Drexl

A big reason why those old games were more expensive was the cartridge format, especially for the RPGs that needed lots of space but sold in lower numbers. Developers flocked to the PlayStation because the CDs were much cheaper to produce.

But these days, so much goes into the cost, like much bigger development budgets.

Superboy

Ah. Then Sony and Microsoft are failures. Gotcha.

Superboy

That's Jevon's paradox for you!

kgrogers1979

I said

You missed the keyword: good


Where are you getting this from?

Sony and MS are different situations. Its high volume vs low volume. Wal-mart has a low per unit profit margin on the items it sells, so it has to sell a high volume to make a decent profit. A luxury store like a jewelry store for example has a much higher per unit profit margin, so it can make the same profit selling a much lower volume. Sony and MS are high volume, and Nintendo is lower volume. Nintendo's per unit profit margin on each console sold is much higher than Sony and MS, so Nintendo doesn't need to sell nearly as many units. They are still all making a profit though.

Groucho

I never see the good in anything.

Jay G.

The Wii has sold more units than either PS3 or 360:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...ales_standings

Nintendo also always makes a profit on their console sales, while Sony and MS sell their consoles at a loss at launch, hoping for game sales and licensing to make up for the loss.

kgrogers1979

True about the Wii. I was talking more about past Nintendo consoles like the N64 or Gamecube, which some people view as failures. While they did not sell as well as their competitors, they were still profitable and therefore still a success.

Yes, Sony and MS use their consoles as loss leaders to get people to buy software, which is more profitable. Sega was the same way, and it didn't work out for them. If a console sells poorly like it did with Sega consoles, software will sell poorly as well. High console sales directly translates to high software sales. So Sega was not profitable, and that's why they failed.

Gizmo

Inflation for one thing. Different type of media used. The amount of people working on each game etc.

anomynous

Why do people still think Digital Distribution only is a viable option for the next gen?

Michael Corvin

So lets scale it back some, instead of multiple generations where inflation can clearly distort the numbers, how about a single minute...

At 11:59pm on November 21, 2005 games cost $49.99 and at 12:00am on November 22, 2005 they now cost $59.99. Is that not a price increase?

That's some crazy ass inflation for :60 seconds of time.

kgrogers1979

Games were simply catching up to inflation. Every year they remained at $50, they were actually decreasing in real dollar value. The price hike to $60 was just them catching up to inflation.

In 1985, $50 had the same buying power as $99 today. Those were some expensive games... Although I can't remember far enough back to remember if NES games were actually $50. As a kid I didn't pay attention to trivial things like price tags.

In 1992, the year of the SNES, $50 has the same buying power as $76 today. SNES games were more expensive than today's games.

In 1996, the PS1/N64 era, $50 has the same buying power as $68 today. Still more expensive than today's games.

In 2001, PS2/XBox era, $50 has the same buying power as $61 today. Its at this point that the price of today's games begin to match older games.

In 2005, $50 has the same buying power as $55 today. That's the cheapest games have ever been.

Nominal values (i.e. the price tag that you actually see) are misleading. Only for a few years from about 2002-2005 has the real value of video games ever been below $60.

Match

I'm guessing this won't be too popular, but would cloud-base gaming work in the future on consoles if we had enough bandwidth?

You can try out a few games here on your Mac or PC: http://www.gaikai.com/games

PopcornTreeCt

I thought SNES games were around $60-$70 range. I remember them being really expensive.

Drexl

It depended on the game. Some were $50, and others were higher.

I think the reason why people discount inflation for games is because they're putting them in the same category as other tech products. Many tech products get cheaper or stay stable over time, while becoming more and more advanced.

flashburn

It's actually not as difficult as you think. There have been several systems that have used proprietary formats. I can't really say more, except that Blu-ray isn't their only solution.

K&AJones

That itself is hardly mentioned. If anyone has a old PC game from 10+ years ago look at the list of credits showing the amount of people who worked on the game. Compare that today and it's like watching the credits at the end of some mega sci-fi movie. I've got the original Unreal Tournament pc game and it's a hoot to see how short the list of people who did the game.

Giantrobo

Valid point.

However, when the average non-gaming parent is looking at a $60 price tag on a game or a $199+ tag(s) on a console in 2012 when the economy is "tough"....all he/she sees is $60 for a GAME $199+ for a console. They'll still buy them but still...

I go all the way back to Atari 2600 and even still, when I paid $59 plus tax for my first XBOX 360 game is was a huge eye opening, but still understandable, experience. One that led me straight to the used game market.

dvdsteve2000

You guys are comparing inflationary prices from the Atari, Super NES, and other times...have you overlooked the QUALITY of the games when they jumped to $60? C'mon, Halo was amazing for it's time, and I personally didn't feel $60 was too much to pay for that game...and Oblivion, and, and, and...

Tracer Bullet

Microsoft raised the standard game price because they wanted higher licensing revenue. Let's not forget that.

fumanstan

I think the quality of games now are just as good as back then.

glassdragon

The whole price thing is kind of moot. IF you have any kind of patience you can wait for 1 week after it's released and 90% of games will be on sale or selling for 50.

Matthew Chmiel

This. Hell, if you're patient, wait a month or two and the game will be at $39.

Or you pre-order off Amazon and collect promotional credits for future titles. I walked away with Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 on release date for $11 due to my pre-orders of Gears of War 3 and Battlefield 3.

Microsoft and Sony both said that the 360 and PS3 were "ten-year consoles." If neither the 720 or PS4 are announced this year (which I will be surprised with), I will expect a 2013 announcement with a release by the end of the year or 2014. Seriously. Other than an announcement, what else have we seen come out of the Wii U?

kgrogers1979

Oh good grief. You seriously believe nothing from the 80s and 90s had the same or better quality than games today? Seriously? Are you 15 and never even played games back then, because it sure sounds like it. Especially the Halo comment. Halo was revolutionary for consoles, but it was nothing that hadn't already been done and done better on PCs.

Michael Corvin

That's all I've been trying to get at and it gets ignored for inflation defense talk and "random [cartridge] games have been priced higher" analogies. All I can gather is some folks weren't following gaming on the net in '05, because it was a big deal at the time.

Oh well.

kgrogers1979

It was only a big deal to people that don't understand inflation. Seriously. Games had remained a constant $50 for nearly two decades. So of course the price tag was bound to go up sooner or later merely because of inflation. $50 two decades ago is not even close to being the same thing as $50 now. People that don't understand that have evidently never taken a business or economics course in their life.