| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (76)

Posted: Oct 7th 2010 7:04AM KindaOdd said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Thank God for parents in 1993.

Posted: Oct 7th 2010 7:53AM Icupnimpn2 said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@KindaOdd

yeah, the analyst completely misses the point that to many consumers, prices have gone up about $60

I miss my free (parented) video games :(
Reply

Posted: Oct 7th 2010 1:00PM The angry pro consumer gaming ga said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@KindaOdd I honestly don't ever remember prices being that in any store I've ever been to at that time. $50 is what my parents paid for with the exception of Street Fighter 2 which was $70 since we were living in P.R. at the time. I also know that a friend paid $70 for sword of vermillion because it was huge at the time, but again other than those 2 examples everything else was at the most $50.
Reply

Posted: Oct 7th 2010 7:09AM CA said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
While I see the logic in adjusting for inflation when looking at stuff like this, I find it just doesn't work in reality for me. I still see it as 64.99 in 2010 dollars because who cares about inflation? It's not like I can go to the Time Machine Banking & Loan office where I change in my future money for crisp 1993 money. Ah well...

Posted: Oct 7th 2010 7:46AM Scuffles said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Yeah it is interesting in some ways to see their model showing that even tho prices today are higher (or in most cases the "same" ~$50-60) they are "technically" less expensive. Its an interesting novelty but other than that It doesn't really seem to hold weight for anyone unless antiquated number crunching is their vocation.

I mean it was a lot harder to catch an Ornithopter flight in say 1485 than it is to catch a intercontinental jet today ..........
Reply

Posted: Oct 7th 2010 7:53AM Huey2k2 said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@CA

You seriously don't understand why inflation matters?

Sure it's still $64.99, but $64.99 right now can't buy you as much as $64.99 could in 1993. If you don't understand why that matters when it comes to comparing prices then you are hopeless.
Reply

Posted: Oct 7th 2010 7:59AM Icupnimpn2 said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@Scuffles

Now imagine if you transported a modern game like NBA 2K11 back to 1993. The physical game would probably be worth like $754,000 as an artifact out of time. The system to play it on would give Cuba technological dominance over the rest of the world and allow the revolution to finally take place. And the information about which basketball stars would lead the league in 2011 would allow for very lucrative betting and manipulation to take place in the world of professional sports, which could lead to untold wealth.

So $60 in 2010 dollars seems eminently reasonable.
Reply

Posted: Oct 7th 2010 8:06AM CA said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
@Huey2k2

Yes, I understand how inflation works and why it matters. I'm just saying it doesn't make me feel any better to hear Streets of Rage would be $100 bucks if it came out today.
Reply

Posted: Oct 7th 2010 8:17AM Huey2k2 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@CA

I don't see why it doesn't?

Doesn't it feel good to know that something you are buying on a regular basis today is actually cheaper than it was when you were younger?
Reply

Posted: Oct 7th 2010 8:19AM BananaBoat said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@CA - It...should though, logically speaking. There are other factors that matter more to a person obviously (employment status for instance) when making purchasing decisions, but inflation is very real, and very important to consider.

Reply

Posted: Oct 7th 2010 8:27AM Scuffles said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
@Icupnimpn2 Didn't the PS360 come out right around 1995?

So your only really looking at a leap in tech of about 2 years and that's taking the public release into account. I'd wager the tech for those systems existed well before 95 probably in 93. At best it would have shaved 3months off the consoles development should someone form the aforementioned developing companies gotten a hold of their own console.

Now had something like that fallen into the hands of Cuba during say WWII ....... I still wouldn't be worried because I doubt they had the resources to successfully reverse engineer it. Now if the Russians, Americans, Japanese, Europeans or Chinese gotten hold of it. Even destructive reverse engineering could have taken them from the tipping point of a technological discovery to an epiphany and rendered them decades ahead of the curve.

To the Time Machine!
Reply

Posted: Oct 7th 2010 8:32AM Scuffles said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Scuffles Blorg, ignore that 1995 ...... ok ~2005 ... for some reason I got all my decades mixed up ..... In which case I retract my initial statement as it could potentially give cuba a distinct technological advantage tho they would probably simply sell it to one of the superpowers for a vast fortune.

