I found this article interesting, especially since it compares the cost of games dating back to 1980.
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2020/08/ ... 1&start=40
The comments are enlightening. I would expect Ars readers to be cutting edge online gamers, but the bulk of those who commented complained about the microtransactions, DLC, and always-online paradigm the industry is shoving down our throats.
Thoughts?
New games for $70?
-
BanjoPickles
- Posts: 405
- Joined: June 18th, 2015, 3:05 pm
Re: New games for $70?
I, personally, don't understand the widespread complaints about microtransactions. Yes, they're absolute garbage and a cynical cash grab, but---well, I've been gaming for about thirty-five years and I've never bothered with them. There is enough content, both old and new, to have an abundance of awesome games to play without forking over additional money.
Actually, I won't support companies who have pushed hard for it. The last EA game I bought was Boom Blox, over ten years ago, and I don't have any desire to buy anything they put out.
Actually, I won't support companies who have pushed hard for it. The last EA game I bought was Boom Blox, over ten years ago, and I don't have any desire to buy anything they put out.
-
TheEagleXIII
- Posts: 283
- Joined: December 22nd, 2019, 9:33 am
Re: New games for $70?
I think it’s easy to forget this isn’t isolated to the games industry - it’s all technology. HD TVs were expensive when they first came out and now it’s standard and affordable. So were digital cameras. Heck before digital, photography was an expensive hobby - let alone just for casual use!
What about home video - that was even worse! I remember a 4 episode VHS of the Simpsons or a 2 episode VHS of South Park was probably the same price, maybe more after inflation, as an entire season on DVD brand new! And you don’t get stuff withheld or sold extras after you’ve bought them either with any of these industries either. If anything they bundle in more.
I think it’s a weak excuse of game developers/distributors to use being cheap after inflation as a justification. It was a different time. Sure games were more comparatively expensive back then, but the cost of living was lower too and games didn’t have much to compete with - nowadays we've all got one or multiple streaming subscriptions, mobile phone contracts, phone apps, internet bills, etc. I haven’t heard any other of these industries try to justify their prices by pointing out how they’re comparatively cheaper to older technology - especially back when technology was a luxury and not standard.
I’ve always managed to avoid micro transactions and rarely ever bought DLC, out of principle. But they still affect the games as features will naturally be withheld to sell as extras, or other non-profitable aspects of games (offline single player, local co-op) don’t get the developmental attention they deserve, or games are sold intentionally buggy to be patched later. These companies must make so much money after they’ve sold the game from DLC and micro transactions, that the games should be cheaper.
It 100% affects the games. Take GTA online. If they weren’t busy milking that cash cow you think we’d have had GTA VI by now?
What about home video - that was even worse! I remember a 4 episode VHS of the Simpsons or a 2 episode VHS of South Park was probably the same price, maybe more after inflation, as an entire season on DVD brand new! And you don’t get stuff withheld or sold extras after you’ve bought them either with any of these industries either. If anything they bundle in more.
I think it’s a weak excuse of game developers/distributors to use being cheap after inflation as a justification. It was a different time. Sure games were more comparatively expensive back then, but the cost of living was lower too and games didn’t have much to compete with - nowadays we've all got one or multiple streaming subscriptions, mobile phone contracts, phone apps, internet bills, etc. I haven’t heard any other of these industries try to justify their prices by pointing out how they’re comparatively cheaper to older technology - especially back when technology was a luxury and not standard.
I’ve always managed to avoid micro transactions and rarely ever bought DLC, out of principle. But they still affect the games as features will naturally be withheld to sell as extras, or other non-profitable aspects of games (offline single player, local co-op) don’t get the developmental attention they deserve, or games are sold intentionally buggy to be patched later. These companies must make so much money after they’ve sold the game from DLC and micro transactions, that the games should be cheaper.
It 100% affects the games. Take GTA online. If they weren’t busy milking that cash cow you think we’d have had GTA VI by now?
-
TheEagleXIII
- Posts: 283
- Joined: December 22nd, 2019, 9:33 am
Re: New games for $70?
I just read the article properly and find it hilarious a 2K rep said the new NBA 2K justifies its price point because it will have “nearly endless replay value” despite being an annually released sports title that’ll be redundant in a year, is the one of the most popular genres for micro transactions, and won’t have server support shortly after that for those that do stick with it. 
-
TheEagleXIII
- Posts: 283
- Joined: December 22nd, 2019, 9:33 am
Re: New games for $70?
I’ve been reading an issue of Game Pro from June 1995, and a reader wrote in complaining about the prices of video games. Another was amazed Final Fantasy III was $80 and Phantasy Star was $99!!
They responded by pointing out the carts were expensive to manufacture, and RPGs in particular have batteries and huge capacity carts. Apparently Phantasy Star IV also used an “expensive type of ROM” which made it even more expensive to produce. Then there’s also larger staff compared to other games, and the fact that RPGs don’t shift as many units compared to action/adventure games so they have to jack up the price to turn a profit.
I thought it was interesting to hear a justification for the prices at the time. I think it’s easy to forget how CDs made producing the physical games cheap - something that affected Nintendo sticking to carts with the N64.
I think the takeaway for me from this all is games used to be overpriced, whereas for the last couple decades they’ve been around the price they should be.
They responded by pointing out the carts were expensive to manufacture, and RPGs in particular have batteries and huge capacity carts. Apparently Phantasy Star IV also used an “expensive type of ROM” which made it even more expensive to produce. Then there’s also larger staff compared to other games, and the fact that RPGs don’t shift as many units compared to action/adventure games so they have to jack up the price to turn a profit.
I thought it was interesting to hear a justification for the prices at the time. I think it’s easy to forget how CDs made producing the physical games cheap - something that affected Nintendo sticking to carts with the N64.
I think the takeaway for me from this all is games used to be overpriced, whereas for the last couple decades they’ve been around the price they should be.
-
Lucifixion
- Posts: 48
- Joined: January 4th, 2020, 6:32 pm
Re: New games for $70?
I can recall Mortal Kombat 4 for N64 back in the late 90s being $124.99 at Walmart. Granted, this is in Canada where all videogames have a higher selling price than our southern neighbours, but this was way beyond normal for the time. New PS1 games could go for as high as $79.99, but nothing over that without being some sort of special package. On the other hand, they'd also be blowing out Saturn games around the same time for $5.