By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
gtotheunit91 said:
DonFerrari said:

And with inflation taken into equation even if we ignore that the cost to make games have gone several orders of magnitude higher the price for the games is lower than they were 20 years or 30 years ago.

It would probably be an easier pill to swallow for more gamers if it was $70 across the board for games, but Nintendo and Xbox are still charging at max $60 for their first party games for the foreseeable future, if not the remainder of the generation alongside other major studios like Capcom and Sega. Causing more doubt in gamers if $70 is actually necessary. 

Not to mention the scummy companies like EA and 2K charging $70 for their sports games when they're still riddled with microtransactions. It just causes even more questions as to whether $70 is justified.  

Ow sure, different companies with different prices making it easier to see complains I do agree, and sure I don't think most games deserve a 70 pricetag, much less those deluxe editions that is just reversed base game with the others with content removed that can go even double than that on launch easily and some DLCs and mtx that are much higher price than they should.

And also sure companies are making more money so they DON't really need to increase the price because the cost increased, they can absorve the extra cost because they are still healthly in profit.

I would certainly appreciate more variation in price for games though though we get that in used and some smaller titles.

rapsuperstar31 said:
Runa216 said:

Man, your head is gonna explode when someone teaches you about inflation. 

I bet there was a time when people said 'Bread? For more than a quarter? This country's gone to shit!" 

When it comes to electronics inflation doesn't always go up.  The medium costs less today than it did on the SNES/Genesis/N64.  A blank carts could cost up to $30 back than, while cd's, dvd's, blu ray's cost pennies and buying it digitally  cost's even less in distribution costs.  My first computer in the early 2000's costs double what my current macbook costs and it had less memory than my watch these days.  Tv's, blu ray players have all come down quite a bit over the years.  Yes the cost to make bigger and bigger games costs more, but that is for developers to figure out how to be as efficient as possible when making games, because there is a huge amount of gamers that are not willing to pay $70.  Developers also put in microtransactions and now nft's to try and squeeze more money out of gamers.  Hell you can buy 3 years of game pass for cheaper than 2 PS5 games if you search out a deal and get 3 years for $90-$100.

The inflation always go up.

What you perceive as continuous reduction of pricetag for similar product while it matures isn't the same thing as deflation.

duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."