They were also complicated circuit boards with full color manuals and box graphics, none of which is in digital nor the overhead of the creation thereof.
The perceived value back then was not having to pluck down 25c every time you played at the arcade. So even if the price was high it seemed cheap in the long run.
Editt : reading it again I’ve missed my point by a decade, this applies mostly to the late 80s
Yeah fair it is arbitrary, but the line in the sand must be drawn somewhere. So coming from PC platform and 59,99 being the agreed upon number for probably decade or more is a good enough arbitrary point to use as a line in the sand.
There shouldn’t be an arbitrary “line in the sand” for games. Just like there shouldn’t be for any other product. Because products are not all the same. Some games might take an hour to beat and others have endless replayability and it shouldn’t be expected that these all cost the same.
No, there most definitely should, there should be a line or set point for everything. A point from which onward one no longer accepts any further abuse.
Yes sure we can have discussion on where that line stands with gaming, like “no preorders” or “no p2w”, but there most definitely should be one or even multiple different ones and that should be upheld or else we do get current climate of AAA games riddled with mtx, psychological manipulation,
getting more expensive yearly, no longer any long term guarantees either, while gameplay, story and performance quality dropping as well.
Without a set point or line, corporations wil keep on pushing the boundaries every single year as we keep allowing it.
I’d pay $150 for a great finished game. They don’t make that anymore, and you can’t make anything good and sell it for $60. So I’m not sure what you people want?! You want these companies to spend 3 billion making a game, making it perfect, and charging only $60 for it. Insane. No wonder why gamers get treated like entitled complainers.
Dude, really. Therer are uncountable numbers of good indy games way below 60. So it is possible to produce good games sven below that price point.
What i want is AAA games to stop implementing predatory tactics to squeeze out as much cash from consumers as possible while making games even more expensive. Once they do that we can start discussing price again.
A point from which onward one no longer accepts any further abuse.
A higher price does not mean abuse. It very well could just mean its a higher quality game with more content.
or else we do get current climate of AAA games riddled with mtx, psychological manipulation, getting more expensive yearly, no longer any long term guarantees either, while gameplay, story and performance quality dropping as well.
How does a low price stop that from happening? If anything it’s the opposite.
I wouldn’t really use 60$ as a low price, but that’s beside the point.
Your missing the trees for the forest.
It’s not the low price, but setting a line which one does not cross.
Not having that line and constantly accepting every subsequent new mechanic to extract more profit from us has resulted in the current state of AAA gaming industry.
As i said we can discuss where that line runs, 60$ is just my own personal line, but that line, not specifically price, should exist and should not be crossed. Id agree with the “no pre-orders” as well as games should be only bought after independent thrid party reviews have gone out. Just that this line doesn’t fit into current context, this one fits better under a post of a releasing of a new highly anticipated game.
The line is shitty unfinished fucking games that force you to download the entire game when you already have the discs and nickle and dime on dlc. That lines been crossed these developers actively laugh at you now.
That’s what im trying to tell. Just simply quit buying. It’s that easy and the only thing a single individual can do. But for some reason that seem rather hard thing for people to do?
I wouldn’t really use 60$ as a low price, but that’s beside the point.
You’re talking about capping game prices at a relatively “low” price, and I think you knew what I meant.
Your missing the trees for the forest. It’s not the low price, but setting a line which one does not cross.
I’m not missing anything. I’m saying setting a line makes no sense because not every game has the same amount of content.
Not having that line and constantly accepting every subsequent new mechanic to extract more profit from us has resulted in the current state of AAA gaming industry.
The gaming industry pricing has been virtually unchanged since inception. If anything, it’s because consumers refuse to pay more that games suck now, because publishers rely on DLCs and relentlessly harassing consumers to buy mtx.
Though where would you draw the line?
I don’t draw a line anywhere. That’s what I’m trying to explain to you. As I said, it’s entirely dependent on the content of the game.
If they launch Control Resonant for $100 I would pay it because it’s my favorite franchise of all time and I’ve gotten hundreds of hours of enjoyment out of it.
Are you aware of how much gaming has increased in popularity?
Already this should cover the difference inflation makes over the years.
When we add in profit form micro transactions and the only reason left to increase prices is greed.
Indeed… and I never understood the stand against prices set by publishers, developers, artists, or people… for monetary support calculated for the human time, work, and effort done for a mirracle to share and support in hope…
Nintendo 64 games cost like $60-$80 back in the late 90s.
