The more things change, the more they stay the same ps2 is super successful, ps3 is a colossal slop, Xbox 360 prevailed despite all the fuck ups, Xbox 1 is a colossal fuck up, Wii is a "revolution" Wii U is but a whisper on the wind.
It is the arrogance in display what is really rubbing the people the wrong way, prices increase and then a multi-million dollar company needs to make their customers "pay" for them all of this monetary changes.
If the tariff in the US are triggering this then why are countries in Latin America and Europe, also getting price increases?
Latin America I may say it could be because of the currency being almost backup by the Dollar but Europe?
Makes you think, am I Paying for the distribution chains and also for the taxes, worker wages, customs?
The latest trailer for Mafia: The Old Country also revealed the price: €49.99. This sparked an online debate, primarily focused on Nintendo. Many gamers feel the Switch 2's pricing policy is unjustified, resulting in anger and malice. The gaming world needs more €50 games Two new fronts are apparently forming in the gaming world: on the one hand, Nintendo, which is implementing a new pricing policy with the imminent release of the Switch 2 (Mario Kart World will cost €89.99 at launch), and on the other, more and more publishers are releasing their games for €49.99.
The upcoming gangster epic Mafia: The Old Country will also only cost around €50 at launch. This news has generated a lot of positive feedback online. At the same time, however, more and more players are questioning the new release prices of €80 or €90, which will likely become the standard for Nintendo and Microsoft in the future. This development is particularly exciting because the €50 category has enjoyed incredible success in recent times. These include releases such as Split Fiction, Claire Obscure: Expedition 33, and The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion Remastered.
At the same time, a noticeable number of tweets criticizing Nintendo and especially Mario Kart World are receiving support (source: MrKelsGame on X).
Game development is becoming increasingly expensive. Publishers like Ubisoft justify the €80 price cap with high development costs (Assassin's Creed Shadows reportedly cost around $300 million), but this argument misses the mark with many gamers (source: Sportskeeda). The majority, it seems, prefer smaller games in the AA range. This also explains popular tweets (see above) about buying a game like Mafia: The Old Country at release just to support the €50 pricing policy—in this way sending a message to publishers. According to the motto: Less is more.
This discussion will likely reach its peak next year, when GTA 6 is released. It's not yet known what Rockstar Games is asking for the open-world game, but figures between 100 and 120 euros have been floating around the internet for some time.
The tech alone is worth the price. The original Switch is the best console ever. I honestly hope the trend continues. Nintendo has made mostly garbage systems to me.
Nes - great games, garbage console
Snes - great games garbage console
N64 - some solid titles ok hardware worst controller in the mainstream
Virtual Boy - OMG...nothing positive on this one
Gamecube - solid games decent hardware very nice controller
All Gameboys - great games mostly junk hardware
DS and 3ds - lets just say I like the 2ds the best...
Wii - a gimmick that was overrated
WiiU - ugh
Switch - great in most all ways
Switch 2 - even better hardware than the Switch
I think the price is high yes, but to be honest gaming is a luxory market. We are spoiled by the technology and engineering that goes into all of this stuff. The amount of effort coders and programmers do is insane. I feel lucky that I have my powerful PC, phone, Kindle and Switch. I guess I just see it different.
I think when you really think about what you are getting for $449, the is right. It is just the reality we are in now unfortunately. Competition for wafers for chip production is so high that things just do not get cheaper to manufacture anymore. While it probably sounds like a tired argument, inflation of various global currencies play a huge role. Besides, we have known of the Switch 2 for at least a year, before we knew the price, people should have been putting money away.
I think when you really think about what you are getting for $449, the is right. It is just the reality we are in now unfortunately. Competition for wafers for chip production is so high that things just do not get cheaper to manufacture anymore. While it probably sounds like a tired argument, inflation of various global currencies play a huge role. Besides, we have known of the Switch 2 for at least a year, before we knew the price, people should have been putting money away.
This is such a defeatist statement, and you would be 100% right if EVERYONE thought like thisssssssssss...
