4 ms·

I’ve seen this mentioned a few times - and it’s technically correct - but people need to remember that games have no natural price, could have been over/under p

I’ve seen this mentioned a few times - and it’s technically correct - but people need to remember that games have no natural price, could have been over/under priced in the 90’s or now and that quantity of assets/play time does not equal quality. Cheaper from a price per unit perspective makes it seem like we’re getting a better “deal” now but that isn’t necessarily true.

A_D_E_P_T 4y ago
From what I recall, games throughout the 80s and 90s were usually priced around $40-50, and many of them could be beaten in mere hours. (This is when a Blockbuster membership and $2-3 console game rentals were nice to have!) As far as I can tell -- on average -- games today are relatively less expensive to buy, and yet cost significantly more to produce. So I don't think that they're a historically poor value. If anything, I think there's a stronger case to be made for the opposite proposition.
dahfizz 4y ago
It just comes off as whiny. People were paying 50-60 dollars for videogames for decades, with no complaint. Now when inflation finally comes for video games, and you pay the same real price you were paying a few years ago, they're way too expensive.
- hulitu 4y ago
  > Now when inflation finally comes for video games, and you pay the same real price you were paying a few years ago, they're way too expensive. Less money, other important things to spend on. Suddenly the crappy (lootboxes, hours spend updating) game looks expensive.
bilekas 4y ago
There is also a discrepancy with the numbers being sold these days. Far higher due to multiple platforms etc. Then there is also the cost to produce physical copies. I believe, but haven't searched, the majority of sales seems to be digital downloads. I don't think anyone should be under the impression that publishers have been making a lot or close to the margin on sales. They're the one company type who treat pennies like manhole covers.

A_D_E_P_T 4y ago

From what I recall, games throughout the 80s and 90s were usually priced around $40-50, and many of them could be beaten in mere hours. (This is when a Blockbuster membership and $2-3 console game rentals were nice to have!) As far as I can tell -- on average -- games today are relatively less expensive to buy, and yet cost significantly more to produce. So I don't think that they're a historically poor value. If anything, I think there's a stronger case to be made for the opposite proposition.

dahfizz 4y ago

It just comes off as whiny. People were paying 50-60 dollars for videogames for decades, with no complaint. Now when inflation finally comes for video games, and you pay the same real price you were paying a few years ago, they're way too expensive.

hulitu 4y ago
> Now when inflation finally comes for video games, and you pay the same real price you were paying a few years ago, they're way too expensive. Less money, other important things to spend on. Suddenly the crappy (lootboxes, hours spend updating) game looks expensive.

bilekas 4y ago

There is also a discrepancy with the numbers being sold these days. Far higher due to multiple platforms etc. Then there is also the cost to produce physical copies. I believe, but haven't searched, the majority of sales seems to be digital downloads. I don't think anyone should be under the impression that publishers have been making a lot or close to the margin on sales. They're the one company type who treat pennies like manhole covers.