The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Insane Bartender wrote:
Nintendo
> were asking for £75 for Street Fighter 2 Turbo 7-8 years ago.
Actually that was the price on import. It took so long for an official release over here, that most people already had it, so it cost no more than any other SNES game.
Nintendo
> were asking for £75 for Street Fighter 2 Turbo 7-8 years ago.
Actually that was the price on import. It took so long for an official release over here, that most people already had it, so it cost no more than any other SNES game.
What so it begins with gaming, and goes on about mars bars all the way?
SNIPER wrote:
> Strange this has nothing about gaming.
Yes it does. The price of games. Rising above inflation? Or not?
The original post had plenty to do with gaming.
My point had little to do with gaming.
But what does it matter anyway?
What did your post have to do with gaming?
Is there a new "only post stuff about games or we'll cut off your fingers rule?"
No?
Oh, it says 'discuss anything', and so we will.
> Strange this has nothing about gaming.
Yes it does. The price of games. Rising above inflation? Or not?
The original post had plenty to do with gaming.
My point had little to do with gaming.
But what does it matter anyway?
What did your post have to do with gaming?
Is there a new "only post stuff about games or we'll cut off your fingers rule?"
No?
Oh, it says 'discuss anything', and so we will.
This is getting stupid no wonder no one's winning in this forum.
I don't agree with this.
Firstly, games are becoming far more advanced than they are expensive.
Some of the flight simulators available now are superior to that which RAF pilots were trained on 5 years ago, and that kind of software cost in the thousands per licence.
Todays games are far better value for money. So the price is going up a bit, who cares. Nevermind the fact that game prices are not artificially inflated. Todays games cost far far far more to produce than the like of say, Elite, which took a handful of people to put together. Today you need countless very expensive coders to work on a game for an extended period of time.
Per game, I would imagine that the software houses are making LESS profit, and keeping prices low to avoid being priced out of the market.
I think games are very well priced, and given the visual quality and depth of gameplay available in some of todays games, I think that paying arond £30 for a PC game today, when Nintendo were asking for £75 for Street Fighter 2 Turbo 7-8 years ago, is a bargain, and we should be happy with it.
Insane Bartender
Firstly, games are becoming far more advanced than they are expensive.
Some of the flight simulators available now are superior to that which RAF pilots were trained on 5 years ago, and that kind of software cost in the thousands per licence.
Todays games are far better value for money. So the price is going up a bit, who cares. Nevermind the fact that game prices are not artificially inflated. Todays games cost far far far more to produce than the like of say, Elite, which took a handful of people to put together. Today you need countless very expensive coders to work on a game for an extended period of time.
Per game, I would imagine that the software houses are making LESS profit, and keeping prices low to avoid being priced out of the market.
I think games are very well priced, and given the visual quality and depth of gameplay available in some of todays games, I think that paying arond £30 for a PC game today, when Nintendo were asking for £75 for Street Fighter 2 Turbo 7-8 years ago, is a bargain, and we should be happy with it.
Insane Bartender
I don't agree with this.
Firstly, games are becoming far more advanced than they are expensive.
Some of the flight simulators available now are superior to that which RAF pilots were trained on 5 years ago, and that kind of software cost in the thousands per licence.
Todays games are far better value for money. So the price is going up a bit, who cares. Nevermind the fact that game prices are not artificially inflated. Todays games cost far far far more to produce than the like of say, Elite, which took a handful of people to put together. Today you need countless very expensive coders to work on a game for an extended period of time.
Per game, I would imagine that the software houses are making LESS profit, and keeping prices low to avoid being priced out of the market.
I think games are very well priced, and given the visual quality and depth of gameplay available in some of todays games, I think that paying arond £30 for a PC game today, when Nintendo were asking for £75 for Street Fighter 2 Turbo 7-8 years ago, is a bargain, and we should be happy with it.
Firstly, games are becoming far more advanced than they are expensive.
Some of the flight simulators available now are superior to that which RAF pilots were trained on 5 years ago, and that kind of software cost in the thousands per licence.
Todays games are far better value for money. So the price is going up a bit, who cares. Nevermind the fact that game prices are not artificially inflated. Todays games cost far far far more to produce than the like of say, Elite, which took a handful of people to put together. Today you need countless very expensive coders to work on a game for an extended period of time.
Per game, I would imagine that the software houses are making LESS profit, and keeping prices low to avoid being priced out of the market.
I think games are very well priced, and given the visual quality and depth of gameplay available in some of todays games, I think that paying arond £30 for a PC game today, when Nintendo were asking for £75 for Street Fighter 2 Turbo 7-8 years ago, is a bargain, and we should be happy with it.
Strange this has nothing about gaming.
Page: