The perceived value back then was not having to pluck down 25c every time you played at the arcade. So even if the price was high it seemed cheap in the long run.
Nintendo 64 games cost like $60-$80 back in the late 90s.
hawgietonight@lemmy.world 17 hours ago
acosmichippo@lemmy.world 15 hours ago
they also didn’t sell nearly as many copies.
Shellofbiomatter@lemmus.org 18 hours ago
Yeah fair it is arbitrary, but the line in the sand must be drawn somewhere. So coming from PC platform and 59,99 being the agreed upon number for probably decade or more is a good enough arbitrary point to use as a line in the sand.
artyom@piefed.social 17 hours ago
There shouldn’t be an arbitrary “line in the sand” for games. Just like there shouldn’t be for any other product. Because products are not all the same. Some games might take an hour to beat and others have endless replayability and it shouldn’t be expected that these all cost the same.
Shellofbiomatter@lemmus.org 16 hours ago
No, there most definitely should, there should be a line or set point for everything. A point from which onward one no longer accepts any further abuse.
Yes sure we can have discussion on where that line stands with gaming, but there most definitely should be one and that should be upheld or else we do get current climate of AAA games riddled with mtx, psychological manipulation, getting more expensive yearly, no longer any long term guarantees either, while gameplay, story and performance quality dropping as well.
Without a set point or line, corporations wil keep on pushing the boundaries every single year as we keep allowing it.
architect@thelemmy.club 8 hours ago
I’d pay $150 for a great finished game. They don’t make that anymore, and you can’t make anything good and sell it for $60. So I’m not sure what you people want?! You want these companies to spend 3 billion making a game, making it perfect, and charging only $60 for it. Insane. No wonder why gamers get treated like entitled complainers.
artyom@piefed.social 15 hours ago
A point from which onward one no longer accepts any further abuse.
A higher price does not mean abuse. It very well could just mean its a higher quality game with more content.
or else we do get current climate of AAA games riddled with mtx, psychological manipulation, getting more expensive yearly, no longer any long term guarantees either, while gameplay, story and performance quality dropping as well.
How does a low price stop that from happening? If anything it’s the opposite.
hzl@piefed.blahaj.zone 16 hours ago
You’re aware of the concept of inflation, no?
Shellofbiomatter@lemmus.org 15 hours ago
Are you aware of how much gaming has increased in popularity? Already this should cover the difference inflation makes over the years. When we add in profit form micro transactions and the only reason left to increase prices is greed.
architect@thelemmy.club 9 hours ago
My business has increased in popularity, too. I’m raising prices.
artwork@lemmy.world 18 hours ago
Indeed… and I never understood the comments against prices set for monetary support calculated for the time and work and effort done for a mirracle to share and support in hope…
atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works 15 hours ago
They were also complicated circuit boards with full color manuals and box graphics, none of which is in digital nor the overhead of the creation thereof.
SeductiveTortoise@piefed.social 12 hours ago
And they could not be patched later, so the testing was absolutely bonkers.