Is $60 a good price for games?

Discussion in 'General Discussions' started by MisterRay97, Sep 22, 2015.

  1. dillinger10

    dillinger10 Member Registered

    I recently came across scans of some old copies of Electronic Boutique catalogs dating back to the early '90s. The majority of new games in 1993 were priced between $48 - $65. When counting for inflation, games today are cheaper at launch than 20+ years ago.

    A few examples of launch prices in 1993 include Super Mario Kart at $54.99, Menacer $64.99, Batman Returns $51.99, Mario Paint with Mouse $59.99, NCAA Basketball $54.99, Golden Axe II $51.99, Sportstalk Baseball $64.99 and X-Men $54.99.
  2. artyarson

    artyarson New Member Registered

    Well, nah. I'd say it's pretty expensive. Especially for young people who don't work full-time and don't want to be leeches in regards to their parents money. That's why the whole gaming community should be friendly and people should keep lending one another their stuff.
  3. Kitty Reeves

    Kitty Reeves Member Registered

    $60 is waaay to much in my opinion. I wait until the games I want to play go down to at least $30. $30 to $35 is about the maximum that I would pay for a game. Remember when games used to be 20 to 30 bucks brand new? And the super price-y ones were 40 bucks? Also, yes DLC's seems to just be another money making tactic for companies nowadays, which sucks!
  4. artyarson

    artyarson New Member Registered

    Was it like 10 years ago, right? Correct me If I'm wrong.
  5. dillinger10

    dillinger10 Member Registered

    Brand new console games were never $20-$30, at least not AAA titles. This website has scans of old Electronic Boutique and Sears catalogs dating back to the late eighties and early nineties. Brand new games for the NES and SNES were $40 - $55. The majority of new games for the SNES in 1993 were priced between $48 - $65. When taking inflation into consideration, games are actually cheaper today than they were 20+ years ago.
    aboleth_lich likes this.
  6. dillinger10

    dillinger10 Member Registered

    I was just playing around with this Inflation Calculator to see how much games in 1993 cost in relation to today's $60 baseline. A $50 game in 1993 would be the equivalent to $81.98 today! So, games today are indeed cheaper than 23 years ago. Now, one could perhaps make the argument that with the addition of DLC, you are paying more than just the initial purchase price for the game, and that there are games that are released with crippling bugs that require Day 1 patches, but I still think that games today offer greater value than those released 20+ years.
    aboleth_lich likes this.
  7. aboleth_lich

    aboleth_lich Member Registered

    Once, as a very young lad in the early nineties: I lost a rented NES cartridge on route to returning it! My parents were absolutely furious with me as the rental store charged us a whopping $100 to replace it! (In early nineties Canadian dollars no less, which even taking the then exchange rate into consideration seems artificially high compared to @dillinger10's quoted figure for the USD price of a game from 1993!) The insult to injury that makes this story kind of funny: this lost NES cartridge was, I kid you not, the truly terrible Gilligan's Island!

    More generally, I recall scrimping and saving in the years thereafter to very slowly build up the funds for a new game. A process that made the purchased games feel more special and earned than if they had been gifted to me or purchased later on as an adult when the cost of a new game is a much smaller percentage of my disposable income.
    dillinger10 likes this.
  8. CriticalDavid

    CriticalDavid New Member Registered

    No, it's not a good amount for a game. It just shows that the developers and publishers spend way too much on making the games they expect us to pay a high amount for the games they make. I understand the business of it but it just proves that the companies don't really care about their customers. I know that Value wanted to give their customers maps for free if they bought a certain game. But Microsoft contacted them and said they can't do that because it would set a bad example for other game makers.
    The fact that Sony charges for online use now proves that it's all about the money. Microsoft is the same way, it's because of them that Sony now charges us for something that is free for them to have. Now, the state of America is not that good. A lot of people are having hard times finding jobs and the ones who have jobs are struggling to survive. So I think it is wrong for the companies to charge so much for the games when the quality of the games is lowering. The graphics are getting better but everything is getting worse. I know when I played God of War: Ascension I was so damn disappointed because the graphics were amazing but there was no story.
  9. yeppeo

    yeppeo New Member Registered

    Well it depends of what the game is, as well as I much I'm willing to spend, but I believe $60 is not really high, comparing what it would cost if the same prices from the 90's were the same (someone made the maths up there).
    aboleth_lich likes this.
  10. dillinger10

    dillinger10 Member Registered

    Another thing that should be taken into consideration is the undeniable fact that the cost to develop games has increased exponentially over the years. The average cost for a Dreamcast game was around $250,000. It took between $5 to $10 million to develop a PS2 game versus $800,000 to $1.7 million for the original PlayStation. The cost to develop a PS3 game shot up to the $20 - $50 million price range, and for PS4 games, estimates are in the $60 million range.

    The leaked contract for Destiny reveals development and limited marketing costs totaling $140 million.
    aboleth_lich likes this.
  11. iCoachU

    iCoachU New Member Registered

    It really depends on the quality-per-hour of the game. If I'm gonna play a game for 200 hours and enjoy the heck out of it, you're damn right it's worth under 50 cents an hour! Especially if I can resell it for half it's price! A lot of people focus on the upfront investment of a game without realizing that it's about how much joy you get out of it over time.
    dillinger10 likes this.
  12. artyarson

    artyarson New Member Registered

    Thanks for the interesting research. Yep, that's even surprising a bit. However, I never did really whine about that. I prefer sharing my stuff with good friends of mine, so we don't have to spend much. They, of course, give me theirs.
  13. dillinger10

    dillinger10 Member Registered

    The large number of different avenues available to re-sell/trade-in physical copies of the games also helps to reduce the overall cost of the games. As does the wide availability of buying used games at a lower price. So there are definitely a number of different options available to save money and not end up spending $60 for every game you buy.
  14. Animarchy

    Animarchy New Member Registered

    I'll pay the full price if it's a game I know I'll enjoy but most of the time I'll just stick the game on my Steam wishlist or pick it up used at GameStop once the price drops. The last game I paid full price for was Fallout 4. Still haven't bought any DLC for it though.... probably should get on that.

Share This Page