Game prices for the past 30 years haven’t kept pace with inflation.

I recognise the argument that publishers are shifting larger volumes of units now, which has been a factor that has allowed the industry to keep price increases below inflation for the last 30 years.

Wages not being even close to keeping up with inflation (especially housing inflation) is the real issue here, not the $70/$80 video game.

You should be angry at your reduced purchasing power in all of society, not just with the price of Nintendo games.

(Secondary less unpopular opinion, the best games out these days are multiplatform and released at least 5 years ago, buy them for << $80 and wait for sale the new releases, when they too are 5 years old)

  • bigredcar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    One thing that was different in the 90s was that even though games were expensive to buy outright rental shops were common. I played loads of N64, SNES and Mega Drive games for paying £2.99 for the weekend. Plus games were more stand alone as well so you got more for your money.

  • Lightor@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    This is really about late stage capitalism and chasing infinite growth. Every year profits must go up X percentage. There is never enough. So they have to find ways to make it to up, cutting wages and increasing prices is the obvious way.

    • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      An $80 game today is cheaper than $60 games decades ago. There are also a large category of free to play games which didn’t exist before the Internet.

      • Lightor@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        They also don’t have to print games to discs and ship them around the world anymore.

        They also don’t have to develop their own engines. Some dude with little to no experience can make a functional game in a few days now. Not to mention functions in UE5 like LOD control do a lot of the work that devs had to handle.

        They also have Moore’s Law on their side: The average laptop can now develop what required a $10,000 workstation in 2000.

        They also now pack games with microtransactions to make even more money.

        They also now sell DLC for games to make more money.

        They also now re-release games, which takes a fraction of the effort and still charge a disproportionate price.

        Games, objectively, should be cheaper. This is just the hunger for more and more.

        • antimidas@sopuli.xyz
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 months ago

          Yep, and truth be told if I had the option of paying 90 € for an actual physical copy without microtransactions, DLC instead of having all content in the game from launch, no online access required and no copy protection on the disc, I’d gladly pay that. 100 € even, if it’s a particularly good game.

          But I have zero trust in that being the case with the increased prices, it’s just going to be the same thing we now have, more expensively.

          • Lightor@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            Hell ya, I would, too, 100%. Imagine actually owning a game with all of the content on a disk you can share and resell.

            I agree with you, though; there is no incentive for companies to do this; they would make less money and have less control over the content. They can’t stand that.

  • samus12345@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    3 months ago

    Game prices are absolutely a problem still. The price of a game is just the entry fee. Then there’s subscriptions, MTX, etc. If you add in everything you need to make a game a complete experience like they were pre-download era, games cost more even with inflation factored in.

    • slimerancher@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      Depend on the game. There are still many single players games that don’t have any MTX etc, Sony first party games are like that, and so are most Nintendo games. Sony often release a DLC, which cost more, but that’s more money for more content, and you don’t need DLC.

      • samus12345@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        Thankfully, that’s true! But looking at the industry as a whole, they’re making far more money than they ever have and the costs of creating physical copies has even decreased significantly since it’s mostly digital now. Games with a heavy focus on online play or that have MTX should cost less, but they never do.

        • slimerancher@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          Completely agree, for every case where the increased price may makes sense, there are dozens (if not hundreds) where it makes no sense at all (other than increasing the profit of shareholders, which makes complete sense).

  • BananaTrifleViolin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    Yeah this is absolutely correct. When you look at prices and adjust for inflation $80 now is about right.

    The value of money has gone down, and the value of pay cheques and salaries have not increased to keep up.

    Unfortunately this often gets sidelined with “what aboutism” - like what about the dysfunctional AAA market, and predatory big publishers like EA that churn our crap, or all the publishers trying to build microtransactions into games. These are also ALL valid issues, but it doesn’t change the fundamentals that video games cost around $80 in 2000 when adjusted for inflation.

    The video game industry can be dysfunctional AND we’re also being screwed over by dysfunctional unequal capitalism causing declining living standards at the same time.

    • pyre@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      no. they don’t even make physical media anymore. the cost is lowered on each copy. they ask for a ton of extra payments. they can suck shit and die. games can be 30 bucks and still stay profitable. the games industry makes more money than Hollywood. stop defending them while they’re trying to pluck your last dime.

      • PangurBan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        How much did a video game cost to make compared to today?

        Same thing with movies. With everything.

        We’re not playing polygon tomb raider anymore.