This is not how economics work, this is "reality" assssssss the consumer accepts it, can we get more value for the money they are asking for? Well the "reality" is yes, as a PC with second hand parts for that price issssss sssssstill far far cheaper then this, and you do more with it..
The cost of simply playing a game, should not be so high, this is a hobbie only, not needed to live.
With time it will get cheaper, if the market respondsssssssss to it with lack of interest, the problem, no one is doing that due to them being trained as FOMO sssssssssssince a young age.
So by accepting this, you accept the abusessssssss that come with it.
Having money to spend on this, does not mean it should be spent on this.
Value proposition should always been considered, especially when you get older. I think there should be another post asking, what is the value of the new s2...
This is such a defeatist statement, and you would be 100% right if EVERYONE thought like thisssssssssss...
This is not how economics work, this is "reality" assssssss the consumer accepts it, can we get more value for the money they are asking for? Well the "reality" is yes, as a PC with second hand parts for that price issssss sssssstill far far cheaper then this, and you do more with it..
The cost of simply playing a game, should not be so high, this is a hobbie only, not needed to live.
With time it will get cheaper, if the market respondsssssssss to it with lack of interest, the problem, no one is doing that due to them being trained as FOMO sssssssssssince a young age.
So by accepting this, you accept the abusessssssss that come with it.
Having money to spend on this, does not mean it should be spent on this.
Value proposition should always been considered, especially when you get older. I think there should be another post asking, what is the value of the new s2...
A PC with second hand parts isn’t really an argument. A used anything is going to almost always be less expensive. Not to mention a PC is not focused on games but general software.
To your point about the cost of a hobby needing to be lower because it is not a necessity, I don’t follow your logic. Are you suggesting that essential items like, food, clothing, and transportation, should be priced higher because you can’t go on without them? This doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.
Games cost a lot of money to make, they are a luxury item and they have been since the beginning. Arcade games used to cost anywhere from a quarter to a dollar per play session at a time when that was significantly more money than it is today.
Am I happy about the the rising cost of commodities? No. But I understand why this happens and I’m not going to take Nintendo to task for it. If I don’t think the product is worth the money I simply won’t buy it.
A PC with second hand parts isn’t really an argument. A used anything is going to almost always be less expensive. Not to mention a PC is not focused on games but general software.
To your point about the cost of a hobby needing to be lower because it is not a necessity, I don’t follow your logic. Are you suggesting that essential items like, food, clothing, and transportation, should be priced higher because you can’t go on without them? This doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.
Games cost a lot of money to make, they are a luxury item and they have been since the beginning. Arcade games used to cost anywhere from a quarter to a dollar per play session at a time when that was significantly more money than it is today.
Am I happy about the the rising cost of commodities? No. But I understand why this happens and I’m not going to take Nintendo to task for it. If I don’t think the product is worth the money I simply won’t buy it.
The systems price was never an issue for me, it was just the $80 games. And while yes I am still annoyed by it, I rarely buy games at launch full price anyway.
I am not sure what you mean. Are you talking about the used market for SNES games or do you mean the SNES games from the 90's adjusted for inflation?
If you are talking the about the used market, those prices have long been inflated, in my opinion. Especially post pandemic, everyone thinks they are sitting on gold.
If you mean that adjusting prices from the 90's into today's market, then yeah, I will say that things are in line with what they were. The big problem is that people are just not getting paid what they were, or that is to say that wages are not adjusting with the cost of goods, which is a problem with labor. Really, the big issue is that manufacturing cost are just not coming down the way the used to and that is why we are not seeing price cuts the way we have in the past.
The systems price was never an issue for me, it was just the $80 games. And while yes I am still annoyed by it, I rarely buy games at launch full price anyway.
So, far it is just Mario Kart that is $80, right? I think Donkey Kong is $70. Not a huge difference but I would not be surprised if we see a wider range of prices with the higher end being for games that will end up having long term cost, i.e. server upkeep, or continuous development for new content. But I don't know what will happen. In general, I don't trust the corporations to be altruistic.
The console price is fine. The game prices, though? Nope. Nintendo can get bent. I'll stick with my Steam Deck and continue skipping this bellyflop of a console generation entirely.
