There are many ways that "games back in the day cost $80 and that was before inflation!" makes you sound like a fucking moron, but sure, we're "underpaying" for games as long as game devs and publishers are okay with doing 1998 N64 sales figures. - ThreadSky

johnxuandou.bsky.social • 1 day ago

There are many ways that "games back in the day cost $80 and that was before inflation!" makes you sound like a fucking moron, but sure, we're "underpaying" for games as long as game devs and publishers are okay with doing 1998 N64 sales figures.

Reposted from Hatok

it is definitely interesting how people only ever bring up N64 game prices also, like the N64 kinda sorta didn't do great

Comments

arrietty.itch.io•1 day ago

It's also worth noting that the most popular N64 games like Mario 64 and OoT weren't even 80 to begin with. They were 60 if I recalled!

johnxuandou.bsky.social•1 day ago

The original post was saying that OoT being $60 in 1998 means that games should be $120 now because he's an idiot, but either way more expensive games have always led to fewer sales and economic hardship.

arrietty.itch.io•1 day ago

LMAOOOOOOOOOOOO

arrietty.itch.io•1 day ago

I don't even know where to begin with that inane logic... I must find the original post.

arrietty.itch.io•1 day ago

oh i found it

get in the crystal, OP

bakatyler.bsky.social•1 day ago

but eli, internet youtubers told me the n64 was the most successful console ever made with so many classics such as mario and pokemon snap!

flowers4agamemnon.bsky.social•1 day ago

Any argument that is basically “this thing that you love is *actually* not as expensive as it should be” is just automatically invalid imo

vkal.bsky.social•1 day ago

It’s worth noting that video games is basically the only entertainment industry that has become a lot cheaper over time.

Not saying price hikes don’t suck, but it’s kinda bonkers when you look at the numbers.

johnxuandou.bsky.social•1 day ago

They're also the biggest entertainment industry that has the highest initial asking price. Movie tickets, CD's, etc are not $70 plus tax to engage with.

vkal.bsky.social•1 day ago

Isn’t it at least noteworthy that games have consistently become cheaper? For me it’s pretty surprising.

johnxuandou.bsky.social•1 day ago

There's an obvious reason for it, is what I'm saying. It makes sense why video games have not scaled with inflation when the initial asking price was already so high. It took them holding the price for sales to get as high as they got.

impemboganecue.bsky.social•1 day ago

Their margins have also vastly improved. Cartridges were hardware, pretty much. Batteries, memory, even chips for performance boosts and so on. They were taking home a lot less of the MSRP than the 30% (or less) cut they give up now

impemboganecue.bsky.social•1 day ago

There was actually a price correction when discs blew up, probably in part to challenge Nintendo for sticking to expensive carts. But that was the last time publisher-side savings got passed on to consumers directly, with some exceptions ($20 NFL2K and experiments like that)

vkal.bsky.social•1 day ago

The relative price has continued to fall since then though. Even after the change to cd and digital had been consolidated.

vkal.bsky.social•1 day ago

That'd make sense if there was anything to indicate that the loss in potential sales wouldn't be offset by the increased profit per sale.

Like most normal consumers only buy 1-2 AAA games a year $10 ekstra probably won't make them buy fewer than that.

johnxuandou.bsky.social•1 day ago

It's already been trending that $70 has led to fewer unit sales, a bigger increase will definitely mean fewer sales. The higher the price goes, the more people get priced out of games. People will still buy games, but it won't be $80 games at launch.

https://www.tweaktown.com/news/91257/new-69-99-price-may-negatively-impact-ps5-game-unit-sales-data-suggests/index.html

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply