General Gaming Game prices likely to raise by $10 next gen (Update: CoD)

[jaethos]

I don't know where people were buying games for $70 25 years ago. I spent $50 per game for pretty much everything from the NES to the PS2. It wasn't until the 360/PS3 that my prices went higher.

Inflation is a bs metric anyway. It doesn't apply equally to every product and rarely tells the true story of what people can actually get for their money.

The big publishers are making record profits. Lower priced games are more common now than ever and big budget games go on sale almost immediately. Why? Because a lot of people aren't willing or able to pay $60. $70 is just going to make even more people wait for the inevitable sales that will come increasingly quickly.

[skillzdadirecta]

56 minutes ago, jaethos said:

I don't know where people were buying games for $70 25 years ago. I spent $50 per game for pretty much everything from the NES to the PS2. It wasn't until the 360/PS3 that my prices went higher.

Ahem...

 

Quote

I’m old enough to remember $70 cartridges

The resulting data is a little noisy from year to year, depending on which specific games were included on extant advertisements we could track down. Over time, though, the pricing trends are still pretty easy to spot. While nominal cartridge game prices in the early '80s topped out at $30 to $40, inflation makes that the equivalent of $80 to $100 per game these days. Nominal prices stayed relatively flat into the late '80s as the industry started recovering from the great crash, but inflation brought the actual value down a bit in constant dollars.

 

As the industry transitioned into 16-bit cartridges in the '90s, though, nominal prices for top-end games rose quickly past $60 in nominal dollars and $110 in 2020 dollars. That's in large part because of the expensive ROM storage and co-processors often included in games of the day. By 1997, late-era SNES and early-era N64 games were routinely selling for $69.99 at many retailers, the highest nominal prices the industry has generally seen and still the equivalent of over $110 in today's dollars.

 

That's how I remember it... In fact I remember prices going DOWN when the PS2 era started because Sony started routinely pricing some first party games as low as 39.99. But yeah, $70 was not uncommon in the late days of the cartridge era.

 

Quote

The big publishers are making record profits. Lower priced games are more common now than ever and big budget games go on sale almost immediately. Why? Because a lot of people aren't willing or able to pay $60. $70 is just going to make even more people wait for the inevitable sales that will come increasingly quickly.

Nintendo says 

[SimpleG]

57 minutes ago, jaethos said:

I don't know where people were buying games for $70 25 years ago

 

 

 

 

[skillzdadirecta]

4 minutes ago, SimpleG said:

 

 

 

 

Man that brings back memories 

[SimpleG]

2 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

That's how I remember it... In fact I remember prices going DOWN when the PS2 era started because Sony started routinely pricing some first party games as low as 39.99. But yeah, $70 was not uncommon in the late days of the cartridge era.

Same , the PS2 era they became affordable enough that you could be less picky or more adventurous with your choices 

[skillzdadirecta]

1 minute ago, SimpleG said:

Same , the PS2 era they became affordable enough that you could be less picky or more adventurous with your choices 

Yes PS2 era I don't remember games being more than $49.99 for the most part.

[Keyser_Soze]

To be fair Toys R Us always charged $10 more than everyone else (Electronic Boutique too). I remember when Best Buys started popping up around here they would always games for $10 cheaper, so that's why I always went to Best Buy.

[SimpleG]

16 minutes ago, Keyser_Soze said:

To be fair Toys R Us always charged $10 more than everyone else (Electronic Boutique too). I remember when Best Buys started popping up around here they would always games for $10 cheaper, so that's why I always went to Best Buy.

 Best buy had around 20 stores prior to 93 so it wasnt an option for most people for NES games

[SimpleG]

 

If you had that big money you could go for one of these sweet PC's

[Keyser_Soze]

17 minutes ago, SimpleG said:

 Best buy had around 20 stores prior to 93 so it wasnt an option for most people for NES games

 

I'm not even talking about in the '90s but like the 00's and later.

[skillzdadirecta]

4 hours ago, SimpleG said:

 

If you had that big money you could go for one of these sweet PC's

Lol technology has come a LONG way 

[Keyser_Soze]

I have that RHCP and New Order CD.

[Mercury33]

Oh man I spent a good amount of time on Encarta back in the day 

[crispy4000]

Prices were definitely more of a wild west before the PS2 era.  Not sure that retailers even followed MSRPs for games.

 

7 hours ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Nintendo says 

 

To be fair, they've always been a console cycle late on price increases since they stopped competing on graphical capability.

 

They just never lower their damn prices anymore.

[skillzdadirecta]

2 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

They just never lower their damn prices anymore.

Which was my point.

[crispy4000]

Yup.  They discovered they don't have to. 

[skillzdadirecta]

53 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

Yup.  They discovered they don't have to. 

