Support NeoGAF

[Imp the Dimp]

$70 for a game like God of War Ragnarok, TotK or Elden Ring is just insane when we paid $100-130 for SNES and N64 games if adjusted for inflation. Games are multiple orders of magnitude better than in the 90s and not only that, they beat virtually all other entertainment too in terms of value for the money. Would you have considered any of these three games a bad deal at, say, $110? That seems hard to believe given the crap you bought in the 90s for those prices and higher. Box prices for games are probably among the most inflation resitant things I can think of and the nominal price increases don't even make up for inflation. Gaming's day 1 real prices have greatly decreased since the 90s and more or less stagnated for the past ~10 years. Obviously, that's just box prices and companies have varying business models these days but generally, you can just buy a game for a basically all-time low price during what is probably the all time highest quality era. It's (good) insanity.

 

[Captain Toad]

You're right, but this won't go well for you on here.

 

[Hudo]

The gameplay quality of these "cheap" games has also decreased (maybe even deliberately so). And they try to extract money from you using DLCs, micro transactions, season passes, battle passes, etc. I mean, there are people who have spent hundreds of dollars of Paradox' games. Or on Sims 4. So I must disagree with you, I'm afraid. I think most games are too expensive.

 

[Krappadizzle]

The value has to be their as the cost of living is getting pretty intense for a majority of the population so if you want to have something superfluous, like videogames, they had better represent a value.

Even then, quality is not something I'd label most AAA games asking 70+ dollars.

 

[Guilty_AI]

I mean, have you ever considered how cheap a pack of cards is compared to the amount of entertainment they can provide?

 

[havoc00]

Thats why I always buy 4 copies of each game

 

[Red5]

It makes sense, we paid 70$ for Sonic on the Mega Drive which you can finish in under an hour, for 60$ you can buy RPG's that give hundreds of hours of playtime.

But also keep in mind that I can never afford 60$ games these days and mostly rely on Steam sales.

 

[FearlessBelgian]

You think that because you're rich, hardly anyone in the world could afford games costing more than $100, and given the poor quality of the titles being released today, I'd say they're mostly too expensive...

 

[Imp the Dimp]

I mean, have you ever considered how cheap a pack of cards is compared to the amount of entertainment they can provide?

No, but I had books in mind. Depending on how much enjoyment you get out of books, they offer great value for the money. The downside is it's not an activity you can easily share and, well, personally I wouldn't say I find very good books as enjoyable as very good video games but that's just me.

This Friday I'm watching Oppenheimer for about 13€. 3h of hopefully good entertainment but will it be as good as 3h of TotK? We'll see, but even then, I'm getting 150h of quality time out of a 70€ purchase when I buy TotK. To be fair, I think you can make a case that subscription services like Netflix are outrageous value as well. If you like Netflix' catalog, you get a lot of value for your money as well.

 

[CanYouFlyBobby?]

how long before games ask for your first-born?

 

[tommolb]

The gaming market is much, much bigger now than in the 90's, so economies of scale come into play. Bigger market, more unit sales, costs split over a larger number of units etc.

It's therefore simplistic to lay the argument that goes something like "games cost X amount in the 90's, they cost X amount now, take into account inflation, we must all pay far more"

Also take into account that we we no longer buy "full" games. We buy a slice of a game at retail, then by DLC's on top.

 

[ProgenitorCastle]

 

[RoadHazard]

Agreed 100%, games are an incredible value. Not all of them of course, but it's on you to do some research before you pay $80 for something.

The gameplay quality of these "cheap" games has also decreased (maybe even deliberately so). And they try to extract money from you using DLCs, micro transactions, season passes, battle passes, etc. I mean, there are people who have spent hundreds of dollars of Paradox' games. Or on Sims 4. So I must disagree with you, I'm afraid. I think most games are too expensive.

None of the games used as examples by the OP do any of that shit. You don't have to buy the shitty greedy ones. I never do, and I have more than enough great games to keep me busy. Currently I'm 170 hours into TOTK and nowhere near finished.

 

[fart town usa]

Agreed.

Funny thing too is that people should know by now to just hold off for 6 months cause the game will be patched and it'll probably be $10-$20 off during a sale.

 

[M1chl]

no

 

[Fuz]

Astroturfing much?

 

[Guilty_AI]

I also think needs pointing out, games aren't a necessity, even for entertainment.

They cannot be priced too high, otherwise risk having people cut them off first from their expenses. Heck, i pass on on tons of newer big games because i think they aren't worth the $60-70 they ask, GoW:R being one of them.

how long before games ask for your first-born?

I heard this gives you an achievement in DOOM

 

[Gaiff]

Gaming is a $250b industry. Prices are fine.

