3 ms·

Given that games cost $50 in 2000, they should be costing $68 in 2014 based on inflation alone. So if anything, games are much cheaper today for much more conte

by sadris 12y ago

Given that games cost $50 in 2000, they should be costing $68 in 2014 based on inflation alone. So if anything, games are much cheaper today for much more content on a man-hour basis.

mc_hammer 12y ago
agreed. on a cost to earnings to enjoyment level, you save a few hours salary, buy game for $60, and enjoy it for 10+ hours. its still a deal.
- nawitus 12y ago
  And $89 in Europe :/.
- krisdol 12y ago
  Eh. In 2000, paying $50 for a game meant much more than 10+ hours of enjoyment (assuming it was a game you liked). For all the polish and technological prowess of modern games, I think most of us consider them a ripoff because of just how little substantial content and replay value there is in many blockbuster games.
tibbon 12y ago
I've been saying this for years. We used to pay $30-45 for NES games, $50 for SNES games, and I remember several PC games in the 80's being in the $45-50 range. NeoGeo games were in the hundreds. C64 systems launched at $595, which makes buying a Wii U, Xbox One and PS 4 together look cheap. Maniac Mansion for NES was $54.95 when it launched!!! Also, the amount of content in most games these days is absolutely huge. Per hour, they are an incredibly cheap form of entertainment. Check out a catalog from 1990 for example: http://www.huguesjohnson.com/features/sears_catalog/sears-catalog-1990-pg1447-NES_full.jpg http://www.huguesjohnson.com/features/sears_catalog/sears-ca...
bri3d 12y ago
That seems to be the thesis of Chmielarz's remarks - not that $60 is an insane price to pay for a game, but rather that gamers in 2014 expect so much out of their $60 that it's difficult to deliver without very high volume. Thus the industry bifurcates into low-cost, quality, smaller-scope games and huge-volume annualized franchise games like CoD and Assassin's Creed, leaving no room for high-quality, mid-scope, "middle-class AAA" games like Bulletstorm.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
ticviking 12y ago
I think you're missing the point being made here. Aiming at the $60 game price point and experience is aiming for a saturated market where you have to do crazy things to stand out.

by sadris 12y ago

Given that games cost $50 in 2000, they should be costing $68 in 2014 based on inflation alone. So if anything, games are much cheaper today for much more content on a man-hour basis.

mc_hammer 12y ago

agreed. on a cost to earnings to enjoyment level, you save a few hours salary, buy game for $60, and enjoy it for 10+ hours. its still a deal.

nawitus 12y ago
And $89 in Europe :/.
krisdol 12y ago
Eh. In 2000, paying $50 for a game meant much more than 10+ hours of enjoyment (assuming it was a game you liked). For all the polish and technological prowess of modern games, I think most of us consider them a ripoff because of just how little substantial content and replay value there is in many blockbuster games.

tibbon 12y ago

I've been saying this for years. We used to pay $30-45 for NES games, $50 for SNES games, and I remember several PC games in the 80's being in the $45-50 range. NeoGeo games were in the hundreds. C64 systems launched at $595, which makes buying a Wii U, Xbox One and PS 4 together look cheap. Maniac Mansion for NES was $54.95 when it launched!!! Also, the amount of content in most games these days is absolutely huge. Per hour, they are an incredibly cheap form of entertainment. Check out a catalog from 1990 for example: http://www.huguesjohnson.com/features/sears_catalog/sears-catalog-1990-pg1447-NES_full.jpg http://www.huguesjohnson.com/features/sears_catalog/sears-ca...

bri3d 12y ago

That seems to be the thesis of Chmielarz's remarks - not that $60 is an insane price to pay for a game, but rather that gamers in 2014 expect so much out of their $60 that it's difficult to deliver without very high volume. Thus the industry bifurcates into low-cost, quality, smaller-scope games and huge-volume annualized franchise games like CoD and Assassin's Creed, leaving no room for high-quality, mid-scope, "middle-class AAA" games like Bulletstorm.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

ticviking 12y ago

I think you're missing the point being made here. Aiming at the $60 game price point and experience is aiming for a saturated market where you have to do crazy things to stand out.