A PC with second hand parts isn’t really an argument. A used anything is going to almost always be less expensive. Not to mention a PC is not focused on games but general software.
To your point about the cost of a hobby needing to be lower because it is not a necessity, I don’t follow your logic. Are you suggesting that essential items like, food, clothing, and transportation, should be priced higher because you can’t go on without them? This doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.
Games cost a lot of money to make, they are a luxury item and they have been since the beginning. Arcade games used to cost anywhere from a quarter to a dollar per play session at a time when that was significantly more money than it is today.
Am I happy about the the rising cost of commodities? No. But I understand why this happens and I’m not going to take Nintendo to task for it. If I don’t think the product is worth the money I simply won’t buy it.
Pc with second hand parts absolutely is an argument to this, no matter how much you do not want it to be, the question is, if you fully understood the argument (not a slant (insult) on you or anything, i am genuinely asking).
The point is value for money, hence my statement "Value proposition should always been considered, especially when you get older. I think there should be another post asking, what is the value of the new s2..."
Which underpins:
Do you Agree with the Switch 2 Price?
So, if something second hand can give more value then the switch 2, then beyond the novelty of having a switch 2, considering all the restrictions and abuses put in place, where is the value?
You mention the rising cost of commodities, but that is not an excuse, and instead a generalization, which feeds in to the argument of where is the value?
No value is relative to the person, but that is the point, you cannot convice people to have the same value as you or mine. But i will put it out there, and if people agree or not, they can make that decision. As they have the power to, and thats the point, letting people know the facts, making the comparison, and letting them make an informed decision, not a reactionary one.
Also the argument you made by mentioning food being priced higher is also invalid, the comparison was switch 2 or those things, not both. You used a non sequitur fallacy there, not sure if you knew it or not? Hobies cannot be compared to lifes nessesaties like food and such, as one is needed, the other is not.
However, the market is flooded stuff to support hobbies, and for people to be convinced to invest in such things, there has to be competitive pricing. Which indi studeos are making waves in.
The argument of games costing allot of money also does not wash ever, again a non sequitur fallacy and a generalization, as other which studios, what was the output, what was the license, what was the skill? Other Studio's such as those who made Expedition 33 and those in the indi in genral have done more with less.
I posted before that there is a lot of problems in the industry, with too much bloat in costing being a big one, with to cost of development tool licensing, licensing of program tools, CEO / management greed, just to name a few. And companies are only getting more greedy with software tools, putting in less to hopefully squeeze more out of devs and people in genral.
Just look at the attempts by Unity, and the like. This is why open source projects such as Godot Engine, GD Develop and others have came about to address such behaviors. (not as a result of
unity specifically, just that this is the most resent example of this behaviour).
We need more nuance for the problem properly studied, so we can gain real facts, not marketing jargan that does nothing to actually innovate, beyond filling the company and the heads of said companies pockets, rather then poducing products that are actually worth buying, are competative and have more beyond a name brand.
Please argue the benefits vs the price compared to other things out there worth the same amount of money!
Scalpers are to blame there, and the fact that they are seen as equity, so not a real argument related to this situation.
And i would argue against buying from scalpers always. And besides with Nin way of doing things with Switch 2, the scalpers may end up loosing out also, since there is no game preservation after purchase beyond the licence, whch they can always switch the server off for.....
100% and this is a case of accepting abuse, meaning other companies (if the news about Microsoft is true) are already starting to join in, as to them, they want to be competitive. So this presidence will mean the a negative market response to the users spending, and acceptance of something that is not feasible in the wider sense.
For me, how much can you shift, to produce return? Does return = more if you shift less? What about exposure?
Is the game then enjoyed?
What about the devs work,
Do they want the game enjoyed?
Is the game enjoyment?
The way the market is going, we are heading towards the mobile gotcha type of deal, meaning eventual death of gaming as art, death of gaming as fun, and only manipulative gaming which attacked the most vulnerable and weak willed in to debt and addiction.