 

[Imp the Dimp]

The gaming market is much, much bigger now than in the 90's, so economies of scale come into play. Bigger market, more unit sales, costs split over a larger number of units etc.

It's therefore simplistic to lay the argument that goes something like "games cost X amount in the 90's, they cost X amount now, take into account inflation, we must all pay far more"

Also take into account that we we no longer buy "full" games. We buy a slice of a game at retail, then by DLC's on top.

I am not suggesting we must all pay more although I can see why my title would imply that. My point was rather to appreciate how amazing the value of games is. Ultimately, the prices we see reflect the market reality. There's no rigging going on. I think you are correct that some of these things have put a downward pressure on prices, although I think you're missing "competition" in that list. The high demand in games itself is no reason for real prices to plummet - on the contrary, you would usually raise prices when demand is high. But I believe the very high competition is keeping prices low and it's great for us! Honestly, I have a hard time justifying other entertainment purchases when I can just get a game which provides more value for the money practically everytime.

 

[Hudo]

Agreed 100%, games are an incredible value. Not all of them of course, but it's on you to do some research before you pay $80 for something.



None of the games used as examples by the OP do any of that shit. You don't have to buy the shitty greedy ones. I never do, and I have more than enough great games to keep me busy. Currently I'm 170 hours into TOTK and nowhere near finished.

Well, Elden Ring has a DLC upcoming, God of War: Ragnarok has (at least for me) no replay value because it's a story-focused game and Tears of the Kingdom will most likely have DLC and a season pass as well. I love TotK as well but I still think I paid a fair price with 50€. I don't think I should've paid more. None of the big publishers (and even the smaller ones) are losing money with their games.

But again, if you feel like games should be more expensive, that's OK.

 

[T4keD0wN]

Theyve gone up to about 4x in my country since when i was a kid. Technically 2x but our currency has also doubled in value against USD. The prices have only stagnated in NA, instead of raising the prices there theyve decided to slice up the products into pieces and sell the rest as dlcs/mtx which can cost thousands, most of the industry is guilty of this.

As customers we should negotiate better quality for less and not argue against our own interests, but you are right that they are great value for a sole buyer.

 

[Represent.]

I agree. Been saying it for years.

People complaining about $70 for literally hundreds of hours of entertainment just goes to show, deep down people still view games as toys for kids.

Its also why they are never taken seriously by anyone but gamers.

 

[Fuz]

Gaming is a $250b industry. Prices are too high.

FTFY.

The industry has never been richer.

 

[Last Hearth]

Depends on the type of game, if you’re talking about BG3 or Starfield where you can put in 100 hrs into the game, absolutely, I’d easily pay 100-200 for those games.

If you’re talking about cinematic games where the primary draw is watching cut scenes like TLOU. Then no, it’s overpriced. You can watch a full season of the TV show for one month sub of HBOMAX, which is about $10, so paying $60 to watch a computer version is overpaying.

 

[Fuz]

"I NEED MORE MONEY, GUYS! I'M WORKING AT A LOSS HERE, I'M ALMOST BROKE "
\|
​

 

[lastmessiah]

Games have more "content" now, but I would hesitate to call that the same thing as entertainment and quality.

 

[RoadHazard]

Well, Elden Ring has a DLC upcoming, God of War: Ragnarok has (at least for me) no replay value because it's a story-focused game and Tears of the Kingdom will most likely have DLC and a season pass as well. I love TotK as well but I still think I paid a fair price with 50€. I don't think I should've paid more. None of the big publishers (and even the smaller ones) are losing money with their games.

But again, if you feel like games should be more expensive, that's OK.

A game eventually getting DLC to expand upon it (ER is 1.5 years old) is not the same as being sold an incomplete game. All those games are very complete experiences without it, it's up to you if you want to pay a bit more to get even more content.

 

[Dream-Knife]

Games are too expensive when new.

 

[German Hops]

 

[K2D]

Counter-point: Games are too expensive to make.

I've spent hundreds (thousands?) of hours on certain indie games.

I'd make exceptions for certain games like GTA which in all fairness are multiple games in one.

 

[Go_Ly_Dow]

Games are at a fair price now and I think the $70/£70 experiment hasn't worked out well. So any further price hikes would be silly.

Maybe the market is ready for slightly higher priced hardware (but only if it means better tech) for the first 2-3 years of the console launch, as the PS5 has shown with people paying premiums to scalpers.

Maybe like $599 or $649 for PS6.

 

[Hudo]

A game eventually getting DLC to expand upon it (ER is 1.5 years old) is not the same as being sold an incomplete game. All those games are very complete experiences without it, it's up to you if you want to pay a bit more to get even more content.

Sure but they make more money by selling you this on top of what you already paid.

 

[avin]

$70 for a game like God of War Ragnarok, TotK or Elden Ring is just insane when we paid $100-130 for SNES and N64 games if adjusted for inflation. Games are multiple orders of magnitude better than in the 90s and not only that, they beat virtually all other entertainment too in terms of value for the money. Would you have considered any of these three games a bad deal at, say, $110? That seems hard to believe given the crap you bought in the 90s for those prices and higher. Box prices for games are probably among the most inflation resitant things I can think of and the nominal price increases don't even make up for inflation. Gaming's day 1 real prices have greatly decreased since the 90s and more or less stagnated for the past ~10 years. Obviously, that's just box prices and companies have varying business models these days but generally, you can just buy a game for an a basically all-time low price and what is probably the all time highest quality era. It's (good) insanity.

I think you also need to consider the inflation adjusted income of people buying games. According to the Pew, real wages adjusted for inflation changed minimally from 1974 to 2018 in the US. Recent inflation won't have helped. Given that gaming has expanded greatly since 1996, I'd think that necessarily means the "real" average wage of gamers has declined since 1996, as the increase in gamers would necessarily come at the lower end.

So I don't think so. At least, not when you look at the other end of it.

avin

 

[Fuz]

Nvm, didn't notice the comment was very specific.

 

[Imp the Dimp]

Games are too expensive when new.

But they weren't too expensive when they were more expensive in the 90s and 2000s? Can you give us a good time when games were properly priced, adjusted for inflation?

For reference some approximate values (correct me if my values on the left are wrong. It's not that easy to find out what games cost on day 1 for older consoles.):

1990 SNES prices: 50-60 USD = ~130 USD adjusted for inflation
1996 N64 prices: 60 USD = ~115 USD adjusted for inflation
2000 PS2 prices: 50 USD = ~90 USD adjusted for inflation
2013 PS4 Prices: 60 USD = ~80 USD adjusted for inflation

Please tell me when exactly day box prices where best, thank you.

 

[FearlessBelgian]

Games are at a fair price now and I think the $70/£70 experiment hasn't worked out well.

Maybe the market is probably ready for slightly higher priced hardware (but only if it means better tech) for the first 2-3 years of the console launch, as the PS5 has shown with people paying premiums to scalpers.

Maybe like $599 or $649 for PS6.

Yeah, excellent time to raise prices, in the middle of inflation, exploding energy prices and reduced purchasing power...

 

[RoadHazard]

Sure but they make more money by selling you this on top of what you already paid.

The point is that you don't have to buy it, these games are complete as they are. Your argument seems to be that the future existence of DLC means the original game isn't worth full price anymore. If a game never gets DLC, does that mean the original game is then somehow worth more? Doesn't make sense.

It's different when games obviously have content taken out of them that's then sold as DLC, and the original game is no longer a complete experience. But that's not the case with any of those.

 

[TheInfamousKira]

This thread is too cheap for the value and entertainment it provides.

Probably.

 

[Imp the Dimp]

I think you also need to consider the inflation adjusted income of people buying games. According to the Pew, real wages adjusted for inflation changed minimally from 1974 to 2018 in the US. Recent inflation won't have helped. Given that gaming has expanded greatly since 1996, I'd think that necessarily means the "real" average wage of gamers has declined since 1996, as the increase in gamers would necessarily come at the lower end.

If real income is stagnating (that is, nominal income is increasing with inflation) and a product doesn't keep up with inflation, the product is getting cheaper every year. I'm not really sure what the relevance of the expansion of gaming is. If companies make more money, that doesn't mean they'll lower the price. They will raise the price when demand is high and when market conditions allow for it (when they seem not to), not the opposite.

 

[bender]

I'd be fine if game prices increased if we could get rid of pre-order bonuses, multiple editions and in game monetization schemes but unfortunately, we get the former with all of the latter.

 

[VN1X]

$70 for a game like God of War Ragnarok, TotK or Elden Ring is just insane when we paid $100-130 for SNES and N64 games if adjusted for inflation. Games are multiple orders of magnitude better than in the 90s and not only that, they beat virtually all other entertainment too in terms of value for the money. Would you have considered any of these three games a bad deal at, say, $110? That seems hard to believe given the crap you bought in the 90s for those prices and higher. Box prices for games are probably among the most inflation resitant things I can think of and the nominal price increases don't even make up for inflation. Gaming's day 1 real prices have greatly decreased since the 90s and more or less stagnated for the past ~10 years. Obviously, that's just box prices and companies have varying business models these days but generally, you can just buy a game for an a basically all-time low price and what is probably the all time highest quality era. It's (good) insanity.

 

[Hudo]

The point is that you don't have to buy it, these games are complete as they are. Your argument seems to be that the future existence of DLC means the original game isn't worth full price anymore. If a game never gets DLC, does that mean the original game is then somehow worth more? Doesn't make sense.

