Support NeoGAF

[Imp the Dimp]

Maybe you come from a rich family otherwise you wouldn't say this. Games are expensive. Especially when you consider you need to get the deluxe edition which includes season to get complete experience as many games cut content from the main game to sell as dlc so the entire experience is atleast $100-120 which is a lot of money. Especially if you live in a country with much lower purchasing power compared to US. Not to mention most games launch is buggy and broken state so you don't even get a good quality experience for purchasing at full price.

You can just stick to the base game (which is much cheaper than in the 90s and 2000s) which will probably be bigger than whatever games you bought in 1997 and not continue spending on additional content if you can't afford it. Sorry, but at some point you gotta take responsibility for your own actions. Poor people have easier access to games than ever because real prices decreases so drastically since the 90s. Games these days are substantially bigger and better than 90s games. Some of you people don't suffer from a nostalgia bias but nostalgia delusion.

 

[DoctorEkkoUK]

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.

Imagine a world where everything is priced based on the amount of hours it is used. Here's your £700 lightbulb, your £1000 wallet, Windows OS license £5000

 

[Hudo]

Not my beloved tri-Ace though they rarely publishes and mostly develops.

Will change with Star Ocean 2 Remake, baby!

 

[jonnyp]

I'd say games are priced at what the market is willing to pay. No more, no less.

 

[Hudo]

When games are cheap, consumers buy more than they can realistically ever play.

That's an apt summary of Steam's whole business model.

 

[LazyParrot]

Yes, but I would argue that gaming provides incredible quality as well and given how the industry is thriving, that seems to be a common sentiment. It's not just about killing time for the lowest price. Good games provide high quality entertainment.

So do good movies, good books, or even good Youtube videos, and you can get enough of all of those to last a lifetime without paying a cent.

 

[Filben]

I would argue games can rival that.

Absolutely. I mainly play indie games and the last game I've paid more than 30 EUR for was RE4 for 54.

Signalis, Chained Echoes and the like are amazing value.

 

[Stuart360]

I must admit we have done well with game prices over the years. I mean i bought some N64 games, and even some Genesis/Snes games that were more expensive than the PC games i buy today (especially as i usually buy from key sites that are even cheaper than the likes of Steam).

Having said that, i never understand why there are so many people on here that put the consumer (us) last and seem to care more about devs, studios, and even billionaire publishers first lol.
You see it all the time with Gamepass and convo's like this one, like if we are getting a good deal on something then its a bad thing and 'fuck consumers'.

MTX is the way publishers make their money now, and thats why we can keep getting 'good' deals with game prices.

 

[DevilMayFlyForAWhiteGuy]

 

[faraany3k]

$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.

Well buy a copy for me too each time you find incredible value.

 

[Imp the Dimp]

I'd say games are priced at what the market is willing to pay. No more, no less.

Of course. This thread is merely supposed to appreciate the fact that gaming has remained so price-stable lately and that is provides good value for the money.

 

[ChoosableOne]

There is an old joke about this.

The viziers appeared before the Sultan:

-My Sultan, the treasury is empty. We need new taxes.
The sultan scratched his head from under his turban and said,
+Well then, what tax shall we impose?
-Let's place a man on the bridges and collect a coin from anyone who crosses!
The Sultan agreed and said,
+Alright.
After some time had passed, he asked his viziers,
+Any reaction from the people?
-No reaction at all!
+Very well, then let's place a man on the other side of the bridge and collect a coin from those who cross!
More time passed, and the Sultan asked again:
+Any complaints?
-None!
Frustrated by the people's indifference, the Sultan thundered:
+Let's place a man in the middle of the bridge as well, and tell him to fck anyone who passes!
A few days went by, and the Sultan, annoyed by the lack of response from the people, summoned his viziers and said,
+Let's listen to the people's grievances first. They went to the village, and the Sultan asked:
+Any complaints?
No one spoke up. The Sultan asked again:
+Any complaints? If anyone has any grievances, let them speak up!
Finally, a feeble voice was heard from the back:
>My Sultan, it's about that man in the middle of the bridge!
+Yes? The Sultan said, hoping for some feedback.
>During the evenings, it gets very crowded, and the line gets long. We end up getting home late. If you could add one more man...