They were also complicated circuit boards with full color manuals and box graphics, none of which is in digital nor the overhead of the creation thereof.
And they could not be patched later, so the testing was absolutely bonkers.
and today they sell like 10x as many copies.
The perceived value back then was not having to pluck down 25c every time you played at the arcade. So even if the price was high it seemed cheap in the long run.
Editt : reading it again I’ve missed my point by a decade, this applies mostly to the late 80s
Yeah fair it is arbitrary, but the line in the sand must be drawn somewhere. So coming from PC platform and 59,99 being the agreed upon number for probably decade or more is a good enough arbitrary point to use as a line in the sand.
There shouldn’t be an arbitrary “line in the sand” for games. Just like there shouldn’t be for any other product. Because products are not all the same. Some games might take an hour to beat and others have endless replayability and it shouldn’t be expected that these all cost the same.
No, there most definitely should, there should be a line or set point for everything. A point from which onward one no longer accepts any further abuse.
Yes sure we can have discussion on where that line stands with gaming, like “no preorders” or “no p2w”, but there most definitely should be one or even multiple different ones and that should be upheld or else we do get current climate of AAA games riddled with mtx, psychological manipulation, getting more expensive yearly, no longer any long term guarantees either, while gameplay, story and performance quality dropping as well.
Without a set point or line, corporations wil keep on pushing the boundaries every single year as we keep allowing it.
I’d pay $150 for a great finished game. They don’t make that anymore, and you can’t make anything good and sell it for $60. So I’m not sure what you people want?! You want these companies to spend 3 billion making a game, making it perfect, and charging only $60 for it. Insane. No wonder why gamers get treated like entitled complainers.
Dude, really. Therer are uncountable numbers of good indy games way below 60. So it is possible to produce good games sven below that price point.
What i want is AAA games to stop implementing predatory tactics to squeeze out as much cash from consumers as possible while making games even more expensive. Once they do that we can start discussing price again.
A higher price does not mean abuse. It very well could just mean its a higher quality game with more content.
How does a low price stop that from happening? If anything it’s the opposite.
I wouldn’t really use 60$ as a low price, but that’s beside the point.
Your missing the trees for the forest. It’s not the low price, but setting a line which one does not cross.
Not having that line and constantly accepting every subsequent new mechanic to extract more profit from us has resulted in the current state of AAA gaming industry.
As i said we can discuss where that line runs, 60$ is just my own personal line, but that line, not specifically price, should exist and should not be crossed. Id agree with the “no pre-orders” as well as games should be only bought after independent thrid party reviews have gone out. Just that this line doesn’t fit into current context, this one fits better under a post of a releasing of a new highly anticipated game.
Though where would you draw the line?
The line is shitty unfinished fucking games that force you to download the entire game when you already have the discs and nickle and dime on dlc. That lines been crossed these developers actively laugh at you now.
Quit. Fucking. Buying. Them.
That’s what im trying to tell. Just simply quit buying. It’s that easy and the only thing a single individual can do. But for some reason that seem rather hard thing for people to do?
Your sure that reply was meant for me?
You’re talking about capping game prices at a relatively “low” price, and I think you knew what I meant.
I’m not missing anything. I’m saying setting a line makes no sense because not every game has the same amount of content.
The gaming industry pricing has been virtually unchanged since inception. If anything, it’s because consumers refuse to pay more that games suck now, because publishers rely on DLCs and relentlessly harassing consumers to buy mtx.
I don’t draw a line anywhere. That’s what I’m trying to explain to you. As I said, it’s entirely dependent on the content of the game.
If they launch Control Resonant for $100 I would pay it because it’s my favorite franchise of all time and I’ve gotten hundreds of hours of enjoyment out of it.
And that’s why the journalist who rote the article is actually right.
We do deserve the AAA gaming market in it’s current state, because we all think we’re somehow special and our unique case can be an exception.
Like the first person in the chain put it. We as consumers are getting fisted.
And we deserve it, because we still keep on buying said goods, no matter what.
It’s not at all “no matter what”. They have to be worth it.
You’re aware of the concept of inflation, no?
Are you aware of how much gaming has increased in popularity? Already this should cover the difference inflation makes over the years. When we add in profit form micro transactions and the only reason left to increase prices is greed.
My business has increased in popularity, too. I’m raising prices.
As is you’re right, I’m still not going to buy.
Indeed… and I never understood the stand against prices set by publishers, developers, artists, or people… for monetary support calculated for the human time, work, and effort done for a mirracle to share and support in hope…