        • pyre@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          how many copies could they sell back then vs now? how much did it cost to make, stock and ship a physical copy worldwide vs being able to provide infinite copies everywhere only using the bandwidth when necessary?

          no one’s asking for billions to be spent on games. companies being horribly managed by businessman who have no idea how games work or what’s important in a game, forcing i live service bullshit, chasing trends, making big empty worlds full of pointless busywork does not mean the games should cost 80 dollars.

          ninja theory already proved you can make an insanely good looking game with a tiny budget and sell it for 30 bucks and turn a profit. meanwhile the biggest companies including ones owned by evil billionaires can easily shit out concord and starfields wasting years and millions on steaming turds.

          also things haven’t only become more expensive. they’ve become cheaper too. there are more tools, better hardware and software for cheaper if not free that allows people to do more than ever before with less than ever before. the indie scene is 1000x more powerful today than it was back then for this reason.

          and you’re talking about polygon tomb raider while these companies are trying to sell you recolored skins for 10 bucks even though it took an unpaid intern about 45 seconds to use a color swap on a 2d texture.

  • BeigeAgenda@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    35 years ago I didn’t get a Super Nintendo or Sega because you could get 12 Commodore 64 games for the same price as a single Mario game. And a few years later my dad got hold of a 286 so we could play DOS games like Wolfenstein.

  • drinkwaterkin@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Wage stagnation is absolutely heartbreaking.

    But even if I were making a livable wage, Nintendo’s prices and other AAA are still ridiculous. The Steam wishlist sale life is the good life.

  • Chef_Boyardee@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Same with porn. But now, the only fans type sites are ridiculously expensive and you don’t even know what the hell you’re paying for until you pay.

  • Omega@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    Huh, unpopular opinion.

    Does Lemmy know that popular opinions need to be downvoted? Smh…

    • overload@sopuli.xyzOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      The unpopular part is that I disagree with the discussion which is microscopically focussed on raging at game publishers, citing corporate greedy as the only reason game prices are so high.

      $80 should be an affordable amount of money to spend for someone on an average wage for a game (not unpopular).

  • Saff@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    62
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Are the game developers and artists wages now being increased by the same percentage though? You are correct overall, especially in places like the UK where wages have been stagnant since like 2008 it feels like. But letting a company off the hook for raises “due to inflation” if they themselves are not raising their workers salaries to meet that inflation is bullshit.

    • RustyShackleford@literature.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      49
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Welcome to being an adult and finally realizing capitalism mainly involves screwing the workers and increasing product prices to make investors happy. We were never meant to be happy, just milked to death.

      • StaticFalconar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        The math works out to be the CEOs pay raise is high enough, that on average with all the other 99.99% of the workers, it has kept up with inflation.

    • Korhaka@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Good news, wages are no longer stagnant! Minimum wage has started to catch up to many professional jobs at this point. Outside of London anyway.

  • remon@ani.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    The problem is throw-away game culture and generally low quality games. A good game can provide you with years of content and would be well worth a >$80 price tag.

    But people keep paying the same prices for trash games they play for 2 weeks and then move on. And honestly, they deserve these prices.

    • Nikls94@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      3 months ago

      I totally agree with you. And I want to add the games that you can only experience once, like Tunic, PEZ and OuterWilds.

      And I’d change the “years of content” to something like “you can play it once every few years and it’s still good”

      • remon@ani.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        18
        ·
        3 months ago

        And I’d change the “years of content” to something like “you can play it once every few years and it’s still good”

        I would not.

        If you have a game you can only play once a every few years, its probalby a singleplay/campaign only game. THOSE are the issue. Get a game with a good multiplayer and you can play it perpetually … for decades even.

        • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          Fuck multiplayer. Been there, did that for years before it turned to shit.

          Modern multiplayer games all just use gambling addiction tactics and FOMO to keep you coming back instead of providing a good experience.

            • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              3 months ago

              There aren’t many multiplayer games without loot boxes, limited time offers for real money, or pay to win mechanics anymore.

              • remon@ani.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                You’re probably right, I wouldn’t know. I play very few games and even fewer recent ones. Last one I picked up is Age of Empires IV, but as a classic RTS sequel it doesn’t suffer from any of the things you mentioned.

        • Gamoc@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          23
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Single player campaigns are literally the best type of games. Fomo bullshit, constant nagging to buy stuff, and relying on internet dickheads for the experience and hoping they won’t just grief or insult everyone the whole time is awful.

        • Nikls94@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          3 months ago

          Smash Bros and MarioKart come to my mind. Particularly MarioKart64 and the 4-Player Versus mode (the best)

          A lot of people, and I mean a heck of a lot of people, don’t like multiplayer games. And a lot of people don’t like those long games like AnimalCrossing. A lot of people hate sandbox games like Minecraft, and I know a lot of people who hate open world games like the Witcher. I like frustrating games like Celeste and Kaizo ROM hacks, both of them are hated by a lot of people.

          There’s games for everyone, and that’s good. The problem is the quality of the games.