Yes but it was in direct response to @jaethos saying that a lot of people aren't willing to pay sixty dollars NOW and will wait for sales. Nintendo's success and refusal to lower prices of their games directly contradicts that notion. That's why I brought them up.

[Paperclyp]

N64 games were all over the map because of absurd choices by Nintendo. Most PS1 games were $50 when they initially released, maybe some stuff launched at $40 and then they came up with the greatest hits line later in the gen ($20 games). Plus the used game and rental market at that time was massive. The entire market was way different. 
 

Things were certainly odd and inconsistent from the NES to the SNES, but I do feel like it gets exaggerated how expensive games were and the fact that the rental and used markets were such a primary means of (maybe most) gamers is left out of this conversation.

 

I guess my point is most people weren’t going out and regularly buying $70 cartridges, so I don’t buy this point of “don’t complain about prices today.” I think that’s the narrative that gets painted as a counter to saying games are getting too expensive nowadays, and it’s actually a misrepresentation of the past. 

[Paperclyp]

Also as far as Nintendo’s modern day pricing goes, I suspect they leave a ton of money on the table with their pricing methods. I see people assume their games sell so well that they don’t have to lower their prices, when I tend to believe they actually are just so stubborn and slow to get with the times that my hunch is they’d sell a lot more if they’d deeply discount some of their bigger titles a few years in. 

[Brian]

Most of my Day 1 purchases are Nintendo’s games because they don’t lower prices. Others I wait or rent. 

[jaethos]

Nintendo is the exception on sales. The big third party publishers, the ones racing to raise prices, discount their games quickly. You can sometimes find substantial discounts within a couple weeks. I got Assassin's Creed Odyssey for half price about a month after launch. The publishers are basically telling us to our faces that their games don't need to sell for full price at $60 and then give those who do the middle finger by immediately putting the game on sale.

[chakoo]

12 hours ago, SimpleG said:

 

Just to help date this ad. Madona came out Oct 25, 1994. So this was at the tail end of the Snes/Genesis. 

 

I use to remember looking at Ads during the N64 era and being disappointed how expensive the games were which limited the chance of me getting one. 

[skillzdadirecta]

18 hours ago, Paperclyp said:

but I do feel like it gets exaggerated how expensive games were and the fact that the rental and used markets were such a primary means of (maybe most) gamers is left out of this conversation.

You have data to back this up? Game rentals were popular for sure back then but because the most popular games were unavailable so often I just don't think they were a primary means of gamers playing games.

 

18 hours ago, Paperclyp said:

I guess my point is most people weren’t going out and regularly buying $70 cartridges, so I don’t buy this point of “don’t complain about prices today.” I think that’s the narrative that gets painted as a counter to saying games are getting too expensive nowadays, and it’s actually a misrepresentation of the past. 

 

How do you figure that? @SimpleG showed you in full color which games were being priced at 70.00 bucks and they tended to be the most popular games of the day... Streetfighter Alpha 2? Ultimate MK3? NBA Hangtime? All 70 bucks and ALL top sellers. I REMEMBER paying 70 dollars for games as far back as the SNES era for certain games particular ones that had either battery backups for saves or were on bigger ROMS. Cartridges were actually expensive to produce and ship. Nobody is making this up and considering how expensive other forms of entertainment have become (An average movie ticket was about $4.99 in 1995 vs $9.26 today and an average comic book  was about two dollars in 1995 vs four dollars today) gamers have been lucky game prices have been so consistent for so long.

[Paperclyp]

13 hours ago, skillzdadirecta said:

You have data to back this up? Game rentals were popular for sure back then but because the most popular games were unavailable so often I just don't think they were a primary means of gamers playing games.

 

 

How do you figure that? @SimpleG showed you in full color which games were being priced at 70.00 bucks and they tended to be the most popular games of the day... Streetfighter Alpha 2? Ultimate MK3? NBA Hangtime? All 70 bucks and ALL top sellers. I REMEMBER paying 70 dollars for games as far back as the SNES era for certain games particular ones that had either battery backups for saves or were on bigger ROMS. Cartridges were actually expensive to produce and ship. Nobody is making this up and considering how expensive other forms of entertainment have become (An average movie ticket was about $4.99 in 1995 vs $9.26 today and an average comic book  was about two dollars in 1995 vs four dollars today) gamers have been lucky game prices have been so consistent for so long.

I’m not disputing the prices - they were what they were. I don’t have data on the rental services and wouldn’t even know where to look for that information. But it was a significant option for people to play games that isn’t really around today, and the used market was viable as well. Personally, as a kid with limited funds, I rented 10x as many games as I ever bought, at least. It was, I dunno, $6 to rent a game that could easily be beaten over the weekend. Also the zeitgeist and FOMO around big titles wasn’t the same, at least among more casual players. Plus there was a lot more “borrowing” games and stuff like that. 
 

I’m just pushing back on the idea that everyone purchased all their games at $70 and that was the way things were. The situation was a lot different. 

[Remarkableriots]

33 minutes ago, Paperclyp said:

I’m not disputing the prices - they were what they were. I don’t have data on the rental services and wouldn’t even know where to look for that information. But it was a significant option for people to play games that isn’t really around today, and the used market was viable as well. Personally, as a kid with limited funds, I rented 10x as many games as I ever bought, at least. It was, I dunno, $6 to rent a game that could easily be beaten over the weekend. Also the zeitgeist and FOMO around big titles wasn’t the same, at least among more casual players. Plus there was a lot more “borrowing” games and stuff like that. 
 

I’m just pushing back on the idea that everyone purchased all their games at $70 and that was the way things were. The situation was a lot different. 

Sounds like you haven't heard of Gamefly which still is around today. At $22.95 per month for 2 discs at a time that's a lot cheaper compared to what it used to be.

[skillzdadirecta]

38 minutes ago, Remarkableriots said:

Sounds like you haven't heard of Gamefly which still is around today. At $22.95 per month for 2 discs at a time that's a lot cheaper compared to what it used to be.

Redbox still exists too. And GameSpot, who's whole business model revolved around selling cheap used games, is in trouble right now because gamers just aren't waiting to buy cheaper used games the way they used to. Why? Because gamees either buy day one or wait for price drops. 

[Remarkableriots]

1 minute ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Redbox still exists too.

As far as i know unless it changed they don't rent or sell videogames anymore.

https://www.engadget.com/2019-12-10-redbox-stops-renting-video-games.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYmluZy5jb20v&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAD5sWigaZIRSATn5d1Cgz7XxJwC0AdgjodzSOUiHhzjiz1cRb9wHt8ZhwN8ygoV_5CTj7-4zoK95TTkJpQP-Wc4JsejhSpdrHc2DQA5D25ecdLm5YOtnRmF65vczZujRKowyh7D8dGZxOVZeOkjuUBHtnJ20-2oRmC1cWcf6FPPk

[skillzdadirecta]

2 minutes ago, Remarkableriots said:

As far as i know unless it changed they don't rent or sell videogames anymore.

https://www.engadget.com/2019-12-10-redbox-stops-renting-video-games.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYmluZy5jb20v&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAD5sWigaZIRSATn5d1Cgz7XxJwC0AdgjodzSOUiHhzjiz1cRb9wHt8ZhwN8ygoV_5CTj7-4zoK95TTkJpQP-Wc4JsejhSpdrHc2DQA5D25ecdLm5YOtnRmF65vczZujRKowyh7D8dGZxOVZeOkjuUBHtnJ20-2oRmC1cWcf6FPPk

Ah... didn't know that. That was fairly recent though and reinforces the notion that the rental market just isn't as strong as it used to be.

[Paperclyp]

1 hour ago, Remarkableriots said:

Sounds like you haven't heard of Gamefly which still is around today. At $22.95 per month for 2 discs at a time that's a lot cheaper compared to what it used to be.

Of course I’ve heard of GameFly dude. Nobody uses it, and it will only become more irrelevant as services like game pass become more prevalent.

[skillzdadirecta]

5 minutes ago, Paperclyp said:

Of course I’ve heard of GameFly dude. Nobody uses it, and it will only become more irrelevant as services like game pass become more prevalent.

But if games were too expensive now, would services like Gamefly and the rental market be MORE popular? It's not like people are playing LESS games.

[Paperclyp]

I grew up in a town of 3,000 people, we had one stoplight and a single grocery store. I could rent games from three different places as a child and we had an arcade. 

 

Edit: Wait no, 4 different places lol. 

[Paperclyp]

1 minute ago, skillzdadirecta said:

But if games were too expensive now, would services like Gamefly and the rental market be MORE popular? It's not like people are playing LESS games.

I’ve never argued games are too expensive now. I dunno if people are reading subtext into my posts, or if I’m just that bad at getting my point across. 
 

All I’m saying is the gaming landscape was COMPLETELY different in those eras where people are pointing out retail prices of games, so it’s apples and oranges to me. So I don’t buy this, “see, games were really expensive back then” thing and just showing retail prices of games. I don’t think it tells the story accurately, even though technically yes street fighter 2 was $70 at retail or whatever. 

[skillzdadirecta]

15 minutes ago, Paperclyp said:

I’ve never argued games are too expensive now. I dunno if people are reading subtext into my posts, or if I’m just that bad at getting my point across. 
 