 

[Madserb2023]

I agree that they are relatively cheaper compared to what they used to be and offer much better value but then games sell a lot more now so they can.
A game selling over 1,000,000 units was rare so they would have a higher unit cost, plus they were on cartridges and had a cost of production several orders of magnitude higher than discs and of course downloads.
Games are probably slightly cheaper than they should be for physical releases but It's the hardware that is too cheap. They make a loss on it. They increase prices elsewhere to subsidise the hardware. Consoles are much cheaper now. I paid more for the PS3 than the PS5. The Nintedo 64 was more expensive than the Switch and I am not including inflation in these. I could buy a Switch Oled and the Lite with TOTk for what I paid for the Nintendo 64 when factoring in inflation.

 

[SkylineRKR]

Yes you do get more value out of games today, even though games are full with bugs and often incomplete, you can't compare them to tons of NES or SNES games you could beat within the hour with nothing more to do. Often games weren't really playtested either, or made more difficult to artificially extend the playtime (or multiple rentals). Many were outright unfair, take for example Battletoads, Virtual Bart, Robocop 3 or Bayou Billy. You could say these games needed balance patches as well.

Same for Soul Calibur 3, which would break your save games. It was never patched because it wasn't possible yet. Its not like games back then were released glitch free, but more like you dealt with it. There are many you can't even beat.

 

[JCK75]

I think they make up the difference by selling to a much bigger audience while not having all of the expensives of putting on a cartridge and getting it to store shelves..
it's insane that digital has to pay the same price as retail (and actually retail is often cheaper)

 

[Neff]

Been saying it for ages. I'd be happy paying more for games if it meant publishers were able to take risks and diversify genres.

 

[Putonahappyface]

Considering how normalised it is to release a bug ridden broken game these days, I'm finding it difficult to rejoice at a £70 price tag. There are games that deserve the £70 price tage, but they're the exception not the rule.

 

[Imp the Dimp]

Considering how normalised it is to release a bug ridden broken game these days, I'm finding it difficult to rejoice at a £70 price tag. Their are games that deserve the £70 price tage, but they're the exception not the rule.

As opposed to all the crap >100$ games you paid for in the 90s that you forgot in the meantime. You guys are comparing the absolute best of the best games of the 90s and 2000s with every full priced release of today. I would suggest to compare apples and apples.

 

[Marvel14]

Next time you’re at a retailer buying a game, hand them $100- $150 and tell them to keep the change.

No one’s stopping you from paying more for a game if that’s what you want.

Appreciating the comparative value for money of something isn't the same as wanting to pay more for it to get a lower vfm.
F faraany3k ...your logic too is deeply flawed.

 

[Putonahappyface]

As opposed to all the crap >100$ games you paid for in the 90s that you forgot in the meantime. You guys are comparing the absolute best of the best games of the 90s and 2000s with every full priced release of today. I would suggest to compare apples and apples.

I'm living in the present where the price of games is relevant.

 

[scoobidoo112]

In a world where pre-order content, deluxe/gold/ultimate editions, microtransactions, season passes, and digital releases (without a box, a disc and a manual) do not exist, sure.

This is not that world, and there are very, very few releases that actually merit a > $70 pricetag. Most games have many more revenue streams aside from the initial purchase.

Different times, circumstances and technologies warrent different prices, and this idea that as time goes on prices must always continue to increase is unrealistic, and would price the consumer out of the hobby itself.

If the economy was in the same shape it was in during the 90's, then sure, you would have a point, but instead we've been living through endless economic disasters.

Besides, twenty years ago a large-sized television could cost you $10.000 or more, but nowadays you can get a 60 inch OLED tv for like $1000.

