This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

What game IS worth $60 these days?

#41jorgestevensonPosted 3/20/2013 10:55:41 AM
Bud2003 posted...

Go back in time, and go to the grocery store, and see what $60 will get you....now come back to the future, go to the grocery store and again see how far down that grocery list $60 will get you. That is inflation!!!!


Allow me to take this opportunity to help you understand my argument.

My argument is not that inflation does not exist.

My argument is that the rate of inflation isn't some magical multiplier you can just slap on everything and make an intelligent argument. Herp derp...minimum wage was $6 in the 1960s, that's $22 in 2013! Why are we only making $7.25?! It's just moronic - you're making $7.25 because TODAY your opening and closing of a cash register, sweeping of a floor, or flipping of a burger is only worth $7.25. If we paid $50K per year to a guy for sweeping a floor, his neighbor would show up the next day offering to do it for $45K. And then the next day his neighbor would show up and offer to do it for $40K. That's because the value of sweeping floors is not worth $50K today. Similarly, if we offered $1K for sweeping the floor every day for a year, we'd only get complete riff-raff to take our offer. We want somebody who's presentable to customers, so we offer $15K per year.

That's the reality of supply and demand. Adam Smith didn't write Wealth of Nations to say, "Hey, people who are selling stuff: just take last year's price and multipy it by the inflation rate. People will think you're giving them a great deal!" No. Current market forces determine the price. The price from ten years ago is irrelevant.
#42Res5Posted 3/20/2013 10:56:44 AM
There are people who have to spend thousands of dollars on cars every year between insurance, little fixes and gas. There's people who buy and maintain firearms for several hundreds to thousands of dollars for something they probably use once every three to six months for a couple hours.

You wanna explain to me why $60 per game is a big deal? ESPECIALLY if you only buy games that are released within the last year $60 is a pittance.
---
Welcome....to the next best thing
http://highresgaming.blogspot.com
#43jorgestevensonPosted 3/20/2013 10:59:29 AM
Winternova posted...
jorgestevenson posted...
For the 100,000,000th time, you can't just take the price of something 10 years ago, adjust it for inflation, and say that today's games are cheap because they cost less than that.


And why not? Just because there are other options doesn't mean that you can't take the standard retail releases for consoles in the past and compare them to the standard releases today. It's an appropriate comparison.

For example, in 1982, Pitfall! was released for the Atari 2600 for $29.95. That's equivalent to $72.06 today. Pitfall! was programmed by one man, David Crane, in about 1000 hours and fit onto a 4 kilobyte cartridge. Compare that to today's development teams, budgets and game media sizes...a 6GB DVD-ROM could hold 1,572,864 copies of the entire Pitfall! game.

You're getting a lot more for the same amount of money than I was when I first started gaming!


Ok, and in 2013, how many videogames are on the market, competing for my dollar? How many more consumers of videogames are there? Ceteris aint exactly paribus - why do you want us to believe that it is?
#44Bud2003Posted 3/20/2013 11:01:51 AM
jorgestevenson posted...
Bud2003 posted...

Go back in time, and go to the grocery store, and see what $60 will get you....now come back to the future, go to the grocery store and again see how far down that grocery list $60 will get you. That is inflation!!!!


Allow me to take this opportunity to help you understand my argument.

My argument is not that inflation does not exist.

My argument is that the rate of inflation isn't some magical multiplier you can just slap on everything and make an intelligent argument. Herp derp...minimum wage was $6 in the 1960s, that's $22 in 2013! Why are we only making $7.25?! It's just moronic - you're making $7.25 because TODAY your opening and closing of a cash register, sweeping of a floor, or flipping of a burger is only worth $7.25. If we paid $50K per year to a guy for sweeping a floor, his neighbor would show up the next day offering to do it for $45K. And then the next day his neighbor would show up and offer to do it for $40K. That's because the value of sweeping floors is not worth $50K today. Similarly, if we offered $1K for sweeping the floor every day for a year, we'd only get complete riff-raff to take our offer. We want somebody who's presentable to customers, so we offer $15K per year.

That's the reality of supply and demand. Adam Smith didn't write Wealth of Nations to say, "Hey, people who are selling stuff: just take last year's price and multipy it by the inflation rate. People will think you're giving them a great deal!" No. Current market forces determine the price. The price from ten years ago is irrelevant.


I don't think you know which side you want to argue. First you cite, all the free s&*t you can get today versus a decade ago, now this?!? Get yourself together.

I don't even know where to start...
#45SheepinatorPosted 3/20/2013 11:03:36 AM
jorgestevenson posted...
My argument is that the rate of inflation isn't some magical multiplier you can just slap on everything and make an intelligent argument. Herp derp...minimum wage was $6 in the 1960s, that's $22 in 2013! Why are we only making $7.25?! It's just moronic - you're making $7.25 because TODAY your opening and closing of a cash register, sweeping of a floor, or flipping of a burger is only worth $7.25. If we paid $50K per year to a guy for sweeping a floor, his neighbor would show up the next day offering to do it for $45K. And then the next day his neighbor would show up and offer to do it for $40K. That's because the value of sweeping floors is not worth $50K today. Similarly, if we offered $1K for sweeping the floor every day for a year, we'd only get complete riff-raff to take our offer. We want somebody who's presentable to customers, so we offer $15K per year.

