 months for a $40 price drop, that's great, but to me it's just throwing your money away. After all, what's the worst that could happen? Studios stop spending so much money producing games I'm not interested in playing anyway? Boo freaking hoo. Maybe they'll decide to spend more time on games that are fun instead of pushing the graphics in cutscenes faster towards the uncanny valley.
Last edited by boatofcar; 02-22-2009 at 04:35 AM.
Do prototypes cost too much?
At least the new-games industry doesn't control pricing and/or have a limited number of products being chased by a large pool of enthusiasts.
Speaking of SF2, there's an interesting comparison: George H.W. Bush's economy of 1992 vs. today's.
What's there to understand? He was pointing out that games have fallen in price quite a bit.
FF3 was released in 1990 @ 100 Dollars.
Now normally, inflation is around 3%, so if FF3 was released today, it should cost around 170 dollars.
SF 4 was released @ 70 Dollars. That's a 30% reduction in the price of a top tier game. Or, indexed for inflation, less than half the original cost.
Other than games, is there any other product that has done this over the last 20 years? I know people will point out computers and other Electronics, but overall, how has the price of a high end TV /Computer changed? What they can do has, but has the price?
Maybe games are too expensive for you. But in real world pricing, the price of a game has naver been lower
Last edited by crazyjackcsa; 02-22-2009 at 06:35 AM.
I haven't seen a video game in the past year that was worth spending over $20 of my own money on.
So, I would have to say yes, video games are overpriced.
I've spent $75 on more than one board game in that same amount of time. I guess I can get more value out of the board games anymore...
gamesandgrub.blogspot.com - My blog about boardgames, and sometimes food.
roomwithaviewmaster.tumblr.com - My blog about Viewmaster collecting
Has the price of a high end TV/Computer changed? Ten years ago, how much was a 40" plasma? What was the average price of an IBM PC in 1981? What is the average price of a PC now? Did you even think before you wrote that?
And WTF is "real-world" pricing? Please show me where you get such information. Price is dependent on supply and demand. If enough people stop buying $60 games, $60 games will disappear.
In what world do you live in where Final Fantasy 3 was released in 1990?
And at $100 MSRP?
Thanks for playing!
Not singling anybody out here, this is more of a generalization that could apply to any gaming forum on the internet.
To me, the same people who complain about $50-60 video games being overpriced are the same people who complain about $10-15 cd's being "too expensive" and $15-20 movies being "too expensive."
Some people just are never going to be happy. You could price the next Dead Rising game at $20 and they'd still find something to piss and moan about. Entertainment has a cost and some people aren't happy about it. They think everything should be free, including a lunch.
Yet many of these same people have no problem dropping $40-60 or more for used PC Engine, Sega Saturn (imports) or Playstation 1 games online.
Nor do these same folks seem to mind paying market price for used Marvel vs. Capcom games...........or a myriad of other high-priced and USED games from 5, 10 or 15 years ago.
Last edited by bangtango; 02-22-2009 at 12:17 PM.
I'm pretty sure he's referring to Final Fantasy VI and boned the release date. I remember Chrono Trigger being nearly one hundred dollars on release: thank God for optical media and it's cheap and efficient manufacturing processes.
Here's the problem: games have a significant amount of content for the money. An average RPG is forty hours or more, and even action games and FPS' seldom clock in at less than ten hours each. That doesn't count the potentially limitless playtime you could potentially eke out of online multiplayer. That's the justification for game prices being what they are, though the realities are more likely to be licensing costs and a relatively narrow consumer base.
That narrow consumer base(us, by the way) are crazy enough to buy quite a few of these games. We try and stay abreast of current gaming trends, and keep up with all the triple A releases. Most game consumers are not that crazy. They buy two, maybe three of these games a year, and that's enough for them. Not enough for the developers and publishers though: their costs have skyrocketed, and the core audience hasn't expanded wide enough to make up for it.
In the final analysis, games aren't really too expensive: making them is. Grand Theft Auto 4 didn't actually make a huge return: it was profitable, but if a game sells, what, ten million copies, it shouldn't be marginally profitable: it should be a WoW style super success. EA lost their asses last year, even though they had a pretty strong line up of big sellers. A couple thousand copies isn't enough anymore. They all need to be GTA 4 style sellers, and it simply isn't possible.
Nintendo, for all their faults and tarnished reputation with the 'core' audience, once again shows that it's ahead of the curve with the Wii and DS. Damn near everyone involved with it is making money. They're cheap and easy to develop for, and everyone has one. They've both reduced their own overhead, the overhead of their third party developers, AND increased the base of people they're selling to, all in three years. Sony, Microsoft, and the big third parties have some catching up to do...
I don't think games cost too much- games are a luxury and if someone wants to play, there are tons of cheaper options compared to brand new $60 games and $300+ consoles.
It's like saying that handbags cost too much if all you try to buy are brand new louis vuitton bags- you could go to walmart and pick up a bag for a fraction of the price that will do pretty much the exact same thing.
It has plenty to do with it. It was $75 in 1992, which is $109.55 in 2007 (inflation calculator site didn't go past 2007). So $69.99 is far less than it used to be.
