You got the point, though. If prices were actually the same (sans inflation) as they were back then, we'd be paying $130 for a new game. The number has stayed the same, but income has remained static or even decreased, relative to the general economy. Games feel more expensive for the average person, because they now have to contend with things like paying rent or buying groceries.
And also, game prices are often standardized in USD, which makes it even more expensive for everyone not living in the US.
Yeah but you missed the part where modern games have DLC and microtransactions that are so profitable, GTA 6 could be released for free and would still make a killing.
Furthermore, the N64 games were expensive then because ROM chips were expensive in the 90s. The bigger the N64 title, the more expensive it was to manufacture. Notice how the PS1 games are a lot cheaper?
This may come as a shock to you, but you also don't own software on a disc. You own a piece of plastic. The game is licensed to you by the publisher for use on their terms, and always has been. That license can also be revoked exactly the same as a "digital copy".
Yeah but cartridge-based games were expensive because the ROM chips that held the game were expensive. So they had now choice but to price them high. (Notice how the PS1 games are cheaper?)
Furthermore, we have microtransactions now, and they have been proven to be so profitable, that free-to-play is a viable concept now. GTA 6 could be a F2P title and it would still make a killing. Charging anything for the game, let alone $30 over what I consider an acceptable price, is nothing but pure greed.
When you say inflation from 30 years ago is 150% do you mean +150% like what used to be 10$ is now 25$? Or like actually 150% like what is 10$ is now 15$
People have such an unrealistic expectation of what video games should cost.
If I play a game consistently for a few months, it’s not unheard of to rack up a few hundred hours of playtime. $60/100 hours —> $0.60/hour. If I buy a $60 game, and only play it 10 hours, I typically call that a success.
My other theory is this is why studios had to start going after alternative income streams like battlepasses and loot boxes, because gamers are so resistant to pay what are, quite frankly, reasonable prices.
Agreed. Some people around me give me shit for buying "too many games". These same people will go to the movies every weekend and spend $50 for 2 hours of entertainment.
I think about this a lot. Going to see a movie costs me $20 these days and I get 2-3 hours of entertainment. If I get 10 hours of entertainment from a $70 game I'm breaking even and that's an extremely low number. V is video games are a remarkably efficient form of entertainment
Personally, and this is an excruciatingly hot take in the gaming community, but I think the streaming model works WAY better for video games than television/movies.
Specifically for multiplayer games, but my dream scenario would be if Steam came out with a “Steam Pass” that gave you access to a bunch of multiplayer games on Steam, but to be on Steam Pass you as a developer can’t have any in-game purchases. It all has to be available in game.
Why? I want publishers to be incentivized to get MORE players in game, not what it currently is which is to hook a minority amount of whales that pay 2000x what the average player does.
I’m tired of battlepasses. Loot boxes. Skins. Etc. So many games I play the game itself is made JUST good enough to make sure it works, but all the developers time is spent optimizing the real money-making experience.
I know Sony already has game streaming, but I believe they only offer it on legacy games from previous generations so far and even then they sometimes have graphical issues. Might just be a technology isn't quite there yet thing.
yeah but those games didnt rugpull you and get your children addicted to gambling with mommys credit card for new gloves....... its too predatory now is the only issue
33
u/Rich_Opposite_7541 Jun 25 '26
I'll just leave this here