9 ms·

you didn't want to own hundreds of games I wanted to own hundreds of NES games because they didn't have remotely as much replay value as good modern games such

you didn't want to own hundreds of games I wanted to own hundreds of NES games because they didn't have remotely as much replay value as good modern games such as Counter Strike. (Heh, Counter Strike is the best example I have of a good modern game because it's the last game I played regularly.) even though you could because most were priced very reasonably Most of the NES games I bought cost $49.99 plus tax. I specifically recall that Double Dragon cost me $54.99 plus tax.

286c8cb04bda 14y ago
> Most of the NES games I bought cost $49.99 plus tax. Wolfram Alpha says[1] that's ~$90 today. 1: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=50%20USD%201990%20in%202013 http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=50%20USD%201990%20in%20...
- SkittlesNTwix 14y ago
  It's interesting to reflect on this number, when you realize that the latest AAA platform title (whatever AAA meant in that particular day/age) have always cost about $50-60 in the past $$ terms of that day, regards of when in the past 20 years we're talking about. So you paid $90 worth of value in 1990 and we pay $49.99 today. What I mean to say is that games were EXPENSIVE back then!
  - just2n 14y ago
    A big difference then was that you could expect to reliably sell your used game back after you finished playing it, if you didn't want to hang on to it. So if you were into playing a lot of games and only keeping your all time favorites, you could reduce that cost significantly. And at the same time, if you were willing to wait a little bit after a launch, you could have the game for a nice discount. How often are you able to sell a game you pay $60 for today? And it doesn't help that the same game is repackaged and sold 10 times over a few years by the same company, each time for $60. At best that's a DLC, maybe worth $10 or $15, not another $60. :|
  - voltagex_ 14y ago
    Heh, here in Australia it used to be $50, now it's $90-110
    - sjwright 14y ago
      I think you still have rose tinted glasses. I still remember paying about AU$80 for Sonic The Hedgehog 2 on the Sega Master System, and about AU$90 for Sonic 3 on the Mega Drive. In real terms, games are cheaper here too. (Another reason for lower prices would also be lower unit costs -- a ROM cartridge surely cost more to manufacture than an optical disc. And the gaming audience is now much larger than it used to be.)
  - tracker1 14y ago
    I remember early 80's cartridges for Atari 2600 in the Sears catalogs being $80-120 USD a lot of the time. Though I don't think I ever paid more than about $40 myself.. I remember being REALLY disappointed in a few.. and miss a few today. To me, the preview video for the game looks like Star Wars meets Half Life.
  - zanny 14y ago
    But market forces were very different too. You would expect thousands of sales, not millions, and your development team was a dozen people, not five hundred. Development got harder (more art assets to make, harder code to write, more of everything) markets got bigger (100 million Wiis vs 50 million NES's) and demographics shifted (from 8 - 16 year olds to 16 - 30 year olds).
bhb916 14y ago
Double Dragon was super expensive. I had to get my dad to take me to a Toys R Us that was 40 miles away just to pick it up, too. The prices weren't necessarily based on quality either, I paid $64.99 for Ghostbuster (NES) and that game was awful.
just2n 14y ago
Recognizable titles did that, sure, but you could grab a used copy for less than half of that, and I recall buying plenty of games for under $24 new. Counter Strike for me counts as a childhood game, though. I was early teens when it came out and I played it on the order of thousands of hours. It was developed by a relatively small player, Sierra, who also had some other awesome games I enjoyed prior to that, and the game was initially awesome. I enjoyed everything up to and including 1.3, and even dabbled in competitive play. I've played every version of CS since and nothing is even comparable to versions 1.3 and below. I guess all good things must come to an end, and while I really hoped to see the efforts behind cs promod take off, nobody really advertised it (it was a re-packaged v1.3 when 1.6 and later source were basically killing the competitive scene).
- kerpal 14y ago
  Actually Sierra published the original Half-life game but didn't help develop it or Counter-Strike. CS was created by Gooseman (Minh Lee) and is arguably the most popular Half-Life mod ever. I played that game for thousands of hours too starting back in middle school.
  - just2n 14y ago
    Ah right, it was published by Sierra. What a work of art for Gooseman. Thinking about it brings back those nostalgic days of WON with the fullscreen console. I had a 3 digit wonid, I remember when that was such a big deal, lol. Going over to a friend's house, setting up PCs, getting loads of caffeine and raiding the liquor cabinet, then doing cal scrims all night long.

