Originally Posted by RiverOfIce
The only problem with your logic.
in 1990's, the price was 30 bucks, cost was maybe 1 million dollars.
In 2000, price was 40 bucks, cost was 20 million dollars
In 2014, price is 145, cost to make is 100 million dollars.
5 times increase in the cost to make, but yet they are not suppose to charge 5 times the cost.
You forgot inflation, And add to that the fact that there were PLENTY of games in the 90s that cost $50-60 or MORE a pop...
Heres a good example from 91, Note the Genesis game costing $68 (Strider) and lets not touch on the Neo Geo (Yes, those are GAMES for $199 each) "Oh but those are consoles" Fine, Space Quest IV is $49.99, so is Sim Earth..
Moving later in the 90s I remember $60 and $70 games for the N64, I remember saving up a LONG time to buy one, so i mostly rented them...
Games today would be closer to $150 a pop most likely if it wasnt for the larger audience that gaming reaches today, Gaming is more popular in this decade than it ever was and has evolved from a fringe hobby to a fairly large part of our society.
Heres an article about it, including calculating based on inflation
Of course, you really don't see the old gaming companies around any more. Orion, Micropose, atari... don't really exist anymore. I wonder why?
Oh they went bankrupt!!!!
Did you mean Origin Systems?
Ok lets break it down.. Origin systems was a victim of a bad time, Floppy disk prices went through the roof during a bad economic situation and literally the only people who could help were EA
EA then just well.. ruined all the things, Announced projects, cancelled projects, threw staff around, etc, did not create a good work environment and never produced anything. Shame really. Of this list Origin is the only one that really just was a victim of absolute horrible timing...
Microprose had an inability to manage its business and remain profitable and spent a lot of time courting other companies who acquired them and then just didnt know what to do with them, But hey, technically their strongest properties (Civilization and XCOM) are still going strong
As for Atari, its a long complicated tale that very basically has to do with "Jack Tramiel bought Atari right when they were going to launch the 7800, Some legal disagreements happen and delay its introduction for 2 years" which killed their momentum, Had the 7800 done alright in the marketplace Atari might have had a stronger game presence, the NES might not have taken hold of the US market the way it did (because companies would have not backed the NES or Nintendo's liscensing agreement might not have been as strict) and things could have played out differently, in regards to their computers, Not sure what happened there but if I had to take a guess it was just the sheer volume of sales and such on PC Compatibles that killed them off... Atari had a LONG time here to fix itself and never did, they never got the third party support needed to make the Jaguar successful (Primarily due to poor sales performance, tho the programmnig difficulties didnt help)
So yeah.. Two of those companies sadly deserved to die, They messed up, and in Atari's case had a LONG while to try to fix themselves and failed repeatedly.
On the DLC arguement, Well, I think the problem today is that the companies actually TELL us about the DLC plans up front, in the old days? We got a sequel or an expansion pack... The sequel might be full price, $40-50, an expansion pack might be $22, And back then? The internet wasnt as populated back then to tell you if an expansion pack was worth it or not. Im fairly sure there were quite a few expansion packs that sucked (Star Trek Voyager Elite Force's expansion pack IMMEDIATELY comes to mind, I think it was nearly $30 for essentially a couple new missions, literally, and a "virtual voyager" experience, all of which was awful)
Seriously, in the old days companies might have been just as bad, or worse than today, and we just simply put didnt know about it because the internet was still a much smaller place, social media didnt exist and games just didnt get the absurd marketing they do today...
These days I think people misunderstand something when companies come out announcing DLC near the launch of a game, its not necessarily always cut content, but its a "Continuing promise", Not for us the gamers, but for investors and such who have been told this "DLC" thing makes a lot of cash, It shows that this "title" is going to be making money for several quarters and thus now is a good time to invest in the company... (Side note this is also why unfortunately DRM is still so pervasive, Investors like seeing the product is "protected" and frankly dont understand pirates, piracy or the fact that many DRM schemes dont work correctly.)
Yes sometimes theres content cut from release to be shoved in a DLC, but sometimes I'd counter argue that a lot of the DLC (so long as its not launch day DLC) is simply stuff that would have otherwise ended up on the cutting room floor...
Essentially when I see someone complaining that a $60 game with a good 50+ hour story experience will be getting DLC a few months after release, I start to roll my eyes at the person complaining. a 50 hour experience is already a very stout experience
When a $60 game launches with another $740 worth of DLC bull on day one, including a character who has an interesting insight and perspective on the story's current situation, Then you have a legitimate complaint.
When a $60 installment of an annually updated online FPS game launches with 2 modes, 3 maps and then announces a $60 subscription for the next year to get the rest of the maps, You have a legitimate complaint
When a $60 game has DLC units/weapons/etc that affect game balance negatively or bring nothing interesting or new to the table period, you have a legitimate complaint.
I think sometimes people are too twitchy on DLC... Ive played lots of good DLC and just not purchased the stupid ones...