But then the earth would disappear and Cubans would be stranded at Central point, searching the galaxy for their missing planet.
Reply

Posted: Oct 7th 2010 8:37AM tobz1000 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@CA And that's the exact reason inflation exists. If currency rises in value, people would never accept a pay cut - for which the value of their salary would remain the same, but they would perceive it as less. So the only alternative is an increased cost of goods.
Reply

Posted: Oct 7th 2010 8:39AM CA said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Huey2k2 and @BananaBoat

I don't know why I don't care as much, I guess it's because I imagine if games truly cost prices equal to inflation rates I don't think people would really buy them so they would have to bring the prices down anyway.

It doesn't feel like I'm getting something on sale just because it doesn't match the rate of inflation, I guess is what I'm saying. That could just be me though. Plus, I'm a cheap-ass so that may have something to do with it.
Reply

Posted: Oct 7th 2010 11:44AM aristokrat said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@CA
Think of it this way: you are paying a lower percentage of your income (assuming it has only increased at the rate of inflation) than you used to. Since money has no inherent value, you can't attach too much meaning to the numbers themselves, but rather the percentages/etc. they represent.
Reply

Posted: Oct 7th 2010 12:13PM SilverFireshot said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Icupnimpn2 "Michael Jordan is on the cover. I can't believe he would still be playing in 2011 and just as godlike as ever! Lets give our life savings to the bookie down the street and tell him to put it all on Jordan in 2011!"
Reply

Posted: Oct 7th 2010 7:14AM den69 said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Amazing how $43.99 and $49.99 both work out as $75.53 in todays money...

Posted: Oct 7th 2010 7:51AM 216 said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@den69: Things were great back in the Clinton years
Reply

Posted: Oct 7th 2010 9:59AM greyseal said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@den69 Good catch ;)
Reply

Posted: Oct 7th 2010 11:06AM Courtney said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@den69

It's a mistake in the original Ars image, though it's worth following the link and looking at the rest of that ad. There's a game called Ex-Mutants that I'm pretty sure would get lawsuits launched nowadays.
Reply

Posted: Oct 7th 2010 11:26AM shouryuuken said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Courtney if the comic book that it was based off of didn't result in a law suit.. then the game would be alright.
Reply

Posted: Oct 7th 2010 11:52AM Courtney said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@shouryuuken

Had no idea that was based on an existing property, the game cover just looked like they weren't even trying to not copy X-Men.
Reply

Posted: Oct 7th 2010 7:16AM DustbinK said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
How does what he said support the fall in price? Bigger budgets means lower price? The explanation is simple: They charge less because more people are buying games. I don't know why he couldn't just come out and say that.

Posted: Oct 7th 2010 11:13AM ironneko said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@DustbinK

He probably means economies of scale. Bigger investments = more games = smaller marginal cost.
Reply

Posted: Oct 7th 2010 11:18AM Chibi Chaingun said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@DustbinK

Didn't the article say he mentioned that?

"EEDAR analyst Jesse Divnich offered an explanation for the declining cost for brand new games at retail, saying the cause is the continually growing audience for video games."
Reply

Posted: Oct 7th 2010 11:24AM ironneko said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@ironneko

I wanted to say average cost. The marginal cost for games is really low regardless. Edit button ftw.
Reply

Posted: Oct 9th 2010 5:26PM ashleydb said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@DustbinK Plus a DVD is a ton cheaper to produce than a cartridge.
Reply

Posted: Oct 7th 2010 7:17AM DeeZeee said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Yeah, my N64 games cost like $70! Thanks Dad for buying me Rayman 2!! :-)

Posted: Oct 7th 2010 7:39AM avsreaper said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
The fact this article fails to relate is that games of the past were shipped on cartridges. Those cartridges were an unfortunately large portion of the cost of the game. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROM_cartridge

Posted: Oct 7th 2010 8:15AM jocaju said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@avsreaper You're right, the CD is a lot cheaper then cartridges, specially back in the day when the memory was very expensive.
Reply

Posted: Oct 7th 2010 8:28AM MarkHawk said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@avsreaper Digital Downloads are so much cheaper since there is no manufa-

Oh... oh right... grrrr
Reply

Posted: Oct 7th 2010 8:29AM andrewpoe said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@avsreaper

Even then, some of the CD games on Sega CD, TurboGrafx CD, and 3DO were around the standard price for cartridges. Lunar Silver Star and Ys Book 1 & 2 wasn't $49.99 at retail, I believe they were higher....