For me, gaming is enjoyment to relax and experience what the author is putting forward, which is why Expedition 33 and RPGs in general are amazing, does not always have to be a narrative master peace, but something to take the edge off from the days work (beat-em ups, puzzle games, etc).
If it is an addiction, and something that cannot be kept or treasured, then again, where is the value?
Pc with second hand parts absolutely is an argument to this, no matter how much you do not want it to be, the question is, if you fully understood the argument (not a slant (insult) on you or anything, i am genuinely asking).
The point is value for money, hence my statement "Value proposition should always been considered, especially when you get older. I think there should be another post asking, what is the value of the new s2..."
Which underpins:
Do you Agree with the Switch 2 Price?
So, if something second hand can give more value then the switch 2, then beyond the novelty of having a switch 2, considering all the restrictions and abuses put in place, where is the value?
You mention the rising cost of commodities, but that is not an excuse, and instead a generalization, which feeds in to the argument of where is the value?
No value is relative to the person, but that is the point, you cannot convice people to have the same value as you or mine. But i will put it out there, and if people agree or not, they can make that decision. As they have the power to, and thats the point, letting people know the facts, making the comparison, and letting them make an informed decision, not a reactionary one.
Also the argument you made by mentioning food being priced higher is also invalid, the comparison was switch 2 or those things, not both. You used a non sequitur fallacy there, not sure if you knew it or not? Hobies cannot be compared to lifes nessesaties like food and such, as one is needed, the other is not.
However, the market is flooded stuff to support hobbies, and for people to be convinced to invest in such things, there has to be competitive pricing. Which indi studeos are making waves in.
The argument of games costing allot of money also does not wash ever, again a non sequitur fallacy and a generalization, as other which studios, what was the output, what was the license, what was the skill? Other Studio's such as those who made Expedition 33 and those in the indi in genral have done more with less.
I posted before that there is a lot of problems in the industry, with too much bloat in costing being a big one, with to cost of development tool licensing, licensing of program tools, CEO / management greed, just to name a few. And companies are only getting more greedy with software tools, putting in less to hopefully squeeze more out of devs and people in genral.
Just look at the attempts by Unity, and the like. This is why open source projects such as Godot Engine, GD Develop and others have came about to address such behaviors. (not as a result of
unity specifically, just that this is the most resent example of this behaviour).
We need more nuance for the problem properly studied, so we can gain real facts, not marketing jargan that does nothing to actually innovate, beyond filling the company and the heads of said companies pockets, rather then poducing products that are actually worth buying, are competative and have more beyond a name brand.
Please argue the benefits vs the price compared to other things out there worth the same amount of money!
At the end of the day for me. I don’t agree or disagree with the price. I accept it. I can understand the necessity behind it. I can see where it is justified.
There’s always going to be a better value proposition when you are buying something used versus new. That it is not me saying that there aren’t advantages beyond that for something new. Which, to me, is why it’s not really an argument.
I wasn’t making a non sequitur argument when comparing the cost of the hobby to the cost of essential needs. I wasn’t making asking you to explain why the fact that a hobby isn’t needed to live should keep cost down. As that seemed to be the point you were making. “this is a hobbie only, not needed to live.”
Also, how is pointing out that games cost about the same as they always have a non sequitur? We are talking about the cost of games. I’m saying that when you chart the buying power of money, in this case the USD, Mario Kart Wii was $50 in ‘08 when it launched and that is $75 (rounded up) today.
Sandfall Interactive has, according to LinkedIn, about 34 employees. Probably closer to 50, and the credits for Expedition 33 have about 400 or so names. Nintendo employs over 7000. So, yeah, I can see a company that is an order of magnitude smaller than a company like Nintendo charging $50 for a new non established IP. I can see indie teams comprised of 5-20 people charging $20 for their games.
As a value proposition a used PC is a better value than almost any electronic device you can buy. I’m not even sure why it’s worth mentioning.
From a purely financial perspective, the value proposition for any console at launch is pretty low. You have no idea how it’s going to turn out. What the library will end up being. What kind of support or how long it will be supported. It’s all theoretical. I like Nintendo games. I like Nintendo IP. I won’t to play their games and I want them to keep making those games, so I will show up where they are.
