$60 was never forever. Even with the $70 price tag, games are still cheaper than they have ever been.

[FlaffWaffle]

In 1980 an Atari 2600 game cost $39.99. In today's dollars, that's $146.49.

In 1990, a Super Nintendo game would have cost $50-$60 dollars. In today's money, that's $115-$138

In 2005 when the Xbox 360 was released, games were $60. In today's money, that's $92.73

There is nothing predatory about this pricing. The value of games was going down with inflation for YEARS, and now that we have runaway inflation, they finally decided to do a price bump so that the economics of making them can still make sense.

And guess what? In 2020, games cost $60. In today's money, that's...$69.97.

This is just basic economics. $60 was never forever.

[Ghost]

Boxes, manuals, maps, cds, distribution, etc., also costed money, money that today isn't being spent. Add that to your calculations.

[FlaffWaffle]

Originally posted by Ghost:

Boxes, manuals, maps, cds, distribution, etc., also costed money, money that today isn't being spent. Add that to your calculations.

In 2020, games cost $60. In today's money, that's...$69.97. The games literally cost the same.

[Giganx]

But what about the 40 cents worth of paper and plastic you got with each physical release back then?

But seriously, gaming has absolutely been getting cheaper and cheaper for us with each passing year because this industry has very sparsely adjusted it's pricing for inflation. It's something we should appreciate, but instead we take it for granted and then cry like children the second they feel they finally need to make a small adjustment.

[FlaffWaffle]

Originally posted by Giganx:

But what about the 40 cents worth of paper and plastic you got with each physical release back then?

But seriously, gaming has absolutely been getting cheaper and cheaper for us with each passing year because this industry has very sparsely adjusted it's pricing for inflation. It's something we should appreciate, but instead we take it for granted and then cry like children the second they feel they finally need to make a small adjustment.

Yeah, I'm convinced 90% of the people complaining here are children. Or at least I'd like to hope that they are...

[Serow]

Kids forget that NES games could cost $60 or more back then, and there were SNES games that were priced $80 or more! Games have gotten so much cheaper overall. And truly, if $70 is too much... Wait for a sale!

[Leschar]

$70 isn't the issue. Unless the game is garbage. That's where the issues are. They haven't shown us games are worth $70 yet let alone $60 in most cases.

[FlaffWaffle]

Originally posted by Leschar:

$70 isn't the issue. Unless the game is garbage. That's where the issues are. They haven't shown us games are worth $70 yet let alone $60 in most cases.

Pong for the Atari 2600 was over $100 in today's dollars. If that's the bar, then every game sold today is sold at a more than fair price. $70 adjusted for inflation from 2020 to 2023 is just $60 in 2020's money. The game's price hasn't shifted, the value of the dollar has. The game isn't any more expensive than it was, the price has just been adjusted to reflect inflation.

[iqscur]

Originally posted by Ghost:

Boxes, manuals, maps, cds, distribution, etc., also costed money, money that today isn't being spent. Add that to your calculations.

manuels were a good time. It was pleasure to read it or the smell like "new" (I don't know how to say it in english)
Now, they became cheap bastards, just an empty box with a code and they ask 70€ for it.
I don't have any remorse to buy from time to time on the grey market

[WeissRook]

Originally posted by FlaffWaffle:

In 1980 an Atari 2600 game cost $39.99. In today's dollars, that's $146.49.

In 1990, a Super Nintendo game would have cost $50-$60 dollars. In today's money, that's $115-$138

In 2005 when the Xbox 360 was released, games were $60. In today's money, that's $92.73

There is nothing predatory about this pricing. The value of games was going down with inflation for YEARS, and now that we have runaway inflation, they finally decided to do a price bump so that the economics of making them can still make sense.

And guess what? In 2020, games cost $60. In today's money, that's...$69.97.

This is just basic economics. $60 was never forever.

Shh. Don't bring facts into it. Could drag out the obvious poster child for expensive console games though: The Neo Geo. The console was $650 bucks and the games got into the $200-$300 dollar range. That was in 1990 without price adjustment to today due to inflation.

