Do Video Games Cost Too Much? [Slashdot]

[Jorpho]

Right, because pirated carts and devices to play "back-ups" off various discs and memory devices were not available for Nintendo based systems. Give me a break. If you really want to control piracy, there are other ways to do it besides creating custom formats.

Bootleg N64 carts were reportedly too expensive to be profitable. Clearly this trend did not hold for the DS or GBA.

[Letiumtide]

No, but then again I only purchase new what I am willing to support. If it is a game that I want and I wish to support the company and creators in order to recieve more titles of that variety, then it will be done.

For the most part I'd say they're a little too high, but when I think in retrospect to the price of Final Fantasy III for the SNES when it came out at $100, I'd say it's not too bad.

Would they make more sales if it was cheaper? Perhaps, I don't know if it would be enough to sway people into purchasing the game new though. Maybe it would, it wouldn't change my habits though.

[BHvrd]

No, but then again I only purchase new what I am willing to support. If it is a game that I want and I wish to support the company and creators in order to recieve more titles of that variety, then it will be done.

For the most part I'd say they're a little too high, but when I think in retrospect to the price of Final Fantasy III for the SNES when it came out at $100, I'd say it's not too bad.

Would they make more sales if it was cheaper? Perhaps, I don't know if it would be enough to sway people into purchasing the game new though. Maybe it would, it wouldn't change my habits though.

I can understand this line of thinking, but when it comes to companies *cough*Sega*cough* (whom I adore), their crap to gem ratio is a tad on the crap a bit too often. I try to support them but only when I know their on the right track and with Sega you can usually tell just by reading a one page article.

LotR: Conquest is a game I recently bought to support, cause there is no other game like it for this gen and I loved Star Wars Battlefront and it isn't nearly as bad as people go on about, especially if you like SWB.

So yeah I tend to support companies the same way as you say, but always gotta be a little cautious and make sure their effort was at least valiant, I will even bypass AAA titles to support.

[Zap!]

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?

Well, at least Nintendo is keeping it cheap. I have yet to see a single Wii game cost more than $50, not including games that came with accessories (Guitar Hero, Rock Band, etc.). Even huge names like Zelda: Twlight Princess and Super Mario Galaxy were only $49.99.

BTW, are you positive major chain stores jacked up the prices once the N64 became popular? Because corporate stores don't do that (they all kept the Wii at 249.99 when they could have sold it for twice that), nor do I remember it happening.

[Zap!]

I don't see why anyone feeling the pinch of game costs should take any solace in candy bar prices. That's like saying, well, in China you might get arrested for speaking out against the government, but they should be happy and not complain because in North Korea they might be executed for the same thing.

Logic, you just don't get it.

And unless you run the The Luxor, average hourly electricity costs are nowhere near 60 cents an hour, much less "almost...more." Do you pay $432 a month in electricity?

Math, you just don't get it.

Actually, he does get it. He said a candy bar has almost doubled since 1998. Lot's of things in America have. Yet games gave stayed the same or around the same price for years. That's something to be grateful for. Hell, some 2600 games in 1980 were $40. How much was the original VCS in 1977? Hell, 30 years later, the Wii was $249, the same price.

[boatofcar]

Actually, he does get it. He said a candy bar has almost doubled since 1998. Lot's of things in America have. Yet games gave stayed the same or around the same price for years. That's something to be grateful for. Hell, some 2600 games in 1980 were $40. How much was the original VCS in 1977? Hell, 30 years later, the Wii was $249, the same price.

First of all, I've never seen a candy bar cost a buck that wasn't King Size. If you're paying that much, shop at a different store.

Second, as I stated above, technology things always decrease in price as time goes on. Video games don't have to cost $60, just as CDs don't have to cost $24.99 like they did in the late 90's at a ton of record chains. The sooner consumers wise up to this, the better.

[Sonicwolf]

I seem to remember my dad paying around $90 CAD for Space Invaders when it was released for the 2600. In today's dollar's that's *outrageous* (want to guess why?)

