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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Comparison of 1996 game and console prices to today.

AZWification on 29 July 2014
Mr_No said:
NobleTeam360 said:
I find it funny that Nintendo felt the need to charge 60 bucks for their games. Explains a little why PS1 dominated the N64.

Most likely they had no choice since the cartridges were much more expensive to make than CD's. Now, I still understand your point because they allegedly charged 70 to 90 bucks for a game, while the PS1 games stayed at 40, sometimes 50 bucks.

But why did Nintendo have to go with cartridges in the first place? That affected them negatively A LOT during the 5th gen.. :-/



                
       ---Member of the official Squeezol Fanclub---

Around the Network
Baalzamon on 29 July 2014
AZWification said:
Mr_No said:
NobleTeam360 said:
I find it funny that Nintendo felt the need to charge 60 bucks for their games. Explains a little why PS1 dominated the N64.

Most likely they had no choice since the cartridges were much more expensive to make than CD's. Now, I still understand your point because they allegedly charged 70 to 90 bucks for a game, while the PS1 games stayed at 40, sometimes 50 bucks.

But why did Nintendo have to go with cartridges in the first place? That affected them negatively A LOT during the 5th gen.. :-/

Man, fast load times were the greatest (assuming there was no decompression going on). I would still pay $10-$20 more today for games to get it back, and I know that would more than cover the cost.



Money can't buy happiness. Just video games, which make me happy.

AZWification on 29 July 2014
Baalzamon said:
AZWification said:

But why did Nintendo have to go with cartridges in the first place? That affected them negatively A LOT during the 5th gen.. :-/

Man, fast load times were the greatest (assuming there was no decompression going on). I would still pay $10-$20 more today for games to get it back, and I know that would more than cover the cost.

Fast load times might have been great, but so were games like Final Fantasy IX, Tekken 3, Symphony of the Night, etc... which didn't come out for the N64 due to the system using cartidges.. :-/



                
       ---Member of the official Squeezol Fanclub---

sc94597 on 29 July 2014
freedquaker said:

In Summary, the game consoles, in real terms, have slightly decreased in price by around 8%, although their relative price has increased up to 4 times as 1996 prices. In plain english, they cost you slightly less now, but much cheaper alternatives have appeared and all of sudden, consoles started to look way more expensive.

------

That is assuming video game consoles can be completely subsituted by computers or mobile phones. I'm sure for some people they can be. I think with the size of today's market vs. the market in the fifth generation, and likely with strong income mobility in first and third world countries, the demand curve has become more inelastic than it was in the fifth generation, for that reason. This can counterbalance any change toward a more elastic market from the higher number of close subsitutes. Of course since video game console production is an oligopoly the curves are a little bit more muddy to "assume." 



sc94597 on 29 July 2014
prayformojo said:

You're forgetting something critical...perception. No one cares about infaltion. They see a price, and put value on that price. When I had a PS1 back in it's heyday, I bought games for $40.00 full price. Then when PS2 launched, it jumped to $50.00. Then, when PS3 dropped, it was now $60.00. Consoles went from $200.00-$300.00 at launch to freakin' $400.00-$600.00!

People see these "numbers" and associate what they want. For the average consumer, when you see $200.00, it will always look better than $400.00 no matter HOW much inflation has taken place. It's basic human psychology.

It depends on the willingness to pay of the consumer. (This is how a demand curve is derived.) If somebody made $10,000 to live off of and play video games in 1991, and now they make $40,000 (after raising their market value in labor by expanding their skillset), and if we are to assume that inflation isn't very lop-sided in which increased prices of normal goods have cut into the ability to purchase luxury goods, then that person, regardless of the number, will be willing to pay the $400 vs. the $200, just because they have more money to do so relative to the price. This is a concept called elasticity. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elasticity_(economics)

If there is any reason for video game prices to go down it is because they have more competition in the luxury good market (smartphones, tablets, cheaper computers, etc, etc.) However, since their brands are strong, and video-game consoles have become a staple luxury good for the enthusiast gamer (who are an inelastic consumer base), this won't happen for a little bit more. Likely video game consoles will merge with standard purpose computers, forming a spectrum from closed platforms to open platform computing/gaming, and overall merging into one market. This has been the trend because gaming PC's have become cheaper while maintaining a plethora of more features. 



