Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| reply to sivran
Re: No thanks... said by sivran:Whaddya mean "these days"? Even back in the 16-bit days, new games were 50-60 bucks. Granted they gradually came down in price, but if you wanted that new game, you shelled out up to 60 bucks for it. And $60 was unimpressive then, too.
The nice thing now, I'll admit, is if you're patient and don't need new release titles you can often pick them up for a song at a later date. |
|
 DrModemPremium
join:2006-10-19
USA
kudos:1 | said by Karl Bode:said by sivran:Whaddya mean "these days"? Even back in the 16-bit days, new games were 50-60 bucks. Granted they gradually came down in price, but if you wanted that new game, you shelled out up to 60 bucks for it. And $60 was unimpressive then, too. Well that means they have been actually dropping in price over time, if the price has remained constant amid inflation... $60 in 1995 is equivalent to about $85 now.
If you go back to the Atari 2600 era as one of the posters above said, $50 in 1977 is equivalent to $177 now. |
|
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| Well, I don't think $177 is a good price for a game either. 
Especially given the rapid decline of smart games and the huge spike in mindless shooters that, like Hollywood, cater to the lowest common denominator. |
|