But basically all this points to the value of the dollar has decreased and inflation has gone up in twenty years. MSRP is not standard $70 - $80, but instead $60 - $50 now.
Reply

Posted: Oct 7th 2010 9:42AM Rahabib said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@MarkHawk
you forget that it takes large bandwidth and servers to send those digital downloads. Sure it may be a bit cheaper than DVDs and printing, but digital downloads are more expensive than people realize.
Reply

Posted: Oct 7th 2010 10:18AM PersonOfSorts said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@avsreaper

The article --didn't-- fail to relate that. ;-)
Reply

Posted: Oct 7th 2010 10:26AM avsreaper said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@PersonOfSorts Ah, you're right! I didn't realize the blog entry was a link to a full length article. My bad. Sorry about that.
Reply

Posted: Oct 7th 2010 7:40AM MFirman said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I remember spending ~$75 for Half Life and GTA 1.

I think the bulk of that price was to offset the cost of manufacturing the humongous boxes!

Posted: Oct 7th 2010 7:48AM Decanus said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@MFirman
yep its was the card they were created from that drove the prices sky high!
Reply

Posted: Oct 7th 2010 8:29AM MarkHawk said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
@MFirman Should fo waited for the Steam sale. I got both for 75 cents and an entire dump truck of gold.
Reply

Posted: Oct 7th 2010 9:19AM Misfit Toy said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@MFirman

Nothing beat the mammoth PC game boxes. Those things were huge. Such a waste of space and materials.
Reply

Posted: Oct 7th 2010 7:48AM koehler83 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Many SNES games were $99.99 in Canada.

Wasteful, restrictive cartridges. Never again.

Posted: Oct 7th 2010 8:51AM def PD said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@koehler83

Yup. I was living in Canada (Willowdale, Ontario) at the time we got our SNES.

I remember my parents buying SF2 for $100 and SF2 Turbo for $80 at the time.

The messed up part too was that my parents had a SF2 arcade cabinet at their business too. lol
Reply

Posted: Oct 7th 2010 1:00PM gangcar said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@koehler83

All hail disc-based media in all it's glory and cheap production! *and lack of poisonous metals*
Reply

Posted: Oct 8th 2010 6:27AM Synekal said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@koehler83

With SNES games many people seem to forget the "RPG tax" too back in the mid-90's Final Fantasy 3 (VI) was $80 new which would be $118 now!

I wish I could remember other RPG's of the time, but some were hovering around the $100 price tage brand new, or about $150 today!
Reply

Posted: Oct 7th 2010 8:13AM Anticrawl said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I got my games a few months after they came out at a pawn shop for like 5 bucks. Ain't no way my parents would spend 70 bucks on a game.

Posted: Oct 7th 2010 12:22PM Chibi Chaingun said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Anticrawl

Same here. I also had to by my friends b-day presents w/ my own money when I was a kid. It ended up being really funny because I'd show up w/ just a used cartridge from a pawn shop wrapped in a shoe box, and other kids had their parents buy brand new boxed games to give. Ah well. :P
Reply

Posted: Oct 7th 2010 8:16AM daevv said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
My parents still remind me of how much Final Fantasy III was on SNES back in the day when they got it for me one Christmas. $120 was worth it as it is by far my favorite FF.
~d

Posted: Oct 7th 2010 8:18AM delicatessen lama said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Man, I wouldn't even pay $4 for Streets of Rage 2... actually I would ;) But then again... I haven't. Pretty decent game even now.

Posted: Oct 7th 2010 8:32AM Anticrawl said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@delicatessen lama

Aww how you gonna say that? I loved Streets of Rage 1 & 2.
Reply

Posted: Oct 7th 2010 8:46AM delicatessen lama said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Anticrawl

I played it on Xbox live (I think) and it was fun.
Reply

Posted: Oct 7th 2010 8:19AM rahnyc4 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
thing is game prices dropped and went back up this gen, thats the thing.. lol

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

TUAW

TUAW

Massively

Massively

WoW

WoW