How come computer games were so much cheaper than console games?

Because console companies demanded a share of the profits and locked out companies unwilling to pay that.
Computers were open to everyone.
Floppies were also cheaper as a medium than ROM cassettes and distribution models such as shareware allowed even smaller games to see widespread use.

>>3859943
I'm surprised more companies didn't port their games to computers back in the day then. Was there some kind of contract where if you put your game on a Nintendo or Sega platform that it couldn't be released on PC?

>>3859983
Yes. Nintendo even tried to dictate how many games a company could release in total.

>>3859929
No demand.

>>3859943
In the console makers' defense, they needed those royalties to make up for selling their hardware at a loss - plus cartridges are much more expensive to produce than floppy discs

>>3859983
Nintendo in particular did nail down exclusivity agreements (which is basically the only thing keeping console gaming alive in 2017) until the late 90s at the earliest computers couldn't perform the same gaming-specialized hardware tricks that consoles could perform. Check out the various computer ports of Street Fighter 2 compared to the SNES/Genesis ports to see what I mean.

>>3859929

Because they were shorter, graphically inferior and made on smaller budgets.

>>3859929
Elaine Marley is my waifu

>>3860082
>they needed those royalties to make up for selling their hardware at a loss
They didn't need to do that. They did it because it was more profitable for them.

Some computers were fairly advanced. Even popular models like the C64 or Amiga were powerful when they came out.
The NES or SMS ports of SF2 aren't representative either. That's not even touching certain Japanese computers.

>>3859929

Are they actually modeled after real people? I mean we all know they used to do this. So was Elaine maybe just a secretary at LucasFilm Games or something? She is pretty hot.

I wish someone had hacked the remake so that I can play the original game but with voice acting instead of having to look at those disgusting graphics which I won't do. Hate those.

Because the console maker demanded a licence fee, it was more expensive to produce cartridges than it was to use cassettes, disks, or discs, and console games were more expensive to produce.
>>3860095
So you're telling me that the Amiga was inferior to the Master System graphically? Get real.

>>3860254
>I wish someone had hacked the remake so that I can play the original game but with voice acting instead of having to look at those disgusting graphics which I won't do. Hate those.
This has been done actually.

File: mi.png (84KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 960x720px

>>3859929

>>3860414

Can you give me a name or a link or anything? I couldn't find anything online. Thanks.

>>3860562
Is that the adjustment for inflation?

That's too much considering a steam sale will likely bring it under $15 within a year.

>>3859929
Monkey Island cost $60. They even joke about it in the games.

>>3860137
Those computers didn't have the same tailor-made hardware that the consoles used. They were built with different paradigms. There was a limit to the types of games that could have been ported at the time.

File: Monkey Island.jpg (83KB, 403x570px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 403x570px

>>3860623
They sold it for 10 DM (approximately $5).

>>3860669
Yes. Consoles like the Atari 5200 had far more specialized hardware than any computer.

>>3859929
Because they sucked?

>>3860082
>In the console makers' defense, they needed those royalties to make up for selling their hardware at a loss - plus cartridges are much more expensive to produce than floppy discs
Until WiiU every single Nintendo console had been sold at profit from day one

consoles had good games, PC had none. Not much has changed since the 80s in this regard.

>>3863821
>>3864795
Since when is quality related to price?

>>3864808
By making better products they attracted more people to them which extended development time and required more money as a result. Its not hard to realize when pc games were largely budget projects by 4 people done in two months or a guy in a bedroom done in two weeks.

>anybody can make a computer game
>easy to advertise on any computer magazine
>easy to share demos on BBS/internet

With consoles there's all kinds of license bullshit and marketing shit going on, but PC has always been indie friendly. Even nowadays it's ridiculously easy to make your own game and get it to steam.

Interesting that pc games were so much cheaper.

Generally speaking though, weren't computers of the time much more expensive than now? Even before inflation, most prices I've seen listed for old computers seem pretty steep. But it's hard to tell if that's just cause they were trying to show off the expensive stuff.

It seems like in the 80's very few households could afford a computer. At least compared to today. At least I think that was a big part of the reason, them not being the media machines they are today back then obviously was part of that too, but was price also a factor?

I've tried to look up information about average computer prices from different periods, but it's hard to find anything that looks reliable.

>>3865078
It depends on the model. Something like an Apple or IBM were expensive but Commodores or Ataris were cheap.
Nowadays Apple is still expensive but IBMs are cheap.

>>3859929
Same as why retro computer games are cheap on Ebay/collector's market. Nobody wants them.

>>3865089
then why did they make them

>>3865089
It's not that nobody wanted them, people were eager to pirate them. Selling them at a low price tried to make at least some people buy it.

>>3864808
>things don't cost more when you use high quality items
WWwwWWwwWWwWW

>>3865094
Delusions of demand which caused many PC exclusive software companies to go belly up or be absorbed by a larger corporation by the late 80s-90s.

>>3865103
Why was the American games market always so corporate? Europe was so much better for developers.

>>3864785
ON day one but not FROM day one. They launch at a profitable price point and make all their early-adopter sales and give those people that satisfaction they're looking for to be the first kid on the block with the new Nintendo console. Their artificial scarcity is part of that strategy. It's not long though before they start lowering the retail price of the hardware in response to market forces which drop much faster than production costs. Misunderstanding that is why people think that just because there was a point in history where an SNES was only worth $15 that it couldn't possibly cost much more than that to manufacture them today when in reality it would cost much more. It would have been a lot cheaper and manipulative if Nintendo themselves had bought every single used SNES that ever sold for under $20, refurbished (maybe even with a brand new shell) and repackaged them to sit in a warehouse until they could be sold again for $200 but that's a longer game than any company is trying to play.

>>3865236
It would explain why there aren't as many computer games from them

>>3865097
Things cost more when people are willing to pay more.