I remember when Nintendo 64 games were 84.99CDN. The PS2 and Xbox games were 74.99 for a while too. Ridiculous prices. Luckily they have deflated over time in regards to brand new games.

[BydoEmpire]

SMS and NES games from $30:

http://www.huguesjohnson.com/feature...4-SMS_full.jpg

http://www.huguesjohnson.com/feature...5-NES_full.jpg

1983, most games $30:
http://www.retroist.com/2008/12/17/t...ideo-games-07/

Maybe prices had come down by then at the beginning of the crash, but I do remember Indiana Jones for the 2600 being particularly expensive because it was $40.

[Astrocade]

First of all, I've never seen a candy bar cost a buck that wasn't King Size. If you're paying that much, shop at a different store.

Second, as I stated above, technology things always decrease in price as time goes on. Video games don't have to cost $60, just as CDs don't have to cost $24.99 like they did in the late 90's at a ton of record chains. The sooner consumers wise up to this, the better.

I don't think he's talking about grocery stores/department store prices. Ten years ago, in convenience stores , a regular candy bar was .69/.79 cents. Now a regular (not King Sized) bar will run you anywhere from 1.19-1.29. This is in NC, where the price of most things tends to be cheaper than the rest of the country.

But yes, at Wal-Mart a regular Kit Kat bar can still be had for .79. Ten years ago it was .39.

[boatofcar]

I don't think he's talking about grocery stores/department store prices. Ten years ago, in convenience stores , a regular candy bar was .69/.79 cents. Now a regular (not King Sized) bar will run you anywhere from 1.19-1.29. This is in NC, where the price of most things tends to be cheaper than the rest of the country.

But yes, at Wal-Mart a regular Kit Kat bar can still be had for .79. Ten years ago it was .39.

Ok, fair enough. But I maintain that technology tends to get cheaper over time. Remember how much VHS tapes cost in the early 80s?

[Rob2600]

technology things always decrease in price as time goes on. Video games don't have to cost $60, just as CDs don't have to cost $24.99 like they did in the late 90's at a ton of record chains.

You're right...except in the late 1990s, stores like Sam Goody, Coconuts, Borders, FYE, and Record Town sold full-length CDs for $10 to $18. What stores were charging $25? Or do you mean the late 1980s?

[boatofcar]

You're right...except in the late 1990s, stores like Sam Goody, Coconuts, Borders, FYE, and Record Town sold full-length CDs for $10 to $18. What stores were charging $25? Or do you mean the late 1980s?

Yeah, I meant late 80's. Sorry

EDIT: But, I do remember some stores charging over $20 for a CD well into the 90s, though admittedly it was the exception rather than the rule. I bought Pocket Full of Kryptonite by The Spin Doctors at a store at the mall (I wish I could remember the name of the store, but they went out of business soon after. I want to say National Record Mart) for $24.99, and the K Mart in my town sold the Saturday Night Fever Soundtrack (1 disc) for $25.

Growing up in West Virginia, we didn't have a lot of competing stores to keep prices down, so maybe things were different in places where there were more music stores. Bigdaddychester, if you read this, do you know what store I'm talking about in the Barboursville Mall? It's where the Chinese Restaurant in the food court is now, where the Taco Bell was before that (I think).

[Rob2600]

Yeah, I meant late 80's. Sorry

Ah, I figured that's what you meant!

My parents bought a CD player in 1987 and I remember CDs selling for around $30 each! They bought a few Beatles and Beach Boys CDs. Fortunately, CD prices dropped steadily during those next five or six years...at least in the northern NJ/NYC area.

[eugenek]

Actually, he does get it. He said a candy bar has almost doubled since 1998. Lot's of things in America have. Yet games gave stayed the same or around the same price for years. That's something to be grateful for. Hell, some 2600 games in 1980 were $40. How much was the original VCS in 1977? Hell, 30 years later, the Wii was $249, the same price.