These new TVs offer way more entertainment, improved software and better image quality, and yet nobody is upset that they're not selling them for $25.000.

 

[Zimmy68]

I haven't read much of this thread so I am sure someone has posted the reason why your logic is flawed.
Do you think the people that paid $70 for the Gollum game think that it was cheap?

 

[DryvBy]

You need to include mtx and you'll see why they're fine. Companies aren't making billions a quarter for no reason.

 

[TheCoolDave]

Here we go. Anyway, Games were $50, people were ok with it, they got to $60, people were a little upset but, happy with it. Then it went to $70, people are not happy about it. I've watched many threads on people complaining about it. I do get deep long games like some heavy RPG, but, games that are about 10-15 hours long, I don't see it, nor do I see people paying it.

I personally will not spend $70 on a game. I will play the game, I might put 3 hours, or 100 hours into it, I don't know. If games go up to $70 and I can't get them cheaper, I will be buying less games. So I will miss out on titles because I can't go blowing an extra $70 every month or 2 on a game and the DEVS will get less money because less people will buy. People will be a lot more selective of games so some titles that sold fairly well, might not will a much more expensive game.

As a heavy gamer, I don't buy into every series, some games I just skip because no time. Other games I want but, not that much, those are eBay or Facebook Marketplace used games ($30-50). Last $70 game I wanted, I went on ebay, $55 shipped and I had it on release day. It's how I buy them now...

A device is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. Everything has its price, Music, movies, etc. Games are $60 new... and it's what they market accepts. Remember when they tried Blu-ray discs for $30+, that didn't last long....

 

[Gorgon]

There is an old joke about this.

The viziers appeared before the Sultan:

-My Sultan, the treasury is empty. We need new taxes.
The sultan scratched his head from under his turban and said,
+Well then, what tax shall we impose?
-Let's place a man on the bridges and collect a coin from anyone who crosses!
The Sultan agreed and said,
+Alright.
After some time had passed, he asked his viziers,
+Any reaction from the people?
-No reaction at all!
+Very well, then let's place a man on the other side of the bridge and collect a coin from those who cross!
More time passed, and the Sultan asked again:
+Any complaints?
-None!
Frustrated by the people's indifference, the Sultan thundered:
+Let's place a man in the middle of the bridge as well, and tell him to fck anyone who passes!
A few days went by, and the Sultan, annoyed by the lack of response from the people, summoned his viziers and said,
+Let's listen to the people's grievances first. They went to the village, and the Sultan asked:
+Any complaints?
No one spoke up. The Sultan asked again:
+Any complaints? If anyone has any grievances, let them speak up!
Finally, a feeble voice was heard from the back:
>My Sultan, it's about that man in the middle of the bridge!
+Yes? The Sultan said, hoping for some feedback.
>During the evenings, it gets very crowded, and the line gets long. We end up getting home late. If you could add one more man...

Too long, no one read it.

 

[NeoIkaruGAF]

1) If games cost more, we wouldn’t be having all those sales record breaks and we wouldn’t be counting the sales of the first week or the first 3 days. Sales would be more of a long-term prospect, but the industry wants to sell games right out of the gate before tech advances and today’s games inevitably have to get discounted.
2) If games cost more, they’d be discounted less quickly and less often because they would sell less in the short term.
3) If games cost more, sales in all markets would plummet. Significantly so in many markets.
4) We’ve had dozens of threads about the price of games and every time it’s clear that for many people, duration and entertainment are not the main factor that should drive the price of games. You have people arguing all the time that Nintendo’s games should not be full price because of outdated tech, and apparently Nintendo games holding their value through the years is tantamount to legalized highway robbery for some. Imagine asking $100+ for Zelda, even if that game can offer more long- lasting entertainment than 5 AAA games from other devs.

 

[AeonGaidenRaiden]

By that logic lets adjust every price of anything for inflation and OMG, it all seems so much more expensive then....but it wasnt. Because in 1990 $70 was still $70. Nobody calculates inflation into their purchases unless you are buying a supercar worth 3 million dollars.