Never say never, or you won't be buying new games in 2025 or even 2020. By then, no new game will be $under $60, but it won't matter, since you will be making a lot more money.I will never, ever, ever pay $60 for a new retail game again. I paid close to $100 for FFIII and Chrono Trigger back in the day, but that's when all I ever did was play video games, so it was money well spent.
Not supporting anything, just pointing out that games in 2009 are cheaper than ever. A lot of brand new NES games in 1988 were $50. I don't even want to say how much that would be in today's money.If you want to pay an extra $20 to "support the industry" instead of waiting 2 or 3 months for a $40 price drop, that's great, but to me it's just throwing your money away. After all, what's the worst that could happen? Studios stop spending so much money producing games I'm not interested in playing anyway? Boo freaking hoo. Maybe they'll decide to spend more time on games that are fun instead of pushing the graphics in cutscenes faster towards the uncanny valley.
And if you think SF4 will be $40 in 2 or 3 months, well that would make you crazy. Most big-name games don't price drop quickly.
To quote Chris Rock, I think they're just poor, broke bastards.
I remember the price of SFII back in 1992 as well, I wouldn't pay the 75 then either lol.
Since we are throwing out sayings lol, another saying "a fool and his money soon part"
I can wait the 2-3 months, in that time I am pretty sure my local Blockbuster will have it for 49.99 or 39.99 and some buy 1 get one half priced or such deal.
I have bought pleny of games new at 60 in the last 6 months, but in todays economy, I am sure myself and a lot of other people look a little closer at these prices and decide to wait. I just decided I have some pretty new games that I can still get a lot of play out of, and after that get a game like SFIV at a better price somewhere.
On the flip side I can understand someone who is into the series more than me can easily justify the early spend at top dollar, and get their enjoyment for three more months than me when it is a hotter item. Nothing wrong with that either, I know I have done it my share of times on new games or technology. Some items you just can't wait for depending on your interest.
I really don't think it will be cheaper so soon. Big name big hits don't get reduced so fast. Zelda Twilight Princess is still $50 on the Wii, and that was a launch game. Super Smash Bros. Brawl is a year old, and still $50 as well. As far as I know, MLB: The Show '08 didn't go down until the release of '09 neared. It's still expensive in my Blockbuster.
I dont feel the prices are too high. If I really want a $60 game(which I seldom do) I buy it, but most times I wait for it to drop to the $20-$30 range which doesnt take too long if you look around.
The thing I feel is out of control is DLC. The shit comes out right after the game is released and adds anywhere from $5-$30 to the overall price if you want the complete game.
Bury me with my money......*dies*
In the northeastern NJ area, from 1988 to 1990, my parents generally paid $50 to $65 for new NES games (Double Dragon, Super Mario Bros. 2, Super Mario Bros. 3, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles II: The Arcade Game, Mega Man II, etc.). This was at Toys R Us, Bradlees, Caldor, Consumers, Video Dynasty, and Video Game Depot.
Some of the older, less popular NES games were reduced to around $40, but overall, the stores we went to charged $50 to $60 for new, popular NES games.
Likewise for SNES games (1991 to 1995), except for some of the super-popular games. My parents bought Street Fighter II: The World Warrior for $85 from Electronics Boutique at Willowbrook Mall. Also, my friend bought every SNES RPG that was released in the U.S. and often paid over $75 each. Games like Batman Returns, Contra III, Final Fight, and F-Zero were usually $60 each.
In 1997, I bought Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island at K-B Toys for $30. The N64 had already been out for several months.
When the N64 came out, Super Mario 64 and Pilotwings 64 were $60 each at Toys R Us. Once stores realized the N64 was the hot thing that Christmas season, they jacked up the game prices to $75...sometimes $85. It was ridiculous. The Funco Land at Willowbrook Mall charged $75 for Killer Instinct Gold that first Christmas. If I remember correctly, Turok: Dinosaur Hunter was the last N64 game that stores charged crazy, rip-off prices for.
Toys R Us sold Mario Kart 64 for $60 in early 1997. Star Fox 64 was also $60 when it was released in mid 1997 and that came with the Rumble Pak. For a while, $50 to $60 was the standard price for N64 games. In the beginning of 1999, many N64 games were being released for $40 to $50. At the time, the big name PlayStation games were being released for $40 and most budget games were around $20.
I remember in the late 1990s, PlayStation fanatics bashed the N64 because the games were supposedly way too expensive (at the time, $40 PS vs. $50 N64). Their argument was that the PlayStation was so much better because the games only cost 1/10th the price to manufacture, compared to N64 games. My response was, "If that's true, how come PlayStation games don't cost 1/10th the price of N64 games?"
Anyway, my point is that PlayStation fanatics complained about the crazy prices of N64 games and boasted about how much cheaper PS games were because they used CDs instead of cartridges. Fine. So how come now that every Xbox 360 and PS3 game is released on optical disc instead of cartridge, the prices have gone back up to N64 levels? What happened to the whole "discs are sooo much cheaper than cartridges" argument from 10 years ago?
Last edited by Rob2600; 02-22-2009 at 01:37 PM.
Because developers were eating the cost. Way to treat your developers, Nintendo!
On the other hand, I love my N64 and its reliability, so.
Thank goodness for PSN and VC and Steam.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote