Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

shadesofwolves t1_iugd5v5 wrote

Some of you weren't around in the 90s and it shows.

16

Cycle_For_Life t1_iugfc62 wrote

I remember Turok was $70 and that was in the late 90s. That would be $129 today. Games aren’t more expensive.

5

shadesofwolves t1_iugfj4p wrote

Exactly. Especially when the effort and content that goes into them nowadays is far, far more. Imagine Red Dead 2 back then? My mind would have imploded.

1

Aggravating-Assist18 t1_iuggvdt wrote

If you think about it they are more expensive. First they were expensive then they got cheaper and now they are more expensive

0

Greensssss t1_iugddzf wrote

Wha-what happened in the 90s?

1

shadesofwolves t1_iugdp2w wrote

Brace yourself.

Games were $70 for far less content and development

3

Greensssss t1_iuge0vq wrote

Whattttt? 70$?? How did they justify that?

1

shadesofwolves t1_iugedfk wrote

It's easy to look back now and say that was a ridiculous price. At the time though, not so much. Nowadays people think games should cost $40 and get 100 hours out of it without DLC.

6

ckirby7 t1_iugew6i wrote

I agree with you that expectations today are ridiculous. But at some point you have to draw a line on price. I believe if games base price goes over 100 then sales will fall off hard. I would probably still buy games but far, far fewer

2

shadesofwolves t1_iugf88j wrote

You don't have to buy them on release though. And a 40-50% jump in price is definitely not going to happen anytime soon.

1

Leon_Lights t1_iujaqbi wrote

Just think back when NES games came out. They were like $50 and you could beat most of them in under 2 or 3 hours. You get way more for your money now, no question.

1

MrFoozOG t1_iuhc7yl wrote

>Nowadays people think games should cost $40 and get 100 hours out of it without DLC.

duhh? have you seen the quality of todays games compared to back then?

Half assed pieces of shit, lied about content left and right, blatant nonsense, live service etc etc. People who pay 70 bucks for a newly released game today are mental.

−2

shadesofwolves t1_iuhcfyl wrote

You know that doesn't track, and you're talking about a very select few games. Calling people mental for something they see value in is ludicrous.

3

MikaNekoDevine t1_iugh9ul wrote

We are talking a 30year difference, a huge advancement in tech. Yet we are paying this for so little to what this tech is capable off. Take a look at RDR2. What we are getting is a rehash of same games different skin, higher price AND it still includes micro transactions. So no 70$ does NOT justify the cost of what we get in a lot of triple A games, and yes there are exceptions.

−2

shadesofwolves t1_iughq8u wrote

You don't think RDR2 is worth $70..?

1

MikaNekoDevine t1_iugjp7t wrote

No it is , and guess what it isn’t 70$. We are paying more for less, with the added “benefit” of just renting the game and not owning it like before. Elden Ring is another example of a game that is worth 70$ but also isn’t. The games worth that price are so little, increase in price means increase in quality and less monetisation.

−1

shadesofwolves t1_iuglitd wrote

What do you mean we're paying more for less?

The game content has increased drastically and the prices have stayed the same for decades?

1

MikaNekoDevine t1_iugmnli wrote

Why go far, take the latest COD it’s a fun game it is COD. But from what i heard so far one game mode, sub par campaign, kd ratio is gone, and best part battle passes. While on the other side of the coin, we got Horizon Forbidden West, which is imo worth the 70$ price. Yes we were paying the same or more in the 90s but things were still new. Now we nearly perfected it but guess what greed getting in the way. Now take on D2 in which is free but expansions aren’t and we lose old content or they become paywalled. Games are much more than 70$ nowadays, and the excuse it is only cosmetics means we also lost the ability to unlock that stuff while playing. What we are getting is nothing more than pretty graphics over games.

−1

thewalkindude t1_iujenp6 wrote

If a game isn't worth 70 dollars to you, no one is making you buy it at 70 dollars. The new CoD isn't worth 70 to me, so I'm not buying it. And why shouldn't free to play games like Destiny 2 charge you for major expansions? They have to make money somehow.

1

MikaNekoDevine t1_iuji4a1 wrote

I’m not saying they shouldn’t, it’s the locking of old content behind those paywalls. Plus, I’m against the defending of the price increase, it was long over due yes, but it came in the worst way possible.

1

thewalkindude t1_iujjf5x wrote

I'm mostly talking hypothetical, that there probably will be games out that are worth 70. I think most of the ones that are 70 right now are rip-offs, and are ridden with microtransactions like you said. I'm not as against DLC as a lot of people on here, because I think a lot of it is quite good. I'm definitely against things like 20 dollar skins though.

1

Cmdrdredd t1_iuk7sno wrote

I remember my dad paying $90 for Mortal Kombat in 1993.

1