        • phdepressed@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          3 months ago

          That’s a very self-centric view. Single player games exist because sometimes I want to immerse in a game world not deal with 3 randos(or even friends) and do “the objective” over and over. Yeah multi-player can be fun, but it is a a lot less immersive and rarely as relaxing.

          • remon@ani.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            3 months ago

            Sure, nothing wrong with single player games in general. But I wouldn’t pay $80 for a game that can be “finished” in a couple of days. If people want to do that, that’s fine of course. But don’t complain about game prices if you’re specifically selecting the games with the worst playtime/price ratio.

            • phdepressed@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              If you’re “finished” with an $80 single player game in a couple of days either the game was shit or the way you play without doing any side stuff or more difficult achievements means single player isn’t for you. A good single player game is worth replaying or trying new things in. Personally a game that gives at least an hour of play per dollar is worth it to me.

              • remon@ani.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                No, I was actually considering multiple playthroughs as well as clearing it to 100%. (Though some games also put in some ridicilous grinds that make reaching 100% extremly time-consuming, those I consider asshole design and are not included).

                I’m talking a couple of days playtime, not a couple of days real time.

                an hour of play per dollar

                That’s only 3.333 days of playtime for an $80 game … I don’t think that is very good.

                • phdepressed@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  Do you play 24h a day? An 80h game will take me months. If it is enjoyable for those 80h that is well worth for me. I don’t want to spend hours struggling and getting griefed or playing smurfs just to get to a point where I know the “meta” or whatever. I’m not in the position to grind and compete in those games anymore. I’m done with them except for special occasions. Overwatch, DRG, helldivers etc not fun for me. Yeah, I’ll still play l4d2 or rocket league occasionally. I put my time in tf2 and guild wars, but I’m still in act I of Baldurs Gate III and it’s fun and interesting. Hades is great (though runs are a little long). I’ll get horizon zero dawn and hades 2 at some point. I’m not getting overwatch 2 or whatever the modern multi-player is.

    • Kühlschrank@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      Adding to that - Nintendo is one of the few devs that actually consistently provides the kind of games you’re talking about. I feel like Ubisoft selling their next cookie-cutter shopping-list BS for $80 is offensive, but Nintendo doing it is bearable and maybe even justifiable.

      I do worry that Nintendo’s $80 price tag will normalize $80 games. Ideally, it would be nice if it instead normalized seeing games at a wider variety of fair prices.

  • the_q@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    While wages are an issue, AAA gaming is more about C-suite satisfaction and the continued growth of the capitalist way of life.

    Indie devs can make gold for $9.99.

    • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Indie devs can make gold for $9.99.

      I’ve spent less than $20 for all of the Vampire Survivors content, and gotten 250 hours of enjoyment out of it.

      Sucks to suck, EA.

    • SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      3 months ago

      A big problem is ignorant Csuite scaling up a games developer studio and expecting more cooks in the kitchen will make a higher quality product.

      The indie teams make great full experiences with realistic scope because it’s a team of like 20 or less who are all on the same page instead of hundreds of employees.

    • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      3 months ago

      Indie devs have infinitely less overhead than AAA game studios, so of course they can.

      • Lightor@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        And they have infinitely less funding and marketing. They don’t have the overhead but they don’t have the benefits of that overhead either and will succeed.

  • Jessica@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    Wow this is incredible. I get to reuse my meme I just made a few days ago! Now that’s what I call value

  • emeralddawn45@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    I mean both are the problem, obviously. And they’re both symptoms of tne larger problem, which is late stage capitalism slowly sucking every last drop of labor value out of everyone. Game companies are making more profits than they did 30 years ago, so you can’t tell me they ‘need’ to raise prices. And their CEO salaries are higher than ever, and developer salaries have not risen accordingly to justify the price increase. If a game company said ‘we’re raising our prices from 60 to 90 dollars, but we’re also giving every employee a 1/3 salary increase’ people might not be happy still but it would be a different conversation. But why should people who are struggling have to pay more for nothing except an increase in ‘shareholder value’ and the c-suites salary package? Thats fucked.

  • LoreSoong@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    The prices should go down to 40$(or stay 60$ based on inflation) if I dont actually own the game imo. If the company is going to be so bold as to sell “game keys” with no actual data on the cart, coupled with the fact that the EShop has been shut down on the WiiU and 3DS(you can redownload games still, but how long until that goes away?). To me is a huge middle finger, and basically planned obsolesence on the switch 2 since you will no longer be able to redownload your games once they stop supporting the consoles servers.

    If i do the “smart” thing and get the switch 2 after a major price drop, every games lifespan will be even shorter. fuck nintendo, mod your switch & switch 2(when thats available) pirate everything from them and get your moneys worth for the overpriced hardware.

    • Coreidan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      if i do the “smart” thing and get the switch 2 after a major price drop

      No the smart thing is never giving Nintendo your money.