OK there is a lot to go over here, and I do not have much time, so I will try to be brief:
The $60USD price point for modern games is lower than the price of games in the early 90s when adjusted for inflation rates. However this is not the whole story. For consumer products, it is much better to understand the price as a function or a fraction of median wage or cost-of-living, as -in particular- real estate can throw off actual costs for poor and middle-income consumers.
So, instead of arguing that some games released in the nineties would now cost near $100USD, it is better to look at a comparison of fractions or percentages. When you do this, game prices remain somewhat static, as median wage has not kept pace with inflation and cost of living.
While the price of game development has skyrocketed, the actual sales and production costs have dwindled, all the while the base market has expanded. Producing a cartridge was the majority of the price for NES and SNES games, particularly for those living in Australia, New Zealand, and the pacific isles, as there were no local production facilities. The move to disc-based games reduced this cost dramatically, and for a while, costs reduced, then rose again as the market expanded and 3D animation rendering costs increased. Steam and digital download services have again reduced the cost of production, but this has failed to keep pace with the expense of 3D rendering.
Mostly, these cost have been shifted to developers rather than publishers, etc, etc.
So, you can see how complex the issue is, and with this many variables, the math can be skewed easily to favor one argument or another in this case. However, one thing is clear, and that is that low price digital-distibution sales are clearly lower cost than even the lowest-price for physical copies. But with all the other forces at play, and assuming a purchase at the time of release, game costs seem to be benefitting publishers more than consumers or developers.
The $60USD price point for modern games is lower than the price of games in the early 90s when adjusted for inflation rates. However this is not the whole story. For consumer products, it is much better to understand the price as a function or a fraction of median wage or cost-of-living, as -in particular- real estate can throw off actual costs for poor and middle-income consumers.
So, instead of arguing that some games released in the nineties would now cost near $100USD, it is better to look at a comparison of fractions or percentages. When you do this, game prices remain somewhat static, as median wage has not kept pace with inflation and cost of living.
While the price of game development has skyrocketed, the actual sales and production costs have dwindled, all the while the base market has expanded. Producing a cartridge was the majority of the price for NES and SNES games, particularly for those living in Australia, New Zealand, and the pacific isles, as there were no local production facilities. The move to disc-based games reduced this cost dramatically, and for a while, costs reduced, then rose again as the market expanded and 3D animation rendering costs increased. Steam and digital download services have again reduced the cost of production, but this has failed to keep pace with the expense of 3D rendering.
Mostly, these cost have been shifted to developers rather than publishers, etc, etc.
So, you can see how complex the issue is, and with this many variables, the math can be skewed easily to favor one argument or another in this case. However, one thing is clear, and that is that low price digital-distibution sales are clearly lower cost than even the lowest-price for physical copies. But with all the other forces at play, and assuming a purchase at the time of release, game costs seem to be benefitting publishers more than consumers or developers.
