Shadow1980 said:
Trunkin said:
How the hell do you make a graph like that and (almost)totally ignore the 6th gen, which is what everyone is actually talking about when they say we're not getting value for our money today?
The games I played 10-15 years ago didn't seem any longer or more content-rich than current-gen games. Also, starting with the sixth generation seems awfully arbitrary. Why not the fifth generation, or the seventh? Or we could be honest and go back to the second generation when consoles as we know them first started off, which is why my graph goes back to 1980.
Also, I cant make any sense out of why the specific games on the graph were included over others. Why not, say, look at the price of Madden games from SNES to current gen? Or Mario.
They were meant to be representative examples of popular games from the era that also reflected the standard price ranges of the day. Typically, new games in the 16-bit era ran for about $50-70. PS1 games usually ran for about $50-60 in its first year or so before declining to about $40-50, while N64 games typically ran from $60-70. $50 was the standard for sixth-gen games (Soul Calibur and Halo 1 & 2 being the examples I picked for the graph) and Wii games. $60 is the standard for PS3, 360, PS4, XBO, & Wii U games, with occasional $50 titles. Adjust for inflation, and you still get a chart that looks like what I have above.
|
|
I see. Looking at the graph after reading your post, it makes more sense to my eyes.
I'd say sixth gen is the best place to start because that's when gaming was really mainstream, and also when multiplats became a really big thing. Iirc potential revenues for game publishers jumped way up that gen.
As far as "value" goes, most games I remember from back then were around 15 hours.i Don't really recall any blockbuster titles that were in the realm of 7 hours.