[FlaffWaffle]

Originally posted by WeissRook:

Originally posted by FlaffWaffle:

In 1980 an Atari 2600 game cost $39.99. In today's dollars, that's $146.49.

In 1990, a Super Nintendo game would have cost $50-$60 dollars. In today's money, that's $115-$138

In 2005 when the Xbox 360 was released, games were $60. In today's money, that's $92.73

There is nothing predatory about this pricing. The value of games was going down with inflation for YEARS, and now that we have runaway inflation, they finally decided to do a price bump so that the economics of making them can still make sense.

And guess what? In 2020, games cost $60. In today's money, that's...$69.97.

This is just basic economics. $60 was never forever.

Shh. Don't bring facts into it. Could drag out the obvious poster child for expensive console games though: The Neo Geo. The console was $650 bucks and the games got into the $200-$300 dollar range. That was in 1990 without price adjustment to today due to inflation.

Sadly the Neo Geo is not something that I ever had the pleasure of seeing/playing

[Elder Drake]

Just to add, games are more expensive to develop as well now. Motion capture, state of the art rendering with people trained beyond pixelcraft, advanced AI, and you can go on.

I love me some Mario Cart but gaming has evolved into new mediums (VR is starting to get its stride), and that comes at a cost. So AAA dev wants $10, I think I can wing that.

[CJM]

Originally posted by Elder Drake:

Just to add, games are more expensive to develop as well now. Motion capture, state of the art rendering with people trained beyond pixelcraft, advanced AI, and you can go on.

I love me some Mario Cart but gaming has evolved into new mediums (VR is starting to get its stride), and that comes at a cost. So AAA dev wants $10, I think I can wing that.

No, games are being given bigger budgets now.

Things work opposite in the entertainment industry. There is not a cost that has to be passed onto the consumer. There is a demand, which the entertainment industry is incentivised to meet.

Just because companies introduce things like VR or advanced AI, or motion capture, doesn't mean you have to pay the $10.

Games can be allowed to flop, just like theatrical releases. Budgets are educated guesses. Risks that the publisher takes on. The production of a "Blockbuster" just like in Hollywood.

You don't "wing that", you ask yourself if those more expensive development methods are worth your money over smaller budget or indie titles. Or simply just waiting for the game to go on sale.

[Nyaruko]

Games had physical box,manual,CD, some had even maps,guides etc.
And games were finished products. Today they're technical alphas that might never be fixed.

[Demian DeVile]

With tools like Unreal Engine 5.2 it was never easyer to create games, yes there are bigger and you need more staff than back in the times of acarde games.
But another thing changed they selling tenthousend times as many games as 30,20 years ago (if the game don't flop).
+ some Publisher (and EA is very special in this) use maximized monetization via Battlepass, microtransactions and DLC's in full price games (luckly not in every, but not because they don't tryed, but because it don't work very well).

The 10€$ more is not because they need the money to be profitable or pay the actually working developers it is just and only for the bonuses of the highest management and to increase the pay out for the shareholders.

So it is the only thing we as costumers can do - vote with the wallet - if they see "we sell a million copies more if we set the 60€$ price tag" they stay on this cause it brings more profit.
And you can't compare normal games to Fifi or Call of Warfare or Mad Dan cause this game buy absolut lunatics most of them don't play any other game than this sports simulation or war propaganda, so it is possible to sell them the same game year after year after year again and again, and even if they would set the price tag for the next sports or war game to 150€$ the people will buy it and they still throw money at EA for microtransactions and Battlepasses ect. but this don't work for games outside the braindead bubble.

[Dregora]

Can we also assume that now more than ever, games are released in an unfinished state and on top of that, DLC/microtransactions are huge in a lot of games?

There's more attached to games that have additional pricing than ever. So you're telling me gaming isn't more expensive? Sure, you could argue DLC/microtransactions etc are all optional. This is true. Gaming as a whole is optional, so I don't think that argument flies.

A game doesn't need to be 70 if it also plans to have DLC/microtransactions.