Super Mario 64 was released in 1996 for $69.99 in the United

>>384114037

Mario 64 was good. Your average AAA title these days is not.

Who cares about nintendo and half a presses?

>>384114037
Because recession, structural unemployment and salaries not rising in accordance to inflation.

>>384114118
t."""""""""Henry""""""""""

>>384114037
ROM cartridges cost $30 to make that cost was factored into the game's prices and it's what fucking killed the N64 while the PS1 had games typically go for $20 cheaper.
Because CDs and DVDs and Blu-Ray discs cost pennies to print.

N64 games were so expensive Nintendo got sued and has to pay huge fines

Nobody was really ok with N64 prices. And nobody is really ok today with all the dlc and limited edition preorder bullshit

File: image.png (728KB, 1136x640px) Image search: [Google]

728KB, 1136x640px

>>384114037
>inflation
There is no such thing as might as well call a meme 2bh

Inflation? In 1998, 70 dollars bought you a new mario game. In 2017, 70 dollars can buy you a new mario game with ten dollars to spare. So no, videogame prices are not inflated.

>>384114601
>>384114775
Are you legit retarded?

>>384114896
Are you retarded? There is no one inflation. Economists use different inflation indexes on a basis of context. So in the last twenty years things such as houses and tuition have experienced inflation. Whereas food and electronics have seen deflation. As I pointed out, videogames are one thing that is actually cheaper in 2017 than in 1998.

File: prices2-1.png (32KB, 1143x1126px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 1143x1126px

>>384115071
This

>>384115071
Again, are you retarded?

>>384115071
>As I pointed out, videogames are one thing that is actually cheaper in 2017 than in 1998.
That's the whole point of the OP you fucking retard.

>>384115387
TVs cost 1/25th of what they did in 1996? How did anyone own a TV prior to that?

>>384115532
I assume that's due to changing the standard from the crt to 4k hd plasma thc lsd over the 20 years and bigger dimensions and somehow calculating costs from that.

Because if the game doesn't look like it's worth $60 I just pirate it. If it's $20 but worth it's salt, I actually pay for it

>>384115709
While admittedly everything's an LCD now; even 19" TVs are still $80.That means that they were worth 2K back when. But assuming this is specifically about the specific make; I guess that would make sense. Still it doesn't seem like it'd be that hard to add 3 letters to the chart if that was the case.

>>384115071
Yes. The actual currency itself is devalued. In terms of purchasing power on any large basket of goods used as a base(purchasing power parity). Videogames "deflating" is literally the fucking point of op. To make the price of videogames consistent in terms of ratio of its price to that of other goods in the basket, it would have to cost $110, which it doesn't so it's cheaper. Dollar amounts are arbitrary in essence. The value is solely in comparison to other goods. If you, say print twice the money, eventually everything will be twice as much. This is called inflation you dumb fuck.

>>384116045
>>384115071
Meant consumer price index not ppp. Had a freudian slip.

>>384114775
This.
Just like in Japan games are 8,000 Yen so they must be 133x as expensive!

File: vcr-pricey.jpg (71KB, 640x312px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 640x312px

>in the early 80s vhs tapes cost 80-100$
>for 2 hours of movie
>on your 700$ vcr
>I don't know how much tvs cost back then but it probably was a shitload

File: Ad1975_May_MX-65_ModernData-45.jpg (200KB, 1003x1436px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 1003x1436px

>pc gaming is affordab-

Distribution costs have dropped considerably. Videogames now can have a literal $0 variable cost, $0 shelf space, thanks to digital distribution. So what happens is once they soak up all the sales from $60, they can keep dropping the price further to soak up more consumers, I mean if it existed in a vacuum you would be better off selling a game at $0.01 once everyone willing to pay $0.02 had it, now they don't do that since they know it will hurt future sales from people looking to save money.
But what was once a $20 bin is a $2.50 bin. And buying a 10 year old gsmeis easy as piss. You don't have to worry about it going out of print, because again there is 0 variable cost, as supposed to physical games which you had to ship out units, becoming unprofitable past a certain point, especially when combined with limiting shelving units, then it would turn to used markets which ebgames priced fairly high with no competition from Craigslist. It was often a challenge to find a particular old game.
Now every game going on sale at $60 has the potential to be $5 not to long from now so it makes it harder for consumers to stomache.

>>384116719
tl;dr: do to the removal of per unit scarcity and drastic reductions of distribution costs, the price floor for videogames is drastically lower making the gap between a games highest and lowest prices drastically larger. So while the game itself is cheaper. The luxury of getting it day one is drastically more expensive.

File: wishbook.jpg (548KB, 665x899px) Image search: [Google]

548KB, 665x899px

>The U-Force and the Rolling Rocker were both the cost of a video game

>>384114037
>inflation
Cool buzz word reddit

Back then games were higher quality

You have to remember than an N64 console cost just $199.

A 3dfx Voodoo ALONE cost $299 and it didn't even do 2D so you needed a second video card. Then factor in the ridiculously high price of RAM in the 90s.

It wasn't that N64 was that cheap, it was that the alternatives on PC were super expensive. I guess if you really wanted to be a cheapskate back then you'd just get a PS1, modchip it, and play burned games.

>>384117703
to be fair this was 1990 when the NES hardware was already on its way of getting phased out

>>384114037
> Even with DLC, most games stay under $100, especially if a season pass is offered.
Get a load of this god's chosen people.

File: 1311834766688.jpg (32KB, 300x379px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 300x379px

N64 games were more expensive because of the carts
PS1 games were much cheaper

OP is ignoring this because hes underage

>>384118175
3D PC gaming wasn't even a thing back then, it was a niche of niche

That's why they could get away with over charging for the Voodoo, it probably cost them 50 bucks to make

File: nintendo games.png (2MB, 1382x924px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1382x924px

>>384118261
'89, actually. Here's the games.

File: sega games.jpg (805KB, 1382x924px) Image search: [Google]

805KB, 1382x924px

>>384118498
And the hot new Sega Genesis.

>>384114037
It was because cartridges were expensive, PS1 games didn't cost that much, not an argument.

>>384115387
Notice how all the shit that actually matters is far more expensive.

>Capitalism works because your toys are cheaper now!

File: d52f6ee90da652f3209d73c9ba20d7e2[1].jpg (693KB, 741x960px) Image search: [Google]

693KB, 741x960px

Super Metroid blown the fuck out.

>>384118862
those are some low, low prices.

Because most people on this board are unemployed and even underage in a lot of cases.

>>384118591
Actually, they did. Ffvii was 70 bucks.

>>384114037
There was a point in most peoples youth where games retailed at $39.99

File: snes nes.jpg (786KB, 1382x924px) Image search: [Google]

786KB, 1382x924px

>>384120820
Alright son, you can pick ONE $39.99 game from this catalog for your birthday.

>>384120891
NHL '94

I meant in 1999-2006

>>384114101
>Mario 64 was good.
lol no

>>384120998
There has never been a good 3D mario game

The only reason the first one ever became popular was because it did jumping right

>>384121058
>>384120998
Does holding this opinion make you feel edgy and cool?

>>384120891
>dont each school lunch and save money for a week so i can just buy the top loader and import weeb games

>>384120891
mommy can i pleeeeease get TMNT 3 and Punch Out

i'll sucky sucky tonight

>>384114037
There were only 5 N64 games so in the long run you probably saved money