Steamをインストール
ログイン
|
言語
简体中文（簡体字中国語）
繁體中文（繁体字中国語）
한국어 (韓国語)
ไทย (タイ語)
български (ブルガリア語)
Čeština（チェコ語）
Dansk (デンマーク語)
Deutsch (ドイツ語)
English (英語)
Español - España (スペイン語 - スペイン)
Español - Latinoamérica (スペイン語 - ラテンアメリカ)
Ελληνικά (ギリシャ語)
Français (フランス語)
Italiano (イタリア語)
Bahasa Indonesia（インドネシア語）
Magyar（ハンガリー語）
Nederlands (オランダ語)
Norsk (ノルウェー語)
Polski (ポーランド語)
Português（ポルトガル語－ポルトガル）
Português - Brasil (ポルトガル語 - ブラジル)
Română（ルーマニア語）
Русский (ロシア語)
Suomi (フィンランド語)
Svenska (スウェーデン語)
Türkçe (トルコ語)
Tiếng Việt (ベトナム語)
Українська (ウクライナ語)
翻訳の問題を報告
ルールとガイドライン
この投稿を報告する
there were some expensive games even back then the guy above was right
at first they sold in dollars and taxes were still paid, if they wanted just to change the currency they could have just done that and sell them in euro but for the value of 60 dollars
just see how kind they are to make a minimum increase of price of at least 20% for a tax of what 7 % that other states even ones in us pay included in the price but get to buy the game cheaper in dollars
in fact countries that have 7% tax and other with a bigger tax pay the same , its like they dont even care about tax or anything they just greedy and want more money, not to mention a lot of countries dont even use euro and without local currency support you loose a lot more with the bank exchange rates which tax higher commission for euro than dollar, and their regional pricing only makes prices go up after the margin of 60 euros but never less
even just charging the wrong amount by a few pence happens all the time, you might not think it is a big deal, but when your company just did it to 4 million customers, it covers staff wages for an area for a month or 2.
everyones grabbing a bit more when they can, then they do something for a charity and make a huge fuss, paint some rainbows and flash heart hands at everyone and stuff, like they care about the state of things, they do, in their profitability charts
Why spend 60 dollars on a game you're statistically likely to never play half of, or not finish than to actually finish, let alone play a second time, when you can spend 30 dollars on some "3rd grade indie game" that you'll likely have equal chances of finishing, playing half of, or just loading up for a first or second playthrough?
A large filesize, let alone a large pricetag is also, in my view, more of a warning of it's quality, than an affirmation of it.
As I said, I have the actual adverts from back then.
Here in the UK those prices were as claimed. And they weren't exceptional.
Centipede for the Atari 2600 was £29.99. Games for the PS1 when I wrote for certain magazines were RRPed at £39.99 (but you could usually find certain supermarkets using bulk buys to get the top ten for £29.99).
How about you dispute it with some evidence eh?
i do not doubt you have the adverts, i am referring to things that someone mentioned in the 80's, and the consoles out then like you say, old ataris etc always had higher prices, Megadrive, SNES, and so on. The computer games for home computers back then rarely cost that much, which is to what i refer, i have old computer mags etc with game ads in them, so there is proof there, even has dates printed on the issues. then there's all the old games i got that still have the price tags stuck to them.
like i said, Revs was a big game for it's time and was not a cheap one, there was that game with the 3 alien races too that was space exploration, quite a big game again for the tech around, more in depth programming than aesthetic graphics, i believe the game is still available today i played it a few years ago, one of the races is Birds, and yes they look like a bird, even if 80's scribbly pixel graphics.
if you are talking about ps1 you are in the 90's mate, so untwist your knickers and pop them back on x
Yes, first of all I mention the 90s because4 that demonstrates how things have not changed with infaltion - that's the point.
Second sure, games on computer cassette were cheaper - for the most part they were around 7.95, with the later budget compilations coming in cheaper.
But you cannot compare them fairly because there was a distinct reason they were cheaper - ease of copying. They were cassette and disk and again by offering what the market can bear as the price, that's why they were cheaper.
Ergo, this utterly proves my point.
With the exchange rate of £ to US at about 2:1 at the time, £30 was about the same, $60.
Also, who the hell 9yr necroed this?
is this not what i was saying in the beginning?
you obvs need to prove a point to someone though so fk it why not use my comment for that, only i don't think the point you think you proved is the same as the one the rest of us can see.
It was in the 90's that a national minimum wage came in as standard procedure for employers, people had more available spending money for a while and certain things rose in price before they then settled at an 'acceptable value', determined by the prices people were willing to pay. Some things would go on sale and still not sell until they knocked the price down a bit more, which is why you always see sofas, tv's and other electrical goods in sales for basically the same price as previous years' sales prices and so on over time. Games are similar in that you cannot expect $80 for a 10yr old game made for machines of a certain spec and dont become any better just because you can still play it on a $10,000 machine, that old game even if a classic and still loved by many will still be 'cheap' but it may well be more expensive than other similar games, until recent times where, like i said, the capabilities of the machines have leapt forward quite a bit and as such have a direct reflection upon the prices of the games to play on them, as people we have to decide whether it is worth it or if there is something else in our lives that the cash could be better spent upon, which ofc there probably is
anyway in last few years gaming machines have upscaled a great deal, GPU's etc have leapt ahead in performance as well as price to reflect it, and as such game prices follow suit, if you have the equipment to play the latest bang bang you're dead game and paid the prices being asked to build such machines, even doing it yourself on a budget, $100 for a game is in line, it probably gives you a few months subscription to something thrown into the purchase value, thus making you think you are 'saving' money in the longer run of things as you need to have a continuous subscription to play the game anyway to it's full spec, plus you are already putting yourself in the market by having all the latest tech you won't be interested in picking up 99cent games from 10+years ago, if thats what people want let them have it, but dont fk the rest of us off that dont want that. The games have already been released and played that get people addicted to and needing more of online community gaming that costs $XX per month to keep involved in via game cards etc and that is something people are either already doing anyway or have to step upto and include it as an ongoing charge for playing.
don't forget life too, some people have more important and serious things going on than the games they play in the time they have for it, so whether they can afford prices or not, they still have things to weigh up and decide what is more important, as the world gets worse and more people struggle maybe the prices will drop again?
Because claims stand on their own merits.
While I wasn't completely disagreeing with you, there were things you said that were demonstrably incorrect.
This is how conversations work.
fair comment but you made it more of an argument than a conversation, i think the points i made are valid and open to interpretation rather than being
The point I'm maknig is NOT saying your whole post was wrong. Again, claims ALWAYS stand on their own merits.
I was agreeing with a fair number of things, but you were a bit off about some other things.
For example, the conclusion. WHY such prices are how they are. I pointed out earlier that especially in entertainment, prices never have anything to do with infaltion or running with cost of living or anything. They ALWAYS fall under one vague thing - what the market can bear.
The editor of Record Collector magazine summed it up best when they were continually asked at what sets a price - it's what someone will pay for a given thing under a given circumstances on a certain day.
Incredibly vague, but truthful.
The point here is that as I said earlier, the reason prices were cheaper on computer cassettes and disks were simple - as it's the same reason CD prices dropped massively after Napster became popular.
When you have people easily getting alternative access to a similar quality, then you MUST reduce the price.
So with cartridges, they were originally a wee bit more expsnive because of how expensive memory chips were back in the early 1980s. But there was no way anyone could justify such a price for games on cassette or disk, when they could easily be copied.
Ergo, you had roughly £7.95 in the mid 1980s for a new cassette release, whilst a cartridge would still be going around £29.99.
I believe you.