All I’m saying is the gaming landscape was COMPLETELY different in those eras where people are pointing out retail prices of games, so it’s apples and oranges to me. So I don’t buy this, “see, games were really expensive back then” thing and just showing retail prices of games. I don’t think it tells the story accurately, even though technically yes street fighter 2 was $70 at retail or whatever. 

You're right... the gaming landscape WAS different back then. Games were a lot CHEAPER  to develop. You didn't have full orchestras and composers doing sound tracks. You didn't have to hire dozens of voice actors to act out your games, or mo-cap actors, or firearms wranglers or writers or a whole HOST of things that a typical AAA game requires nowadays. You could make a AAA game back then with a LOT less people than you would need now (Yes I know there are small teams that do AAA style games, but those are the exception not the rule) PEOPLE are the most expensive resource in any creative endeavor including game development and filmmaking.

 

As more people are required to make something your costs are going to rise and considering games have only gotten MORE complex since the 90's, as I said we should count ourselves fortunate that games HAVEN'T gotten more expensive as time has gone on and actually went down once we transitioned from cartridges to discs.

[Paperclyp]

7 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

You're right... the gaming landscape WAS different back then. Games were a lot CHEAPER  to develop. You didn't have full orchestras and composers doing sound tracks. You didn't have to hire dozens of voice actors to act out your games, or mo-cap actors, or firearms wranglers or writers or a whole HOST of things that a typical AAA game requires nowadays. You could make a AAA game back then with a LOT less people than you would need now (Yes I know there are small teams that do AAA style games, but those are the exception not the rule) PEOPLE are the most expensive resource in any creative endeavor including game development and filmmaking.

 

As more people are required to make something your costs are going to rise and considering games have only gotten MORE complex since the 90's, as I said we should count ourselves fortunate that games HAVEN'T gotten more expensive as time has gone on and actually went down once we transitioned from cartridges to discs.

Again it appears you are arguing with something I am not saying (I'm not making a claim about what games should cost today). 

 

But I would say to this that games didn't sell near as much, and I would imagine the profitability of a AAA game completely waxes the best of the best back then. Cheaper to make, similar cost to the consumer, made a fraction of profit for the company. 

 

That's where I would come into that argument that you guys seem intent on pulling me in on. I just grabbed a name, Bobby Kotick has a net worth of $600 million. I'm sure the people directly under and a couple levels under him make an absurd amount as well. A lot of these games are making money hand over fist, so I'm not gonna work very hard to be like "actually guys we have it good now." 

 

I'd GLADLY pay more money of the dudes who made the game got the money. They instead get totally shit on. So when ya'll are floating numbers from 1994 and being like, see, it's not so bad, I just don't care when the people responsible for making the stuff I like are working for jack. 

[skillzdadirecta]

10 minutes ago, Paperclyp said:

Again it appears you are arguing with something I am not saying (I'm not making a claim about what games should cost today). 

 

But I would say to this that games didn't sell near as much, and I would imagine the profitability of a AAA game completely waxes the best of the best back then. Cheaper to make, similar cost to the consumer, made a fraction of profit for the company. 

 

That's where I would come into that argument that you guys seem intent on pulling me in on. I just grabbed a name, Bobby Kotick has a net worth of $600 million. I'm sure the people directly under and a couple levels under him make an absurd amount as well. A lot of these games are making money hand over fist, so I'm not gonna work very hard to be like "actually guys we have it good now." 

I'm not sure what argument you're actually trying to make then, but if the point you're making is that "rich guys get rich", I can't argue with you there. What I CAN say is that this notion that the actual rank and file of game developers are basically wage slaves is complete and utter bullshit. I myself have worked for several game companies, big ones in fact, and while some expect insane hours out of you (Riot cough cough) they ALL pay you very well. In fact it's because they pay you so well and have so many "perks and amenities" that they then have the attitude that they own you and you shouldn't expect to have a life while you work for them.

 

Yes Bobby Kotick makes an insane amount of money but I can PROMISE you, even entry level folks at these game developement companies are making FAR above what the average worker in this country makes. And that contributes to production costs. Maybe I'm missing your point because I'm really not getting where you're coming from 

 

The only point I'm making is that 69.99 isn't that unreasonable when you consider historical game prices AND the fact that if you don't need to get a game day one, you can wait and get it for cheaper ANYWAY. There are several games I'm waiting on price drops right now that I could have bought day one at full price but decided to just wait because they just weren't day one games for me. I just don't see the problem because there's a TREMENDOUS amount of choice that gamers have that fans of other entertainment don't.

 

Quote

just don't care when the people responsible for making the stuff I like are working for jack. 

 

"Jack" is relative.. because as I've said, I';ve worked at several gaming companies and I didn't see too many folks complaining about their money. TIme? Hell yes. Compensation? no.