286c8cb04bda 14y ago

> Most of the NES games I bought cost $49.99 plus tax. Wolfram Alpha says[1] that's ~$90 today. 1: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=50%20USD%201990%20in%202013 http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=50%20USD%201990%20in%20...

SkittlesNTwix 14y ago
It's interesting to reflect on this number, when you realize that the latest AAA platform title (whatever AAA meant in that particular day/age) have always cost about $50-60 in the past $$ terms of that day, regards of when in the past 20 years we're talking about. So you paid $90 worth of value in 1990 and we pay $49.99 today. What I mean to say is that games were EXPENSIVE back then!
- just2n 14y ago
  A big difference then was that you could expect to reliably sell your used game back after you finished playing it, if you didn't want to hang on to it. So if you were into playing a lot of games and only keeping your all time favorites, you could reduce that cost significantly. And at the same time, if you were willing to wait a little bit after a launch, you could have the game for a nice discount. How often are you able to sell a game you pay $60 for today? And it doesn't help that the same game is repackaged and sold 10 times over a few years by the same company, each time for $60. At best that's a DLC, maybe worth $10 or $15, not another $60. :|
- voltagex_ 14y ago
  Heh, here in Australia it used to be $50, now it's $90-110
  - sjwright 14y ago
    I think you still have rose tinted glasses. I still remember paying about AU$80 for Sonic The Hedgehog 2 on the Sega Master System, and about AU$90 for Sonic 3 on the Mega Drive. In real terms, games are cheaper here too. (Another reason for lower prices would also be lower unit costs -- a ROM cartridge surely cost more to manufacture than an optical disc. And the gaming audience is now much larger than it used to be.)
- tracker1 14y ago
  I remember early 80's cartridges for Atari 2600 in the Sears catalogs being $80-120 USD a lot of the time. Though I don't think I ever paid more than about $40 myself.. I remember being REALLY disappointed in a few.. and miss a few today. To me, the preview video for the game looks like Star Wars meets Half Life.
- zanny 14y ago
  But market forces were very different too. You would expect thousands of sales, not millions, and your development team was a dozen people, not five hundred. Development got harder (more art assets to make, harder code to write, more of everything) markets got bigger (100 million Wiis vs 50 million NES's) and demographics shifted (from 8 - 16 year olds to 16 - 30 year olds).

bhb916 14y ago

Double Dragon was super expensive. I had to get my dad to take me to a Toys R Us that was 40 miles away just to pick it up, too. The prices weren't necessarily based on quality either, I paid $64.99 for Ghostbuster (NES) and that game was awful.

just2n 14y ago

Recognizable titles did that, sure, but you could grab a used copy for less than half of that, and I recall buying plenty of games for under $24 new. Counter Strike for me counts as a childhood game, though. I was early teens when it came out and I played it on the order of thousands of hours. It was developed by a relatively small player, Sierra, who also had some other awesome games I enjoyed prior to that, and the game was initially awesome. I enjoyed everything up to and including 1.3, and even dabbled in competitive play. I've played every version of CS since and nothing is even comparable to versions 1.3 and below. I guess all good things must come to an end, and while I really hoped to see the efforts behind cs promod take off, nobody really advertised it (it was a re-packaged v1.3 when 1.6 and later source were basically killing the competitive scene).

kerpal 14y ago
Actually Sierra published the original Half-life game but didn't help develop it or Counter-Strike. CS was created by Gooseman (Minh Lee) and is arguably the most popular Half-Life mod ever. I played that game for thousands of hours too starting back in middle school.
- just2n 14y ago
  Ah right, it was published by Sierra. What a work of art for Gooseman. Thinking about it brings back those nostalgic days of WON with the fullscreen console. I had a 3 digit wonid, I remember when that was such a big deal, lol. Going over to a friend's house, setting up PCs, getting loads of caffeine and raiding the liquor cabinet, then doing cal scrims all night long.