I remember paying $59.99 for Turok 2 on the N64...I think that was the only game I've ever payed more than $49.99 for.

= J

somewhere out, there are maybe three or four people in the world (one of whom I went to high school with) who spent $200+ for each Neo-Geo games on top of their neo-geo GOLD which I think ran close to $1000.

That's insane... I wouldn't pay that much for a hooker, much less a videogame

But then that's why I hang out here, I'm cheap...

Anyone remember how much NES, SNES, Genesis, etc were for the systems. I am pretty sure here in Canada when I got the Sega CD console for xmas. Pretty sure it was like $199 or $249 CDN. Not to mention you had to have the Genesis to use it.

That was in 1993

Yeah I remeber paying around 60 for zelda oot and 60 for star wars sote

Guys, the incredible video game market expansion has more than accounted for increased development costs and inflation. Microsoft is charging the extra $10 because they have the best system out right now. Do you think they'll be charging that much once the PS3 hits shelves? No, Sony will undercut them.

I personally think games are still expensive (Thankfully with GameRush around and their deals up to now, I haven't been paying for many games lately and have been able to try a lot of games for either less than a rental or even made a little bit of money back on the trade in).

Luckily most games drop in price fairly quickly (except Nintendo, first party games).

I realize that the development costs have increased and need to be covered, and that is done in two ways. Basically the initial sell through at full MSRP for a limited time in most cases and then picking up the gravy dollars from a wider gaming audience after the price drop.

If a game sells well the developers/publishers can make good money on a sequel as well, and there is money to be made on licensing out gaming engines, etc.


I do also agree that good games can give about the best entertainment value for your $$. What I really hate is that feeling when you pop in a new game that you were really excited about and that you've dropped good money on and its just not that good. Again, luckily I've been able to try quite a few games for cheap with the great GR deals and if I don't like a game or click with it for some reason, back it goes for a quick trade.

I also realize that buying used games cuts into the developer's/publisher's $$$, but I think it also encourages people to try new/different games than they might otherwise when they can trade it back in if they don't like it (which can increase sales of games)

I think $60 for Final Fantasy III was the most I ever got my parent's to pay.

I've never payed more than $50 myself, and try to buy all but a select few games for under $20.

Well, it isn't Microsoft that is the one "charging the extra $10". So far, it is only 3rd party developers; MS has stated they will only be charging $50 for the titles. I can definitely see the whole $50/$60 thing sticking even after the PS3 comes out, why would 3rd party companies lower the price of their games then, to compete with themselves?

I agree, I see PS3 games following suit with the $60 pricing structure.

I remember paying $70 (+ tax) for Final Fantasy III for the SNES back in 1990... I was 16 and that was a whole lot of money working a job that only paid $3.80 an hour.

Okay, well I don't plan on getting a 360 for awhile, so I was just going off the information in the thread. Either way, the 3rd-party developers know that the 360 is the top system, so they're taking advantage of that. I still think prices will drop after the PS3 comes out; "3rd party" isn't one big block, after all.

I'm really surprised prices have held the way they have, considering what we paid for games 10 years ago and the increased cost of game development. Sure, the actual components (cd cost vs. a cartridge) may be lower, but development budget is pretty high (because they know the market is there) and virtually everything else on the planet has risen in cost (okay, not RAM prices).

If games are going to jump up $10 or so at this point, it won't make me too upset. But seeing the 2K5 series selling at $20 was pretty amazing. I'd be more inclined to buy the entire series that way, as opposed to only 1 (maybe 2) sports games at $60.

Certain games will demand higher prices, and for an immense development like the Final Fantasy series, you can see why.

But I do hope that some games are still competitively priced to sell volume.

I'm more hesitant to shell out $500 for a new system now (with controllers, etc) than I am $60-80 for a game. And I paid $400 for the Saturn back in the day with Virtua Fighter 1.

10 years ago the video game market was really just taking off with the debut of the PlayStation.

Just taking off.

The video game market was "just taking off" maybe 20 years ago, and that was after the Atari take-off and crash. The video game market in 1995 was by modern standards, quite mature. (Not by, say, 2035 standards).

I agree... I'd like to see titles priced appropriately when they are launched. A game should be truly exceptional to launch at the full MSRP of $50 or so, and other titles should launch at a cheaper price. You see some of that now but not nearly enough tiered pricing.

The main reason gaming software has held its pricing over the last several years is that its a discretionary or disposable income item. The market for such items is fairly elastic, and if the economy is in bad shape or pricing goes to high, people will cut back on their purchases.

No, people didn't have the internet as a means to bitch and moan collectively yet.

Well I find it amazing that game prices have remained steady throughout several generations of game systems. Didn't NES and SNES carts cost $50 each? Even just adjusting for inflation game prices should be a lot higher than what we are paying now, and that's not taking into account the tremendous leap in quality/gaming experience.

I always remember games being expensive.

My girlfriend is really taken back by the fact that new games cost $50 and i tell her that even in the 16-bit era games were around that price.

I even tell her that $200 for a system isnt anything new, as i seem to recall hearing about a Intellivison or something having an orginial $235 price tag on it.

Regarding old prices, the thing that is necessary to take in perspective is that gaming has shifted from a niche hobby to a recognized formal entertainment business.

Yes the advent of disc based media has enabled lower costs, but the main driver has been the expansion of the market it self lending to more sophisticated scales of economy models which have driven costs down with time.

You know, if you calculate inflation, games that are $60+ now are STILL cheaper than they were back then.

I remember a friend buying Street Fighter II for $150 Canadian...and that was a reasonable price.

Anyone here actually buy a Neo Geo? What was it -- $100 per game? We used to rent the Neo Geo from a video store when we were kids. Might've been the only ones too.

Intellivision was $350. It sold out at Christmas of 1980 and took 4 to 5 months before it was seen on store shelves again. At that point, in the spring of '81, the price was bumped to $370, which is what I paid for it.

As for games, when the 16-bit generation arrived in 1989, so did the $59.99 price point. Previously, game prices had stayed pretty much the same since the days of the Atari 2600 (Colecovision Zaxxon was the most memorable exception at $49.99 when everything else was $29.99).

As 16-bit cartridges increased in size (the number of megabits would be advertised as a selling point), prices rose in lockstep. Games costing $69.99 and up were common.

The switch to CDs finally brought back the price down to $50 and less.

It depends on how you look at it. In 1984, sales were at $3 billion. In 1985 they were at $100 million. In other words, a 97% fall. It took 10 years to crawl back up to where they were in 1984. Today, including online subscriptions, gaming is around $8.5 billion.

I should have said "just taking off again", but the fact is that only since the PlayStation has gaming really become mainstream as a hobby (as opposed to a novelty). Not only have sales increased considerably, but the market size (i.e., the number of people playing) has grown quite a bit and the demographics have expanded a lot, as well.

I'm not saying Atari wasn't raking it in. But sales have increased enough to allow today's multi-million dollar budgets without $60 a game becoming the norm. And that's why I'm saying it will drop back to $50.

if that's the case then EA, Tecmo, and the rest of the 3rd party's who are doing that suck (as far as prices strategy go). Hopefully by the time the Nintendo Revolution comes out they'll stop doing that.