That's the reality of supply and demand. Adam Smith didn't write Wealth of Nations to say, "Hey, people who are selling stuff: just take last year's price and multipy it by the inflation rate. People will think you're giving them a great deal!" No. Current market forces determine the price. The price from ten years ago is irrelevant.

First of all, you don't know what inflation is.

Second, you can't pick and choose price changes in random completely unrelated items to assign value to games, while ironically at the same time dismissing the historical price of games! You're saying, "I don't care what games cost 10 or 20 years ago, what I'm saying is encyclopedias are cheaper, therefore games are expensive, ummm...."

Third, game prices are a function of the input costs, which have risen massively in the last decade while those higher costs have not been passed on to gamers. And yet gamers still whine, go figure.
---
My mad face and my happy face are the same.
#46Bud2003Posted 3/20/2013 11:04:39 AM
Bcowman posted...
Bud2003 posted...
That is inflation!!!!


Bud is demonstrating the serious problem of exclamation mark inflation. Back in the old days, we could use just one. Now, each sentence needs three or four to covey the same level of exclamation.


Well I hear it's rude to use all caps, so that's my alternative. Cool with you?!?!?!?!?!?!?
#47tadashii18Posted 3/20/2013 11:07:48 AM
SonyHoundDawg posted...
tadashii18 posted...
Sheepinator posted...
$60 is cheap, both historically compared to game prices in the past, and compared to other forms of entertainment.


What? How is $60 cheap compared to how games were once $40 and $50? And other forms of entertainment? Movies where I live are $11 for regular ad $13 for 3D, DVD's are like what, $30? YouTube is free, most fun mobile apps are under $10. The list goes on and on. There's probably a ton of things entertaining that cost less than $60.


$60 is cheap due to inflation. NES and SNES games were also $59.99 but this was in the late 80's early 90's. $60 backt hen is like $100 now.

Also were a number $80 nes games.

Games did go down to $49.99 in the PS1 eara, but that was probably like $70.00 now.


There were more games out back then than home consoles. Put into account handheld games, which are still cheap and very fun. Take Pokemon for example, it's been $34.95 for as long as I can remember AND it's under $60
---
Sent from my iPhone via PowerFaqs 1.10
Pokemon Black 2 FC - 3783 6998 1893
#48WinternovaPosted 3/20/2013 11:31:28 AM(edited)
jorgestevenson posted...
Ok, and in 2013, how many videogames are on the market, competing for my dollar? How many more consumers of videogames are there? Ceteris aint exactly paribus - why do you want us to believe that it is?


I admitted things aren't exactly the same - that's why a 4K game programmed by one man in 1000 man-hours is the same price as a 6GB game programmed by a large group of people over the course of two years. The number of consumers and the cheaper media prices are also why the price has remained relatively constant over the years and hasn't increased as they probably would have if the market was the same size.

No matter how much you illogically protest, it's a valid comparison.
---
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMKUUUvjjzo
Fan of: Steelers(6-time Champions), Red Wings(11-time Champions)
#49jorgestevensonPosted 3/20/2013 11:35:23 AM
Sheepinator posted...
First of all, you don't know what inflation is.

Second, you can't pick and choose price changes in random completely unrelated items to assign value to games, while ironically at the same time dismissing the historical price of games! You're saying, "I don't care what games cost 10 or 20 years ago, what I'm saying is encyclopedias are cheaper, therefore games are expensive, ummm...."

Third, game prices are a function of the input costs, which have risen massively in the last decade while those higher costs have not been passed on to gamers. And yet gamers still whine, go figure.


This might be the most factually incorrect post in gamefaqs history. 0/3.

Yes, you actually CAN compare games to other items to determine the price today because that is what consumers are actually doing when they make a purchase. Every purchase represents a consumer choosing to allocate his limited resources to that game. At the time he made the purchase, he had choices. The choices are all made based on the prices available to him on that day, not on the prices 10 years ago. For example, the choices might go something like this:

(a) buy Tomb Raider for $59.99
(b) buy Uncharted 2 for $14.99 and keep the remaining $45.00 for something else
(c) play a AAA f2p game like Planetside 2 and keep the remaining $59.99 for something else
(d) download an XBL, iPad, or cellphone game for $4.99 and keep the remaining $55.00 for something else
(e) go to the movies for $12.00 and keep the remaining $47.99 for something else
(f) watch a movie on Netflix for $7.99 and keep the remaining $52.00 for something else

The choices are basically infinite. The consumer is basically choosing among a menu of items offered to him on that day at current market prices. What he does NOT do is say, "Hey, $59.99 is so much cheaper than the inflation-adjusted $89.99 I was paying 10 years ago! Yeah, I'm gonna buy it. Righteous dude!" He still has to determine whether the $59.99 is a good value relative to the other benefits he could have gotten for $59.99 on the day of the purchase.

As for your last point about how price is a factor of cost...smh. Why would price have anything to do with cost? At the time of sale, the game has already been made. Therefore, the cost of the game is a sunk cost. The goal of the producer is therefore to get as much revenue as possible. The price at which they sell the game is therefore determined by which price will maximize revenue. For a $100M game, if revenue can be maximized by making the game free-to-play and selling DLC, then that is the price point that should be used. If revenue can be maximized by pricing the game at $30, then that is the price point that should be used.
#50Just_The_TipPosted 3/20/2013 11:49:38 AM
GTA V should be
---
Percy Harvin looks much better in blue. Men don't wear purple.
I heart the NFLB