 

[StueyDuck]

Depends where you live

 

[DaGwaphics]

Found the Rockstar employee trying to prepare the market for that $2b price tag.

 

[Chastten]

I agree with OP and this thread makes it painfully clear why no real business will ever take 'gamers' seriously.

'Gamers' are a small group of insufferable people who demand games running at unrealistic graphical settings, with unlimited possibilities, all without any bug whatsoever, for a €60 pricetag (although most will wait a few months until the inevitable pricedrop to €20), and with no paid DLC or MTX or whatever.

Meanwhile, the much larger group of casuals will just casually drop €70 on their yearly release of Fifa or GTA and happily spend another €100 or so on ingame stuff

 

[MetalRain]

Yes, games are more complex and providing more "value". However games are even easier to sell and audience is bigger than ever, so value to single user and price don't need to correlate.

Also competition is very tough, that is keeping prices lower than I'd expected them to be.

There is an old joke about this.

The viziers appeared before the Sultan:

...

+Yes? The Sultan said, hoping for some feedback.
>During the evenings, it gets very crowded, and the line gets long. We end up getting home late. If you could add one more man...

I would have guessed people are complaining how their clothes are getting wet by not using the bridge.

 

[ChoosableOne]

Too long, no one read it.

The Sultan first imposes a made-up tax on those crossing the bridge, and when no one objects, he hires a man to fck the bridge-crossers. In the end, instead of the people protesting the taxes, they ask for an increase in the number of individuals fcking them on the bridge, due to the long queue. I shared this because it aligns with OP's way of thinking.

 

[Clear]

The type that annoy me the most are those that pick up games at literal rock-bottom prices then are ridiculously demanding about what they(barely) paid for.

That is, as the kids say, super cringe.

If you paid full price for a bug-ridden mess then have at it, but going to Twitter over a 99c game... that's just ridiculous.

 

[oji-san]

Not for me. I don't consider $70 to be cheap or even fair price, but it's all about point of view, my income is not great and all money goes for living so obviously it's expensive for me. You gotta consider not everyone earns a lot, so it doesn't matter if historically you are right, whan you have to pay rent/food etc than lets say it's not cheap.

 

[Drizzlehell]

What are you, some kind of a gaming industry's bootlicker?

First of all, I don't think that triple-A companies are gonna die of thirst any time soon, considering how games like Diablo Immortal make Activition 2 million dollars per day, so don't give me that crap that they deserve more money when they already hoard more wealth than you could ever comprehend. And secondly, I don't care if a game costs too much to make because it's not my business as a customer. Triple-A industry are the architects of their own demise in most cases, and burdening the customers with even higher prices isn't a solution. It's just stupidity and greed.

 

[oji-san]

You can just stick to the base game (which is much cheaper than in the 90s and 2000s) which will probably be bigger than whatever games you bought in 1997 and not continue spending on additional content if you can't afford it. Sorry, but at some point you gotta take responsibility for your own actions. Poor people have easier access to games than ever because real prices decreases so drastically since the 90s. Games these days are substantially bigger and better than 90s games. Some of you people don't suffer from a nostalgia bias but nostalgia delusion.

Sorry to barge in but you keep saying that in the 90s it was more expensive, and i really don't recall so i can't comment if true or not, but perhaps your topic should be that historically gaming prices dropped (if true i have no clue), the fact that it may be cheaper now then 30 years ago doesn't mean it's cheap to everyone.

 

[Majormaxxx]

Shut the fuck up. Elitist punk. Cheap my ass.

 

[Imp the Dimp]

Sorry to barge in but you keep saying that in the 90s it was cheaper, and i really don't recall so i can't comment if true or not, but perhaps your topic should be that historically gaming prices dropped (if true i have no clue), the fact that it may be cheaper now then 30 years ago doesn't mean it's cheap to everyone.

No I'm saying it was much more expensive and it was. And I'm not suggesting it's cheap for everyone. Poor people might be priced out of games and other luxuries. It is what it is.

 

[oji-san]

No I'm saying it was much more expensive and it was. And I'm not suggesting it's cheap for everyone. Poor people might be priced out of games and other luxuries. It is what it is.

Yes i corrected my post, lol don't worry as a "poor" gamer i will wait for sales so i'm still having a blast, hope the gaming companies won't see your topic and increase yet again the games price.

 

[Krappadizzle]

Yes you do get more value out of games today, even though games are full with bugs and often incomplete, you can't compare them to tons of NES or SNES games you could beat within the hour with nothing more to do. Often games weren't really playtested either, or made more difficult to artificially extend the playtime (or multiple rentals). Many were outright unfair, take for example Battletoads, Virtual Bart, Robocop 3 or Bayou Billy. You could say these games needed balance patches as well.

I'd wager a large majority of the general 80's/90's gaming public did not beat most of the popular games at the time. As a kid with a NES I know I sure didn't beat most of the games I had at the time and even when going to the SNES/Genesis, it really wasn't until I got a GameGenie could I beat most games in a couple of hours. Which then made my little brain reflect on whether playing that way was worth it as I would finish games too fast and didn't feel nearly the same sense of accomplishment or fun/frustration as my buddies, who would spend way more time playing would have.

Games were absolutely artificially inflated difficulty for the rental market(I remember renting Lion King on Genesis at least 4 times), but even the ones that didn't, games just were at a more difficult standard across the board. While we definitely get longer games these day, a vast majority have very little challenge.

 

[gela94]

Ok, are we now at a point where people beg to pay more? You can always buy more copies!

 

[Krathoon]

I remember being annoyed with Okami because it does the "Repeat Boss Rush" bullshit. So does Twilight Princess.

 

[_g h 0 s t]

100% agree. Destiny 2 is my main game and the yearly $100 “complete” edition is such an incredible deal for me. I get a minimum 700 hours of playtime out of each xpac, usually more.

 

[Scotracer]

I've put hundreds of hours into Warzone 2 DMZ. I haven't paid a penny.

 

[Midnight Bliss]

Why the hell would I pay for some bearded buff man game where I shout and make plant-based milk faces with my buff man dude who has a tattoo on his face and he's a god of war. Seriously

Elden ball is a game where you die stupidly within the first few minutes and have to watch YouTube tutorials to git er done good and then grind because all these souls games are marketed as "too hard 4 u can u beat it??"

Ahh totk now here we have a game wait. I already played this in 2018.

Honest to God games are already too expensive id rather have a short fun simple game that's 2-6 hours long and costs under 20 dollars. As opposed to AAA filler crap where the game doesn't respect your time and has too many ideas and does none of the ideas well but has a huge marketing budget.

The call of duty of the 00s has become the average AAA of the 2020s everything is marketing nothing is substance.

 

[the_master]

Whay is this game?

 

[GeeseGoose]

That’s quite a take.

Considering many modern games are one or more of the following: unfinished, incomplete or DLC pushing, microtransaction trash, GAAS, etc.

For me, these days, there is realistically no incentive to buy a game full price with some few exceptions, e.g. TOTK, FF16, otherwise second hand, pirating (example only, not advocating) or waiting for a deep discount are potential solutions to companies that try to shovel crap.

This means that unless it is an absolutely guaranteed to make me happy glowing game, then I can live without it or try it on Game pass or PSN plus and not regret not buying.

 

[Imp the Dimp]

That’s quite a take.

Considering many modern games are one or more of the following: unfinished, incomplete or DLC pushing, microtransaction trash, GAAS, etc.

They're also much bigger and better than what we had in the past. Just don't buy DLC, MTX and so on if you don't want. The base games are oftentimes big without any additions. Modern games are multiple orders of magnitude better than whatever you grew up with, get real.

 

[SHA]

Experience is not a category, it's something that won't last except the talking and praising cause it has unique "experience".

 

[X-Wing]

$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.

It’s true.