Silicon Knights Boss Says Used Games Drive Up Prices

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Someone didn't pay attention in economics. Potential customers choosing a lower cost alternative over your product is generally speaking not a reason to raise your price -- it is, in fact, a reason to do the exact opposite.

 

[Iron Criterion]

I think a lot of people are missing the central fallacy of Dyack's argument, which is that game prices have gone up. They haven't. Maybe they haven't gone down, but neither has the price of gas, food, hookers or anything else we spend money on every day. A major, triple-A release cost me 60-70 bucks 25 years ago, and it costs me 60-70 bucks now. That's actually kind of amazing.

And the used games market may be bigger than ever now, but back in Dyack's imaginary future, PC game rentals were a thing too. Can you imagine someone trying such a thing now? The market has changed, absolutely, but this constant worry about its imminent collapse, when all measurable indicators say that the videogame industry has never been healthier, leaves me baffled.

I agree with this. Back when Conker's Bad Fur Day came out for the N64 in 2001 it cost me (or my parents) £60. Eleven years later I can get a triple AAA release for the Xbox 360 for around £40.

 

[Andy Chalk]

Incorrect, and you're clearly one of the idiots who had enough money to throw away to buy a 3DO at the time.

First of all, don't call me an idiot.

Second, I (and others) have listed numerous games with prices from the 80s to today, clearly proving that game prices have remained flat, without even taking inflation into account. Your response effectively adds up to "nuh uh." Did you look at the scan of the ad posted above, with SNES games like Pit Fighter, Robocop 3 and Super Adventure Island at $59.99?

I'm not going to argue the point anymore. If you're determined to believe that videogames cost more now than they did 10, 15 or 20 years ago, I'm not going to change your mind. But you are wrong.

 

[medv4380]

First of all, don't call me an idiot.

Bakayaro!

I've purchased most of the games you're quoting and you're flat out wrong.
How about we go into the way back machine and check out some actual sources on the real price increase.

Hows this little nugget from the CEO of Activision for all the way in 2005
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=5127
The 60 dollar game is new and is a price increase.
Face it in the 80's you were ether coned by your parents into giving them more money than the game was worth, or you were a rich brat with excess money to blow, and going down to Toys R Us was just beneath you.

I'd go back further but most of the archives from the 90's are behind pay walls.

Truth is the $40 model had been the standard price for new releases from 1980 - 2000. Prior to that in the Atari era you'd be able to get them for far less between 10 - 20. Prices have been steadily increasing over time not decreasing. Now the PS3 and 360 are on a 60$ model and the PC is on a 60$ no used games model. Nintendo, the only one resembling the old model, out sold the competition. When the 3DS got the 100$ price high before launch, because the reporters at E3 went GaGa over it, it was an abysmal flop. Put in a price decrease and Wam Bam thank you mam the system starts selling like a champ because the old pricing model where systems sell for 250 or less and games go for 40 or less is a much better model.

Now if you're from some place lets say the UK, or Australia you've been screwed on prices for a while now. I don't think anyone's explained appropriately why Australia has their price jacked up so high compared to Japan or the US.

 

[Andy Chalk]

http://www.1up.com/news/90s-game-price-comparison-charticle

I don't particularly care about you but it'd be a shame if people who don't know better were fooled into thinking you were correct.