The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Games are getting more expensive, not just in terms of price, but also in terms of the percentage of your weekly moolah they bite into.
A recent study conducted by my good self, spanning the last 8 years, compared the cost of computer games (Megadrive, Sony, Nintendo) against 3 common indices, the RPI, (Retail Prices Index), the AEI (Average Earnings Index), and a Mars Bar. You may think that the last item is strange, but in the world of statistics, the Mars Bar is actually a very good indicator of inflation, as it's usually unvarying with the difference between the AEI and the RPI.
So, whilst the humble Mars Bar will still take the same percentage of your weekly earnings today as it did 8 years ago, the games you buy for your console are actually eating an extra 17% more of your money today than they did 8 years ago. (Using average earnings statistics for 1993 showed that a Megadrive game back then would only take about 5% of your weekly wage to buy). Now a Dreamcast game can eat up 23% of your weekly wage, going on it's current RRP.
The trend is also ever upwards, unlike the RPI, the AEI and the Mars Bar. The RPI and AEI have always snaked about a bit, sometimes with the AEI graph above the RPI (everything seems cheap, good for us) and sometimes below it (everything seems expensive, bad for us). The Mars Bar is a nice gentle curve between the modal points of the AEI and RPI graphs.
But console games? Very nearly a straight line, and always going upwards from left to right. Common sense says that this should flatten out. But when? We have only had indications recently that as games are getting more sophisticated in design and content that this worrying trend will continue, and it will get to the stage where they are eating more than 50% of the average weekly wage within 4 years if the current slope of the graph is indicative of things to come.
But, statistics also predict that by the year 2004 94% of the world's population will be Elvis Presley impersonators, so don't let the numbers fool you.
Still, I don't like the look of these results.
A recent study conducted by my good self, spanning the last 8 years, compared the cost of computer games (Megadrive, Sony, Nintendo) against 3 common indices, the RPI, (Retail Prices Index), the AEI (Average Earnings Index), and a Mars Bar. You may think that the last item is strange, but in the world of statistics, the Mars Bar is actually a very good indicator of inflation, as it's usually unvarying with the difference between the AEI and the RPI.
So, whilst the humble Mars Bar will still take the same percentage of your weekly earnings today as it did 8 years ago, the games you buy for your console are actually eating an extra 17% more of your money today than they did 8 years ago. (Using average earnings statistics for 1993 showed that a Megadrive game back then would only take about 5% of your weekly wage to buy). Now a Dreamcast game can eat up 23% of your weekly wage, going on it's current RRP.
The trend is also ever upwards, unlike the RPI, the AEI and the Mars Bar. The RPI and AEI have always snaked about a bit, sometimes with the AEI graph above the RPI (everything seems cheap, good for us) and sometimes below it (everything seems expensive, bad for us). The Mars Bar is a nice gentle curve between the modal points of the AEI and RPI graphs.
But console games? Very nearly a straight line, and always going upwards from left to right. Common sense says that this should flatten out. But when? We have only had indications recently that as games are getting more sophisticated in design and content that this worrying trend will continue, and it will get to the stage where they are eating more than 50% of the average weekly wage within 4 years if the current slope of the graph is indicative of things to come.
But, statistics also predict that by the year 2004 94% of the world's population will be Elvis Presley impersonators, so don't let the numbers fool you.
Still, I don't like the look of these results.
Page:
Games are getting more expensive, not just in terms of price, but also in terms of the percentage of your weekly moolah they bite into.
A recent study conducted by my good self, spanning the last 8 years, compared the cost of computer games (Megadrive, Sony, Nintendo) against 3 common indices, the RPI, (Retail Prices Index), the AEI (Average Earnings Index), and a Mars Bar. You may think that the last item is strange, but in the world of statistics, the Mars Bar is actually a very good indicator of inflation, as it's usually unvarying with the difference between the AEI and the RPI.
So, whilst the humble Mars Bar will still take the same percentage of your weekly earnings today as it did 8 years ago, the games you buy for your console are actually eating an extra 17% more of your money today than they did 8 years ago. (Using average earnings statistics for 1993 showed that a Megadrive game back then would only take about 5% of your weekly wage to buy). Now a Dreamcast game can eat up 23% of your weekly wage, going on it's current RRP.