It's different when games obviously have content taken out of them that's then sold as DLC, and the original game is no longer a complete experience. But that's not the case with any of those.

My point is that they make more than enough money per sold game because the numbers show that most people actually go for the DLC/micro transaction/battle pass/season pass stuff. So the argument that games are too cheap doesn't hold up for me. And every bigger publisher, as well as smaller ones, are posting profits.

 

[Dream-Knife]

But they weren't too expensive when they were more expensive in the 90s and 2000s? Can you give us a good time when games were properly priced, adjusted for inflation?

For reference some approximate values (correct me if my values on the left are wrong. It's not that easy to find out what games cost on day 1 for older consoles.):

1990 SNES prices: 50-60 USD = ~130 USD adjusted for inflation
1996 N64 prices: 60 USD = ~115 USD adjusted for inflation
2000 PS2 prices: 50 USD = ~90 USD adjusted for inflation
2013 PS4 Prices: 60 USD = ~80 USD adjusted for inflation

Please tell me when exactly day box prices where best, thank you.

Cool. And wages haven't followed inflation.

Games are more broken, yet sell more and the industry has record profits.

If you want to spend more then buy two copies of a game.

 

[Tarnpanzer]

Games are too expensive when new.

Depends on the game and the quality of the release version. Diablo 4 full price was worth it in my opinion.

But often I wait for at least half price before buying.

 

[Chuck Berry]

I think they're priced just right considering most of them are broken or unfinished upon release nowadays.

Funny thing is yeah, we paid $80 bucks for Chrono Trigger back in 1996, but games back then were the real deal and werent busted so you pretty much always felt like you got your moneys worth.

Unless you bought Strider for the Genesis for close to a Ben when you were 11 and finished it in an hour. Fuck Im still pissed.

 

[RoadHazard]

But they weren't too expensive when they were more expensive in the 90s and 2000s? Can you give us a good time when games were properly priced, adjusted for inflation?

For reference some approximate values (correct me if my values on the left are wrong. It's not that easy to find out what games cost on day 1 for older consoles.):

1990 SNES prices: 50-60 USD = ~130 USD adjusted for inflation
1996 N64 prices: 60 USD = ~115 USD adjusted for inflation
2000 PS2 prices: 50 USD = ~90 USD adjusted for inflation
2013 PS4 Prices: 60 USD = ~80 USD adjusted for inflation

Please tell me when exactly day box prices where best, thank you.

SNES games were 800-900 SEK here in Sweden, N64 around the same I think. Since then they have only gotten CHEAPER. At their cheapest (PS2-PS3) they were around 600.

They are now getting a bit more expensive again, but physical copies are still significantly cheaper than they were back then. And that's before accounting for inflation.

 

[Go_Ly_Dow]

Yeah, excellent time to raise prices, in the middle of inflation, exploding energy prices and reduced purchasing power...

?? PS6 probably not releasing for another 4 maybe 5 years from now. So I don't understand your "excellent time to raise prices" comment regaridng next gen hardware. The situation may be different then.

PS4 launched at around $399, PS5 launched at around $499. If the demand is there for PS6 to offer a big tech leap then something like $599 sounds like a realistic possibility factoring in the rising prices for components, inflation and new technology thats a considerable step up from what the consoles have now.

Also, inflation, exploding energy prices and reduced purchasing power hasn't exactly stopped the PS5 selling like hot cakes has it....

 

[CrustyBritches]

I’d say the vast majority of games are worth $30 or less.

 

[Imp the Dimp]

SNES games were 800-900 SEK here in Sweden, N64 around the same I think. Since then they have only gotten CHEAPER. At their cheapest (PS2-PS3) they were around 600.

They are now getting a bit more expensive again, but physical copies are still significantly cheaper than they were back then. And that's before accounting for inflation.

How much is 900 SEK adjusted for inflation?

 

[avin]

If real income is stagnating (that is, nominal income is increasing with inflation) and a product doesn't keep up with inflation, the product is getting cheaper every year. I'm not really sure what the relevance of the expansion of gaming is. If companies make more money, that doesn't mean they'll lower the price. They will raise the price when demand is high and when market conditions allow for it (when they seem not to), not the opposite.

The relevance is that the purchasing power of the average gamer would be lower today than in 1996, if you agree that the expansion in numbers of gamers would have had to occur at the lower end. I agree with the rest of what I think you're saying, but I also think you missed the point I was trying to make.

So sure, companies will price their product according to the market. The purchasing power of average gamers is a key piece of what they need to consider. If the argument I'm making holds, and you're an average gamer, a $100 game would be a worse deal for you today than what people paid in 1996.

avin