I had shrinkwrapped someplace, one of the Apple II Origin games, it was Ultima IV I think (could have been V or maybe it was Moebius)...
Regardless, price tag was $60. Games have always been expensive, just the way it is.
You can wait for sales, used prices or even video game crashes. I vaguely remember Atari 2600 games from $1-5 at various stores.
Support the community is what I say, I bought both L4D and Deep Space new full price and wasn't let down. But then again I have bought a lot of shit games at full price too.
One thing I'm not supporting anymore though is PC gaming, I think I'm done with that. If I was to buy PC I hate to say it but it would be Steam. As much as I don't like the whole online validation whatever krap, I don't like all the installation of all the extra DRM you get from all the disc titles.
Are you serious?All I know that quite a few studios are closing down at the moment. Why would they do that if they're money-raking millionaires?
Ok. Let me re-phrase that. Why does any business shut down, even when the economy is tight and they're in an industry that makes billions of dollars a year? There's a hundred different reasons why out of the thousands of game developers around, hundreds shut down year after year.
If you bring your "A" game and release successful titles, the only way you go under is due to mismanagement. If you make good games, but don't have a hit or a bestseller, well- you go under. If you make shitty games but people still buy them- well, that doesn't last very long in this industry. But my point is the Videogaming industry as a whole is one of the most profitable industries around. But with all profitable industries, you're going to have your companies that fold, regardless of how much money his neighbors rake in.
I think it was Matt Zane that said "Fuck Rock N Roll- the only two sure bets that you'll make money in America are porn and video games". The only two times in gaming history where it looked as though gaming would be on the verge of biting the dust was the great crash of '83 and the "small crash" of the mid nineties. Games rake in way more loot now than they did during the 83 crash, which is why the small crash of the mid-nineties was only a small crash. Gaming has very nearly reached a sustainable peak that shows the pundits that no matter how tough the economy is, people are still gaming and they're still going to buy games. The only question is, will people still buy games at 60.00? And with the recent industry leanings that indicate that the majors are at least kicking around the idea of lowering game prices, I think the answer is "probably not for long."
This may be just a regional anomaly, but it is my experience and personal experience goes a long way to shape ones opinions and biases. Anyway, back in the 90's in the Minnesota Twin City area I remember retail prices being terribly high and not just on N64 carts... For many titles, if you didn't catch them at release for MSRP then you were stuck with TRU's premium pricing scale, and anything RPG at TRU up there was 80-100 bucks. Despite the titles MSRP. Dragon Warrior 2, 3 and 4? 70-100 bucks. Phantasy Star for SMS or Phantasy Star II, III or IV? 100 bucks. Panzer Dragoon Saga, Rayearth, House of the Dead or Shining Force 3 for Saturn? 80-100... The release of FFVII seemed to be a big help in normalizing the prices in the region. They seemed to settle down a year or so after. Back then, it irritated me, but I didn't bitch about it. I waited for the clearence sales. Unfortunately, a few of them I listed dried up before the price could get cut down to a reasonable level.
While we live in a world where acting morally is the prime moral hazard...
This signature is dedicated to all those
cyberpunks who fight against injustice
and corruption every day of their lives
Beckett: Somebody stole The Fist of Capitalism?
Castle: Anyone check up The Ass of Socialism?
Yup, still a browncoat.
I've had my 360 for almost two years and haven't bought a single full-priced retail game. I also just joined GameFly a month ago, and that's been great. Even though I think games are a good value for the money, I have a hard time justifying $50 or $60 for a game these days when there are so many other options.
If you can't do it with 8 bits, you don't need to do it!
I don't see what the Sega CD or the price of its games has to do with this discussion. Sega's business model during the days of the Sega CD and following it should hardly be a blueprint for any console manufacturer, first party publisher or third party publisher to follow today. Unless their respective executives want a roadmap of what NOT to do.
Besides the Sega CD was riddled with FMV junk and half-baked Genesis ports with little more than enhanced music, most of which (the Genesis ports) came out pretty damn late compared to the Genesis counterpart. Like Mortal Kombat or NBA Jam. None of that stuff was worth $50.
Nobody in their right mind would have the balls to charge $50-60 upon release for the Sega CD versions of Mortal Kombat and NBA Jam when they missed the SNES/Genesis versions by MONTHS and when half the damn country already owned the SNES/Genesis versions. Of course they were going to be cheaper than cartridge games OR any A-list games coming out last year or this year.