The trend is also ever upwards, unlike the RPI, the AEI and the Mars Bar. The RPI and AEI have always snaked about a bit, sometimes with the AEI graph above the RPI (everything seems cheap, good for us) and sometimes below it (everything seems expensive, bad for us). The Mars Bar is a nice gentle curve between the modal points of the AEI and RPI graphs.
But console games? Very nearly a straight line, and always going upwards from left to right. Common sense says that this should flatten out. But when? We have only had indications recently that as games are getting more sophisticated in design and content that this worrying trend will continue, and it will get to the stage where they are eating more than 50% of the average weekly wage within 4 years if the current slope of the graph is indicative of things to come.
But, statistics also predict that by the year 2004 94% of the world's population will be Elvis Presley impersonators, so don't let the numbers fool you.
Still, I don't like the look of these results.
A recent study conducted by my good self, spanning the last 8 years, compared the cost of computer games (Megadrive, Sony, Nintendo) against 3 common indices, the RPI, (Retail Prices Index), the AEI (Average Earnings Index), and a Mars Bar. You may think that the last item is strange, but in the world of statistics, the Mars Bar is actually a very good indicator of inflation, as it's usually unvarying with the difference between the AEI and the RPI.
So, whilst the humble Mars Bar will still take the same percentage of your weekly earnings today as it did 8 years ago, the games you buy for your console are actually eating an extra 17% more of your money today than they did 8 years ago. (Using average earnings statistics for 1993 showed that a Megadrive game back then would only take about 5% of your weekly wage to buy). Now a Dreamcast game can eat up 23% of your weekly wage, going on it's current RRP.
The trend is also ever upwards, unlike the RPI, the AEI and the Mars Bar. The RPI and AEI have always snaked about a bit, sometimes with the AEI graph above the RPI (everything seems cheap, good for us) and sometimes below it (everything seems expensive, bad for us). The Mars Bar is a nice gentle curve between the modal points of the AEI and RPI graphs.
But console games? Very nearly a straight line, and always going upwards from left to right. Common sense says that this should flatten out. But when? We have only had indications recently that as games are getting more sophisticated in design and content that this worrying trend will continue, and it will get to the stage where they are eating more than 50% of the average weekly wage within 4 years if the current slope of the graph is indicative of things to come.
But, statistics also predict that by the year 2004 94% of the world's population will be Elvis Presley impersonators, so don't let the numbers fool you.
Still, I don't like the look of these results.
Lots of shops used to sell NES games at £45 pounds over 10 years ago.
Today most new N64 games cost £45-£50.
10 years ago I got about £2.50 a week pocket money, these days I earn roughly £230 per week, after tax and other deductions.
How come I have significantly less games now, that I had when I was 13?
And why do I eat less Mars bars?
Today most new N64 games cost £45-£50.
10 years ago I got about £2.50 a week pocket money, these days I earn roughly £230 per week, after tax and other deductions.
How come I have significantly less games now, that I had when I was 13?
And why do I eat less Mars bars?
This is true, back in the late 80s the most you would pay for a Megadrive game was £39.99 (unless it was a special edition) and the 1994 average was £27.32. The Nintendo average back then on the SNES was £32.78. Nintendo have been pretty good, but Sony and Sega are the main culprits for the overall prices getting steeper.
You have less games now because your wife has found better ways to spend your money.
You eat less Mars Bars now because..... because....., damn. Got me there.
You have less games now because your wife has found better ways to spend your money.
You eat less Mars Bars now because..... because....., damn. Got me there.
FantasyMeiste® wrote:
You have less games now because your wife has
> found better ways to spend your money.
I wouldn't consider then better, but apparently we need new bottles for a new baby, and a new changing bag for a new baby, and a new pram for a new baby.....
....And then there's the credit card bills....
..heating oil...
...electricity...
...council tax...
...water...
...rent...
Oh to have the financial responsibilities of a twelve year old again...
You have less games now because your wife has
> found better ways to spend your money.
I wouldn't consider then better, but apparently we need new bottles for a new baby, and a new changing bag for a new baby, and a new pram for a new baby.....
....And then there's the credit card bills....
..heating oil...
...electricity...
...council tax...
...water...
...rent...
Oh to have the financial responsibilities of a twelve year old again...
azzido wrote:
> lmao@FM and meka
eh?
> lmao@FM and meka
eh?
Strange this has nothing about gaming.
Page: