By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
EnricoPallazzo on 16 August 2021
Edit Thread
derpysquirtle64 said:

I don't want to defend the corporations here, especially considering that 60$ already is a huge amount of money for a lot of people to spend on a video game. But at the same time, it's hard not to agree with the fact that the games indeed are getting cheaper while staying at the same price tag. Because of inflation of course. Back when the "HD tax" was introduced and games started to cost 60$, if we convert it to today's money, it would have been around 83$. So yeah, we can say that even with 70$ price tag the games are indeed cheaper than they were in 2005.
On the other hand, 2005 games have been the full package and you wouldn't end up with a game that has a ton of DLC and in game purchases attached. So, in these circumstances, 70$ as a base price seems a bit too much.
Personally if we could get rid of predatory monetisation schemes in video games at the expense of a 80-90$ price tag, I would be all for it. Unfortunately, it ain't happening.

You know sometimes it's difficult for me to agree with "today's games have less content".

It depends on the game. Single player adventure games have been 12-15 hours adventures for a very long time. RPG's still have mostly the same length (around 40 hours). FPS games still clocks around 6-10 hours. Assassins creed games actually got bigger. Racing games have been the same or with more content. Take a look on how much content you would have in a sonic game for genesis, a Mario game for SNES, Zelda, Halo, Final Fantasy (excluding XV), Persona, Uncharted, Far Cry, Fifa (the offline portion).

It seems to me it's one of those things where we think we have less content, but actually it's the same or more, especially when compared to SNES or PS1 eras. Of course we have the cash grab/microtransactions monsters but it seems to me they are mostly for online games.