There’s always going to be a better value proposition when you are buying something used versus new. That it is not me saying that there aren’t advantages beyond that for something new. Which, to me, is why it’s not really an argument.
The point is cost vs what else you can buy, hence the example being the second hand PC.
I wasn’t making a non sequitur argument when comparing the cost of the hobby to the cost of essential needs. I wasn’t making asking you to explain why the fact that a hobby isn’t needed to live should keep cost down. As that seemed to be the point you were making. “this is a hobbie only, not needed to live.”
The point was how much money one should spend on a hobbies, if they can justify the price, then by all means, i am not one to tell others what to do with the money. But to me, what they are asking and what you get regardless of it being "a new console" or not, is not worth it. The market for hobbies is flooded, so where do they get off acting the way they do with the cost of games (you do not own, you own a license which can be turned off when the publisher wants (it needs to connect to a server to confirm legitimacy))) and the cost of the console?
Sandfall Interactive has, according to LinkedIn, about 34 employees. Probably closer to 50, and the credits for Expedition 33 have about 400 or so names. Nintendo employs over 7000. So, yeah, I can see a company that is an order of magnitude smaller than a company like Nintendo charging $50 for a new non established IP. I can see indie teams comprised of 5-20 people charging $20 for their games.
Comparing employee count and the size of the company alone helps, but also asking the question about quality over quantity. They my have 7000 employees at nin, but that does no mean the games alone should be priced high enough to feed them all. Also, nin does not just make consoles and games, they also have other ventures such as Nin wold and the Toadstool cafe.
And i would argue that this is more about their share holders, not employees alone for the big N.
The cost of games alone does not dictate a companies profitability, and to look at it alone is dishonest.
And this is why i said: We need more nuance for the problem properly studied, so we can gain real facts.
And why i brought up the bloat in industry and part of that being related to the development tools, software tools, and other predatory companies which increased costs, and why i noted Unity as one example of this, and provided opensource solutions which people are starting to use.
As a value proposition a used PC is a better value than almost any electronic device you can buy. I’m not even sure why it’s worth mentioning.
Of course it is so to provide options for people to consider, so that they can make as informed decision as possible. As otherwise we are using manipulative elements such as Fomo, guilt tripping, flexing, and what ever else to make people feel they are missing out. And i would argue that such things are dangerous, and why people need as much information as possible before they feel a need (which is relay just a want in disguise) to buy something.
From a purely financial perspective, the value proposition for any console at launch is pretty low. You have no idea how it’s going to turn out. What the library will end up being. What kind of support or how long it will be supported. It’s all theoretical. I like Nintendo games. I like Nintendo IP. I won’t to play their games and I want them to keep making those games, so I will show up where they are.
By all means, if you like nin and are happy to eat the price not to mention the abuse your about to take, knowing it is comign and accept it, then it is up to you. But saying :
I think when you really think about what you are getting for $449, the is right. It is just the reality we are in now unfortunately. Competition for wafers for chip production is so high that things just do not get cheaper to manufacture anymore. While it probably sounds like a tired argument, inflation of various global currencies play a huge role. Besides, we have known of the Switch 2 for at least a year, before we knew the price, people should have been putting money away.
Is where i had the biggest problem, as you can save, but does not mean a company just becouse it is the new shinny deserves it. You can have and enjoy your switch 2, but i would like to revisit your opinion a few years later, and see how things are going.
I am an old ass gamer, and i have been slapped about by the like of Sega with the Sega saturn, with the dreamcast and with a lot of others who i had faith and was a fan of and heck i am still a fan.
But when they put something out, i am looking with a side eye, and braking down the value before i dare to touch it, and if i do not see the value. ...?
Waiting for price drop to see if it is worth my time, money and effort, and if not then the cost was not too high to eat it.
My point, regardless of the company, if they decide to misstreat thier customers, and abuse them, then they are no longer the company i love and do not deserve my money, my faith or anything else.