So the fact stuff on Sega CD was cheaper than anything on 360 or PS3 today just doesn't matter to me.
Plenty of Dead Rising and Resident Evil fans would be pissed off and I don't see any logical way you could explain it to them.
Last edited by bangtango; 02-21-2009 at 09:02 PM.
I just remembered back when Final Fantasy V was released for the Gameboy Advance. It was $39.99 in most places when it was released, except at Wal-mart where it was priced at $16.88(it was $16.XX for sure)for a sale. The sale was for the week that it was released, and I remember a bunch of people took advantage of the sale. I'm not sure why it was priced that low, but it was very good for a newly released game.
I have noticed that here in Canada Street Fighter IV is 69.99 - wow. I am sort of interested in the game, but when I seen that I flat out refuse.
But like I said, in 1979 when Atari was the big kid on the block, the cartridges ran 49.99. If my camera was up and running, I could show you the K-Mart price tags on my boxed games.
Also, if the NES launch titles were 30.00 at launch, they didn't remain that way. My parents payed 39.99 for Excitebike in 1989.
Last edited by Astrocade; 02-21-2009 at 11:06 PM.
I was at EB Games last week, and saw Fallout 3 for $70 and scoffed. But then, I remembered how 13 years ago, I paid $110 for Turok: Dinosaur Hunter, and saw Chrono Trigger for $95. Doom 64 was $140. Back in 1993, I bought Final Fantasy II for $75. No, games don't cost so much these days, if you look at it compared to the cartridge era.
<Evan_G> i keep my games in an inaccessable crate where i can't play them
I'd say I'd buy a lot more games brand new if they were still 40-50 at release. Strangely I find myself buying into limited edition bundles more though, and spending upwards of 120...
Back in the cartridge days I never paid more than $50 for anything...so I pay more these days for sure...then again for a while my parents bought my games for me when the NES/Genesis came out...
To me it's all about the features a game offers. If it's a single player game I usually won't pay over $30 for it, period. I look at it as "I can just play that later". If it's a new game with online/offline/co-op/splitscreen/great single player I almost always will buy it at the full $60 retail.
If they started focusing on more options then it would justify at least "my" purchase. I can't count the number of times i've said (Damn, I wish GTA IV was splitscreen).
I would vote for more options versus less price and I think current prices can and should cover all those bases.
I will never, ever, ever pay $60 for a new retail game again. I paid close to $100 for FFIII and Chrono Trigger back in the day, but that's when all I ever did was play video games, so it was money well spent.
If you want to pay an extra $20 to "support the industry" instead of waiting 2 or 3 months for a $40 price drop, that's great, but to me it's just throwing your money away. After all, what's the worst that could happen? Studios stop spending so much money producing games I'm not interested in playing anyway? Boo freaking hoo. Maybe they'll decide to spend more time on games that are fun instead of pushing the graphics in cutscenes faster towards the uncanny valley.
Do prototypes cost too much?
At least the new-games industry doesn't control pricing and/or have a limited number of products being chased by a large pool of enthusiasts.
Speaking of SF2, there's an interesting comparison: George H.W. Bush's economy of 1992 vs. today's.
FF3 was released in 1990 @ 100 Dollars.
Now normally, inflation is around 3%, so if FF3 was released today, it should cost around 170 dollars.
SF 4 was released @ 70 Dollars. That's a 30% reduction in the price of a top tier game. Or, indexed for inflation, less than half the original cost.
Other than games, is there any other product that has done this over the last 20 years? I know people will point out computers and other Electronics, but overall, how has the price of a high end TV /Computer changed? What they can do has, but has the price?
Maybe games are too expensive for you. But in real world pricing, the price of a game has naver been lower
Last edited by crazyjackcsa; 02-22-2009 at 07:35 AM.
I haven't seen a video game in the past year that was worth spending over $20 of my own money on.
So, I would have to say yes, video games are overpriced.
I've spent $75 on more than one board game in that same amount of time. I guess I can get more value out of the board games anymore...
gamesandgrub.blogspot.com - My blog about boardgames, and sometimes food.
roomwithaviewmaster.tumblr.com - My blog about Viewmaster collecting
And WTF is "real-world" pricing? Please show me where you get such information. Price is dependent on supply and demand. If enough people stop buying $60 games, $60 games will disappear.