3 ms·
Owning a physical copy of a movie hasn't gotten any cheaper since the 90s. A Top Gun Maverick blu-ray is $25. Netflix streaming has gone up in price significant
by smolder 4y ago
Owning a physical copy of a movie hasn't gotten any cheaper since the 90s. A Top Gun Maverick blu-ray is $25. Netflix streaming has gone up in price significantly from debut and has a worse content library, due to "the streaming wars." Streaming access is not fair to compare to ownership --it's closer to rental, but without any of the supply-side cost of making and distributing physical media, so value to consumers should be better, based on that. The subscription services aim to lock in some or all of your entertainment budget to maximize per capita revenue month to month. If you want access to the full gamut you need to pay 5+ different ways and end up spending more than what's reasonable for a month full of viewing content (with next to no distribution cost.) IMO, it's only a good deal then if you're spending absurd an amount of time streaming, and there probably isn't enough good content to keep you busy. Quantity and variety of niche shows/films available has gone up over the years, but you can definitely argue quality has gone down apart from format fidelity and CGI quality.
Games haven't really gone down in price either, and now since so many of the games themselves are "live service" things, many of them expire after a few years when they turn the servers off. $25 cosmetic "virtual goods" are often sold in game, representing an absurd markup on the time of artists. You get manipulated/harassed to spend (maybe more like burn) money in them, often after having spent $40-70 to get in the front door.
Monetization is awful, and that shouldn't be too surprising. Businesses endeavor to extract what the market can bear most profitably, and to have a bigger piece of that pie, not so much to give the benefit of progress to the people paying.
- Hamuko 4y ago>Games haven't really gone down in price either They have though. Games used to be so much more expensive back in the day. I actually ran across this nugget recently: https://twitter.com/Mailia/status/1608496022589952003 https://twitter.com/Mailia/status/1608496022589952003 You had to shell out $70 for a copy of Wayne Gretzky's 3D Hockey '98. That's $130 when adjusted for inflation. And disc-based games weren't as cheap as you'd expect either. I think I saw an ad for Crash Bandicoot and the inflation-adjusted price of the game was like $74. These days you might need to pay for $70 if you want a triple-A title on release date. If you don't mind waiting a bit or just go non-blockbuster titles, you can find a lot of games for quite a lot less.
- uconnectlol 4y agoand once you adjust for cancer (microtransactions, skins, grind2win, slightly lower code quality, thought police, platforms like steam, no control over versioning, no ability to make your own server) you get the same value as they were back in the 90s.
- fallat 4y agoNo, triple A games these days are $90+.
- Hamuko 4y agoGod of War Ragnarök – $70 (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0B61YDF5V/ https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0B61YDF5V/) Horizon Forbidden West – $55 (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09FBCRKC9/ https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09FBCRKC9/) Bayonetta 3 – $53 (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B072MK1CLN/ https://www.amazon.com/dp/B072MK1CLN/) Need for Speed Unbound – $44 (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BHF4XXK5/ https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BHF4XXK5/) Call of Duty: Modern Warfare II - $70 (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0B3H227Z5/ https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0B3H227Z5/) Hogwarts Legacy – $70 (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09W4HF94W/ https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09W4HF94W/) Elden Ring – $53 (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09743F8P6/ https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09743F8P6/) You're gonna have to show me the $90+ triple-A game.