Just consider me an old man who is grouchy about thigs, do not worry you will get thier after your abused enough.
This happens with every console company when they start "winning". PS3, Sega Saturn, WiiU, Virtual Boy, Xbox One, 3DS and the Vita. Then it all falls on their face when they try to get greedy. I HOPE Nintendo fumbles hard like the WiiU days. Im praying so they can learn once again you dont gauge out your playerbase. I wish Yamaouchi was still around to see how shit Nintendo is.
In the meanwhile, Nintendo is threatening consumers that they'll raise prices even further... so buy your Switch 2 and $80 games NOWwhile they're "cheap!!"
I'd still argue that if you cannot legally get the game for a lower price it doesn't matter if the intent is scalping or not, it's about the end price.
Furthermore I'm also speaking of the price of SNES games back then with the inflation factor added in.
I'd still argue that if you cannot legally get the game for a lower price it doesn't matter if the intent is scalping or not, it's about the end price.
Furthermore I'm also speaking of the price of SNES games back then with the inflation factor added in.
And when you see how much Street Fighter II was back when it was new I feel that things weren't really as beautiful as we thought. View attachment 69901
Eventually, yes. Both the PS3 & "Xbone" had two of the most infamously disastrous reveals and launches of all time.
After the "$599" debacle that was mocked & meme'd everywhere, the PS3 took years to catch-up sales-wise to the 360, and the device just plain lacked much of any must-have games for several years... which was also mocked & meme'd everywhere.
The Xbone? It eventually sold less than half the units of its competitor, the PS4. And who can forget...
(iow, he said "screw you" to service members)
- Articles had to be written just hours after the reveal to assure customers that they CAN sell their games/buy used games, and they CAN share their games with friends (with account limitations)
We're seeing much of the same consumer uncertainty with the Switch 2 reveal as we did with the Xbone. How fucked is that?
And when you see how much Street Fighter II was back when it was new I feel that things weren't really as beautiful as we thought. View attachment 69901
Poh-tay-toe / Pah-tah-tow comparing cart games from the 90's to disc/digital games of today. First,. we have the breakdown of the cost of the game:
Of course, this is in British Pounds, so the cost breakdown with vary from country/region to another.
Second, the price of just making the cartridge, and I mean your average 8MB cart, was about $20. Up the memory? Add special chips (like the SFX, the CX4, etc.)? Up the price by another $10-$20. Then you have things like manuals & special non-ad inserts ($2 - $5 for the manual, depending on size). A Blu-ray? $1-$5 on average, and almost no-one prints manuals anymore. Digital distribution? Essentially free-of-cost.
Third, we have scale. Let's face it, in the 90's there were less gamers buying games, and not because global population was a billion-or-so fewer people than today. Gaming was simply a niche hobby back in the 90's. Google likes to claim that an SNES game would have to sell 500,000 copies to "break even", but Google AI is also a blithering idiot. Most games were made on a small budget, so even 100,000 copies globally would be a "break even" point on average.
Super Street Fighter II sold roughly 2-million copies globally on SNES, which would be a major success.
The only info I can find for sales numbers for another Capcom title at the same MSRP, Breath of Fire II on SNES, is that it sold 350,000 copies in Japan in its first year, and only 3.3-million copes globally across all 5 games and multiple ports up-to 2023. That's... the reason the series is considered dead - it was loved by a niche audience within a niche audience.
Chrono Trigger sold about 290,000 copies in the US, and just over 2-million copies in Japan.
EarthBound, considered a failure by Nintendo of America, sold 140,000 copies in the United States, and another 300,000 copies in Japan. With this, we can extrapolate that 300k was at least a moderate success, but 140k (with the inclusion of a full Players Guide for an extra $15 included into the $80 MSRP because Americans are stupid and can't RPG) was a miserable failure.
AAA games were also largely cheaper to make in the 90's compared to today. A good deal of the 16-bit games in the 90's were arcade conversions, meaning that the design, art, etc. were largely done - it was just the straight coding, marketing, and above-listed costs going into the game. For the titles that were wholly original, the games would be made by teams of typically 5-50, with only more added as "crunch" as the game neared its launch date to finish, and development time would be anywhere between 6-to-18 months on average (some games, like Mega Man 7, were made in 3 months, while other games may take two years at best).
<-- Obligatory Cap' Crunch joke.
Today? The only comparable numbers come from indie developers, as the "AAA" titles tend to have hundreds of people working on the game at any given time over the course of 5+ years... and many of those expenses and employees I would call bloat. Hell, the recent Assassins Creed Shadows game has a nearly two hour long credits roll:
The credits start at 5:46, and the "Terms & Conditions" start at 1:51:35.
Of course, the big factor when comparing game prices of 1995 to game prices of 2025 is that when the game was sold in 1995... it was done. No DLC. No patches. No bug-fixes. No post-release censorship (looking at you, Koei Tecmo Games). No microtransactions. No "Season Passes." No slot machine loot boxes. Today? Publishers like NIS America will sell DLC-packs for their games that are roughly equal to twice the price the initial MSRP. Star Wars Battlefront II? $2,100... or just 4,500 hours of game time to "unlock" for "free" - depending on what your time is worth.
The up-front price for games in 2025 can be equated to buying drugs: Your first hit is free, or for a "discounted" cost. You want more? Prepare your anus and stretch it goatse-wide because that's where you'll be paying out of. There's a few other considerations as well, such as global releases vs regional releases altering the up-front pricing of games, and the ease in which one may import. People may argue that the cost of DLC is to mitigate the cost of the used market, but the used game market was even stronger in 1995 than it is in 2025, with the majority of reselling coming from just a handful sources today.
The outside-gaming consideration when it comes to game prices is that people generally have more expenses in 2025 than they did in 1995, costs have increased for basic necessities like groceries and utilities far above the cost of inflation, yet wages have not increased with inflation. Sure, I make well over 3x the pay today than I did in 1995 (and I DID work (retail) in 1995), but when adjusting for inflation and adding the extra expenses I have today when compared to yesteryear? Eh...
And the same can be said for most consumers.
Jacking the up-front prices for games up higher than they are now will price people out, as people could afford $50-$70 and then buying the DLC and what-not over time (like paying a credit card, sadly). This is something the AAA market simply cannot afford - less up-front buyers = less DLC/etc. buyers. Yet either the company executives don't understand this, or the company shareholders don't understand this. Add to that the blatant anti-consumerism practices of gaming companies (like including a digital code on physical media to download the entire game, as an obvious example), and you have people who will simply turn to the vastly-less-expensive yet just-as-entertaining games (like Schedule-1 and Clair Obscur: Expedition 33) and ignore the too-expensive AAA market. Or, resort to piracy. Or, just play their backlog of titles they bought when gaming was affordable.
tl;dr: Pointing at a $79.95 price tag at an SNES advert and saying how expensive gaming was in 1995 is disingenuous at best.
Poh-tay-toe / Pah-tah-tow comparing cart games from the 90's to disc/digital games of today. First,. we have the breakdown of the cost of the game:View attachment 70146
Of course, this is in British Pounds, so the cost breakdown with vary from country/region to another.
Second, the price of just making the cartridge, and I mean your average 8MB cart, was about $20. Up the memory? Add special chips (like the SFX, the CX4, etc.)? Up the price by another $10-$20. Then you have things like manuals & special non-ad inserts ($2 - $5 for the manual, depending on size). A Blu-ray? $1-$5 on average, and almost no-one prints manuals anymore. Digital distribution? Essentially free-of-cost.
Third, we have scale. Let's face it, in the 90's there were less gamers buying games, and not because global population was a billion-or-so fewer people than today. Gaming was simply a niche hobby back in the 90's. Google likes to claim that an SNES game would have to sell 500,000 copies to "break even", but Google AI is also a blithering idiot. Most games were made on a small budget, so even 100,000 copies globally would be a "break even" point on average.
Super Street Fighter II sold roughly 2-million copies globally on SNES, which would be a major success.