Around the Network
sc94597 on 29 July 2014
Baalzamon said:

You also need to consider when looking at inflation other factors. For example, the huge rise in housing prices has a lot more to do with much larger houses than it has to do with super high inflation on housing. With vehicles, the vehicles we buy today are much better than the ones we bought in 1996 (significantly more features, much safer, better gas mileage, etc.). Computers have consistently gotten cheaper, yet continue to get better and better.

 

I'm pretty sure the most common inflation indicies are measurements of the changes in prices of the same exact goods, not an aggregate measurement of spending on homes. They won't compare the prices of an average of 10,000 1 bedroom homes in 1996 to an average of 10,000 3 bedroom homes in 2006. They will compare 10,000 1 bedroom homes to 10,000 1 bedroom homes (of course homes are so much more diverse than bedroom number.) 



Mr_No on 29 July 2014
AZWification said:
Mr_No said:

Most likely they had no choice since the cartridges were much more expensive to make than CD's. Now, I still understand your point because they allegedly charged 70 to 90 bucks for a game, while the PS1 games stayed at 40, sometimes 50 bucks.

But why did Nintendo have to go with cartridges in the first place? That affected them negatively A LOT during the 5th gen.. :-/

Beats me. I believe it was for the fast cache access for the textures or the superior 3D graphics. I don't have it very clear. While CDs were cheap to make, it couldn't make graphics be as good as the N64. Although, the CD sound quality was far, far superior than on the cartdridges. Still, the high price of certain games wasn't worth it.



AZWification on 29 July 2014
Mr_No said:

Beats me. I believe it was for the fast cache access for the textures or the superior 3D graphics. I don't have it very clear. While CDs were cheap to make, it couldn't make graphics be as good as the N64. Although, the CD sound quality was far, far superior than on the cartdridges. Still, the high price of certain games wasn't worth it.

I see.. On one hand, it's good that they went with carts because games like Conker ended up looking breath-taking at the time, but on the other hand the N64 missed on Final Fantasy, Tekken, MGS, Symphony of the Night, etc... :-/



                
       ---Member of the official Squeezol Fanclub---

FromDK on 29 July 2014

Snes was/is the most expensive console of all time.. (and i loved it)

By the way.. In my contry.. prices are 2-3 times higher than US prices..

(becourse we have free education/ hospitals.. and scocial safety)



Baalzamon on 29 July 2014
sc94597 said:
Baalzamon said:

You also need to consider when looking at inflation other factors. For example, the huge rise in housing prices has a lot more to do with much larger houses than it has to do with super high inflation on housing. With vehicles, the vehicles we buy today are much better than the ones we bought in 1996 (significantly more features, much safer, better gas mileage, etc.). Computers have consistently gotten cheaper, yet continue to get better and better.

 

I'm pretty sure the most common inflation indicies are measurements of the changes in prices of the same exact goods, not an aggregate measurement of spending on homes. They won't compare the prices of an average of 10,000 1 bedroom homes in 1996 to an average of 10,000 3 bedroom homes in 2006. They will compare 10,000 1 bedroom homes to 10,000 1 bedroom homes (of course homes are so much more diverse than bedroom number.) 

They actually aren't completely. They factor in the goods that people will buy in order to feel satisfied. For instance, if the average consumer purchased a New York Strip Steak once a week, but this steak tripled in price in 1 year, but a Filet Mignon did not triple, nor increase at all, they deem that the average consumer would be satisfied with a Filet Mignon steak after this increase, and thus no inflation occurred. Inflation is a lot more than the "basket of goods" that people peg it out to be.



Money can't buy happiness. Just video games, which make me happy.