That's irrelevant. It's completely a red herring. If someone thinks that games are overpriced, how does it change anything that candy bars have increased at a faster rate? Or that college costs have increased at a faster rate than either? You might FEEL better about it, but that obscures the fact that it doesn't change a thing about the original assertion. Just because they've had a merely slower rate of increase (or even no increase) doesn't prove anything. So what if the VCS and Wii cost the same amount? Maybe they're both overpriced.

Now, with that said, I can't be certain they are overpriced. There's a magic intersection between profit margin and sales which maximizes the benefit on both sides, but I don't know what that point is.

[Gentlegamer]

Their reason for both decisions is easy: piracy.

It's a hell of a lot easier to pirate a CD based game than it is a Cart.

Nintendo also had to avoid clauses in the contract that remained in place after the aborted Sony "Play Station" deal that would force Nintendo to pay royalties to use the CD format and allow Sony access to Nintendo IP.

[Solertia]

IMO, I don't think X360 and PS3 games should be $60. That's kinda ridiculous. Especially when, for multi-platform games, I could get the PC version - which (in most cases) will perform much better in every way - for $50. So yeah, console games should be at most $50, if not less.

[Zap!]

First of all, I've never seen a candy bar cost a buck that wasn't King Size. If you're paying that much, shop at a different store.

Second, as I stated above, technology things always decrease in price as time goes on. Video games don't have to cost $60, just as CDs don't have to cost $24.99 like they did in the late 90's at a ton of record chains. The sooner consumers wise up to this, the better.

Technology decreases, true. But media and software don't count, only hardware does. People who comlain about a PS3 being $400 today would be up in arms when the same tecnology (it it existed) would cost $100,000 in 1998. That's the only reason technology comes down, it's all about hardware advances. Media technology is not the same. Plus, like someone else said, there are teams and teams of people working on games. It costs much more to produce than in 1982. And even in 1982 you were paying $40 for Pitfall!, while it was worked on by just one guy. So games today are a bargan.

Comparing CD's are totally different. A CD in 1989 is the same as a CD in 2009. A game in 1989 however wass far, far less to make than in 2009.

[Zap!]

That's irrelevant. It's completely a red herring. If someone thinks that games are overpriced, how does it change anything that candy bars have increased at a faster rate? Or that college costs have increased at a faster rate than either? You might FEEL better about it, but that obscures the fact that it doesn't change a thing about the original assertion. Just because they've had a merely slower rate of increase (or even no increase) doesn't prove anything. So what if the VCS and Wii cost the same amount? Maybe they're both overpriced.

Now, with that said, I can't be certain they are overpriced. There's a magic intersection between profit margin and sales which maximizes the benefit on both sides, but I don't know what that point is.

Let's say you made about $280 a week in 1992, when the average game was $50. Now let's say you make $1,000 a week in 2009. Would you still be bitching that the average game in 2009 is just $10 more on a PS3? If yes, then I don't know what to tell ya. Get a Wii. You won't see a game over $50 unless it's packed with an accessery.

[Zap!]

IMO, I don't think X360 and PS3 games should be $60. That's kinda ridiculous. Especially when, for multi-platform games, I could get the PC version - which (in most cases) will perform much better in every way - for $50. So yeah, console games should be at most $50, if not less.

Well you're 19 and you're probably on the broke side, so of course you feel like that. I won't knock you one bit, I said the same thing at your age. I want to see someone complain here that's 30+ and makes a decent amount of money.

[eugenek]

Let's say you made about $280 a week in 1992, when the average game was $50. Now let's say you make $1,000 a week in 2009. Would you still be bitching that the average game in 2009 is just $10 more on a PS3? If yes, then I don't know what to tell ya. Get a Wii. You won't see a game over $50 unless it's packed with an accessery.

You keep pulling in irrelevant information. I can think games are overpriced whether I make $1 or $1000 a week. There's a difference between "I can't afford any games" and "I think games are overpriced." I thought movie theater candy was overpriced in 1992 and I think it's overpriced now even though I make a hell of a lot more money now than when I was 11.