The only info I can find for sales numbers for another Capcom title at the same MSRP, Breath of Fire II on SNES, is that it sold 350,000 copies in Japan in its first year, and only 3.3-million copes globally across all 5 games and multiple ports up-to 2023. That's... the reason the series is considered dead - it was loved by a niche audience within a niche audience.
Chrono Trigger sold about 290,000 copies in the US, and just over 2-million copies in Japan.
EarthBound, considered a failure by Nintendo of America, sold 140,000 copies in the United States, and another 300,000 copies in Japan. With this, we can extrapolate that 300k was at least a moderate success, but 140k (with the inclusion of a full Players Guide for an extra $15 included into the $80 MSRP because Americans are stupid and can't RPG) was a miserable failure.
AAA games were also largely cheaper to make in the 90's compared to today. A good deal of the 16-bit games in the 90's were arcade conversions, meaning that the design, art, etc. were largely done - it was just the straight coding, marketing, and above-listed costs going into the game. For the titles that were wholly original, the games would be made by teams of typically 5-50, with only more added as "crunch" as the game neared its launch date to finish, and development time would be anywhere between 6-to-18 months on average (some games, like Mega Man 7, were made in 3 months, while other games may take two years at best).
Today? The only comparable numbers come from indie developers, as the "AAA" titles tend to have hundreds of people working on the game at any given time over the course of 5+ years... and many of those expenses and employees I would call bloat. Hell, the recent Assassins Creed Shadows game has a nearly two hour long credits roll:
The credits start at 5:46, and the "Terms & Conditions" start at 1:51:35.
Of course, the big factor when comparing game prices of 1995 to game prices of 2025 is that when the game was sold in 1995... it was done. No DLC. No patches. No bug-fixes. No post-release censorship (looking at you, Koei Tecmo Games). No microtransactions. No "Season Passes." No slot machine loot boxes. Today? Publishers like NIS America will sell DLC-packs for their games that are roughly equal to twice the price the initial MSRP. Star Wars Battlefront II? $2,100... or just 4,500 hours of game time to "unlock" for "free" - depending on what your time is worth.
The up-front price for games in 2025 can be equated to buying drugs: Your first hit is free, or for a "discounted" cost. You want more? Prepare your anus and stretch it goatse-wide because that's where you'll be paying out of. There's a few other considerations as well, such as global releases vs regional releases altering the up-front pricing of games, and the ease in which one may import. People may argue that the cost of DLC is to mitigate the cost of the used market, but the used game market was even stronger in 1995 than it is in 2025, with the majority of reselling coming from just a handful sources today.
The outside-gaming consideration when it comes to game prices is that people generally have more expenses in 2025 than they did in 1995, costs have increased for basic necessities like groceries and utilities far above the cost of inflation, yet wages have not increased with inflation. Sure, I make well over 3x the pay today than I did in 1995 (and I DID work (retail) in 1995), but when adjusting for inflation and adding the extra expenses I have today when compared to yesteryear? Eh...
And the same can be said for most consumers.
Jacking the up-front prices for games up higher than they are now will price people out, as people could afford $50-$70 and then buying the DLC and what-not over time (like paying a credit card, sadly). This is something the AAA market simply cannot afford - less up-front buyers = less DLC/etc. buyers. Yet either the company executives don't understand this, or the company shareholders don't understand this. Add to that the blatant anti-consumerism practices of gaming companies (like including a digital code on physical media to download the entire game, as an obvious example), and you have people who will simply turn to the vastly-less-expensive yet just-as-entertaining games (like Schedule-1 and Clair Obscur: Expedition 33) and ignore the too-expensive AAA market. Or, resort to piracy. Or, just play their backlog of titles they bought when gaming was affordable.
tl;dr: Pointing at a $79.95 price tag at an SNES advert and saying how expensive gaming was in 1995 is disingenuous at best.
I could not have said it better my self. Thank you big for the more detailed brake down.
This is what we need, more people actually braking down and taking a closer look at the nuance to of game manufacturing then and now to see past all the marketing, posturing and manipulation.
I would like to see more people chime in to this to keep the discussion going,
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
