3 ms·

> If memory serves, the nominal price of most video games has not changed in about 30 years. They have. Mario was $50, games generally run $60+. The big diffe

> If memory serves, the nominal price of most video games has not changed in about 30 years. They have. Mario was $50, games generally run $60+. The big difference? You don't need to manufacture a cartridge anymore.

kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
You have to correct for inflation. 1986 Mario would be $120 today.
- falcolas 5y ago
  The generation-specific costs (cartridges) and margins (physical retailer cuts, boxes, licensing fees) would have also been corrected for inflation. A bit of research shows an approximate $7 for developer cut of each sale at the 1988 figures. Given the approximate inflation adjustment, that becomes $18.20. Given that cartridge, physical retailers, and boxes are mostly gone, and even even with the deep licensing fees of the platforms today (30%), a $50 game will make the developer almost twice as much revenue as it did in 1988.
vkou 5y ago
The other big difference is that the typical AAA title isn't made on a budget of < $200,000 anymore.
- falcolas 5y ago
  And yet, somehow, they're still making billions in profits. That implies that sales are still sufficient to pay back the development and marketing process, and still make profits. My example I've used elsewhere in this thread: God of War, a game without microtransactions, making $500M in the first year for under $100M in development costs.
kbenson 5y ago
No, Mario was $25 MSRP. See here[1] for some old copy showing prices, the majority at $25, a few at $30 and $35. 1: https://www.quora.com/How-much-did-the-game-Super-Mario-Bros-cost https://www.quora.com/How-much-did-the-game-Super-Mario-Bros...
- nkozyra 5y ago
  I think the first Super Mario was unique in that sense (given it came included with most consoles). I specifically remember asking for video games and my dad responding with disbelief that they were fifty bucks. It was a super common price point for NES. I recall specifically SMB3 retailing at $55 at Walmart.
  - kbenson 5y ago
    If you look at the link, it's not the majority of locations selling SMB for $25, it's the majority of launch titles for NES games being $25, with a few slightly more expensive. I see some reports online that the average price was $50 in 1990, and others that say $40-$50, and maybe slightly higher for select titles. I think it's fairly safe to say that Nintendo priced their launch titles low to attract people, and third party titles were likely averaging $40-$50 within a few years. I also think it's safe to say that most people's memories about this are fairly faulty, given 30+ years. There's numerous reports online about people saying they paid $60 for all their NES games. In addition to that, there were probably some places that sold above MSRP, and some people bought from those locations.
philistine 5y ago
The 60$ price point as a solid, immovable object appeared during the PS2 era. Everyone was on cheap discs, and it sort of happened.

kevin_thibedeau 5y ago

You have to correct for inflation. 1986 Mario would be $120 today.

falcolas 5y ago
The generation-specific costs (cartridges) and margins (physical retailer cuts, boxes, licensing fees) would have also been corrected for inflation. A bit of research shows an approximate $7 for developer cut of each sale at the 1988 figures. Given the approximate inflation adjustment, that becomes $18.20. Given that cartridge, physical retailers, and boxes are mostly gone, and even even with the deep licensing fees of the platforms today (30%), a $50 game will make the developer almost twice as much revenue as it did in 1988.

vkou 5y ago

The other big difference is that the typical AAA title isn't made on a budget of < $200,000 anymore.

falcolas 5y ago
And yet, somehow, they're still making billions in profits. That implies that sales are still sufficient to pay back the development and marketing process, and still make profits. My example I've used elsewhere in this thread: God of War, a game without microtransactions, making $500M in the first year for under $100M in development costs.

kbenson 5y ago

No, Mario was $25 MSRP. See here[1] for some old copy showing prices, the majority at $25, a few at $30 and $35. 1: https://www.quora.com/How-much-did-the-game-Super-Mario-Bros-cost https://www.quora.com/How-much-did-the-game-Super-Mario-Bros...

nkozyra 5y ago
I think the first Super Mario was unique in that sense (given it came included with most consoles). I specifically remember asking for video games and my dad responding with disbelief that they were fifty bucks. It was a super common price point for NES. I recall specifically SMB3 retailing at $55 at Walmart.
- kbenson 5y ago
  If you look at the link, it's not the majority of locations selling SMB for $25, it's the majority of launch titles for NES games being $25, with a few slightly more expensive. I see some reports online that the average price was $50 in 1990, and others that say $40-$50, and maybe slightly higher for select titles. I think it's fairly safe to say that Nintendo priced their launch titles low to attract people, and third party titles were likely averaging $40-$50 within a few years. I also think it's safe to say that most people's memories about this are fairly faulty, given 30+ years. There's numerous reports online about people saying they paid $60 for all their NES games. In addition to that, there were probably some places that sold above MSRP, and some people bought from those locations.

philistine 5y ago

The 60$ price point as a solid, immovable object appeared during the PS2 era. Everyone was on cheap discs, and it sort of happened.