game industry: 1994 vs 2004

[steve_k]

Ten years ago the main contenders in the video game market were SNES and Genesis. Other rivals included 3DO, Atari Jaguar, and later on Sega Saturn. Most games for SNES (the most popular of all systems at the time) were between $40 and $70, with the average game being $50 or $60. Used games were rarely below $20-$25. Because of this, most gamers had only a few games in their collections.

Today, good games (very good by 1994 standards) can be bought used for $10-$20 used or $20 new on all each of the new systems, and all of those games that sold back in 1994 up until 2000 are dirt cheap. This means many gamers have dozens of games in their libraries unless they are the type who refuse to play a good game because it is 'old'.

It is nice to live in a time when products of decent technology are so affordable and live up to such high standards.

[dtcarson]

Preach it brother!

We complain when we can't find a game for less than 30 bucks, but I distinctly remember paying 60 bucks for Shining Force II. *And* it coming in a lame cardboard box. Yes, there's still a lot of crap [there was back then as well], but now we also have huge repositories of easily-accessible and free data to research games, find good prices, and get rid of stuff we don't want anymore. And I'd rather have 100 games to choose from, than 10, since the ratio of cream-to-crap is probably going to be similar.

[int80h]

People fail to remember the impact cheap 2600 games had on the videogame industry in the early 80's. I hope modern companies aren't tempted to exclusively make "shovelware" and sell at a low price. It worries me that if a company can make more money by selling "Catwoman" for $10 bucks a pop than "Tales of Symphonia" for $50 a piece, then the industry might stop putting in the resources for making high quality games all together.

[WildWop]

You left out the fact that it is much cheaper to publish a game now that everyone uses CD's. It was but a mere generation ago when some games (OOT) released at $60... on a cartridge... in a cardboard box.

The production costs of a cartridge FAR exceed those for printing CD's en masse, which accounts somewhat for the consistent $50-or-under pricing.

That said, I agree that we're going through quite the sweet spot for video games. Great game at good prices.

[epobirs]

It still remains for the industry to be more honest about development & productions costs vs. the potential sales volume. New game prices are a good chunk lower than they were ten years ago (without even factoring inflation into the comparison $60 in 1994 dollars is $72.99 in 2002 dollars) but they should come down lower still. The current margins set the threshold for success much lower than it should be in relation to the market potential and makes it all too easy to prosper on mediocre games.

[Duo_Maxwell]

Yeah you def. need to look at it more like a ratio or something. It cost more to make them then, therefore charge more. It costs less to make them now, therefore charge less. From a ratio standpoint, I'd say games are more profitable for companies now than they were ten years ago (at least from a production standpoint). Also, there are more competitors and companies out there now than 10 years ago, and as we all know competition usually drives down price.

[dtcarson]

But for those mediocre games to succeed, they have to be purchased. Either people, in general, have no taste, or they do no research whatesoever on their game purchases, because yes, the junk still does come out.

But aren't many games taking a lot more time and man-hours to create? How long did it take to create Combat on the Atari 2600, from concept to reaching the sales floor? Compare that to Final Fantasy X, or Halo, or whatever. Then hiring 'talent' for the games, that definitely adds some overhead. I mean, 'Jet Li in Rise to Honor'? Games are becoming more and more movie like. Not necessarily a bad thing except when the mere presence of a specific person adds 30 milllion to the development cost of a game.

If people keep paying 50 bucks for these mediocre games, they'll keep making them.

I do think gaming is probably more profitable, as a whole, now than then. Gaming is a lot bigger industry; the average gamer is older [and has his own disposable income]; advances in technology have made certain aspects of development much easier/cheaper. Looking at real dollars, games do cost less, on average, compared to what you get. Also there's much more opportunity to get them for much less, with sales, promos, trades, resales, etc.

[abrannan]

CD based games may be cheaper to produce than carts were, but they have to pay higher development costs up front now to get high quality textures, engines, 3d models, voice acting, music, motion capture, rendered cutscenes. The days of the two-man develpoment shop are over. (except in *VERY* rare cases)


I'd say that the drop in prices is a combination of a few things. One being the fact that home game consoles are a lot more mainstream than they were 10 years ago (look at the total sales numbers for the consoles). Two being that those of us who grew up in the 80s are now out on our own with lots of fun disposable income, and can afford to buy lots of over-hyped expensive games now. I'm sure I'll think of more in a bit.

[BigDirty]

The one point everyone is seeming to forget about modern games is the middleware. No longer do the developers have to invent ways of doing things in a game, there are plenty of libraries that are available that would take exorbanant amounts of time to create similar tools if they weren't available.

Look at the production cycle of Doom 3/Half Life 2 which used proprietary tools, to something like Unreal Tournament 04 (used a prior engine) or GTA Vice City/San Andreas (used renderware), and you'll start to notice the time cycle, and as they say in the business world, time is money ;)

[Backlash]

I remember paying around $65 when Starfox came out b/c the cartridge had some new "F/X chip" that could render more polygons or something, ha ha.

As far as people buying cheap crappy games, a lot of it is probably clueless parents/grand parents who know that Tommy likes games. Do they buy the $50 game with a weird title or the $15 game with pretty box art? (assuming he hasn't gicen them a list of games, though many grandmothers are known to ignore such lists)

[Dok Diamond]

Im only 16 so i dont know too much about the older days but my mom told me FF III for snes was like 70+ dollars.

[dtcarson]

I remember paying around $65 when Starfox came out b/c the cartridge had some new "F/X chip" that could render more polygons or something, ha ha.


Don't forget Sonic's 'Blast Processing'!
And Virtua Racing for Sega Genesis had some special chip it in it too, it was like 65 bucks. Looking back, that was an amazingly lame game, but it was great fun at the time.

[Spacepest]

Im only 16 so i dont know too much about the older days but my mom told me FF III for snes was like 70+ dollars.

I remember seeing Final Fantasy games for SNES for like $70, it wasn't that uncommon. And Phantasy Star IV for the Genesis was $100 on release. These were good games, but there was still alot of crap released back then in 50-70$ range. Crap that today would never fly, especially at that price range.

I think one of the big differences now is the availability of the internet. Back in the day you had to either borrow or rent a game (if you were lucky enough to find a place that did rent video games) to find out if it were sucky. Sometimes a biased video game magazine would review it, and overinflate a game's true worth. Either way, you often had to take a leap of faith and cough up $50+ to find out if a game was good or not. And alot ended up to disappointing pieces of shit. Now, with publication of game reviews on the internet by unbiased players, it is much easier to weed out the crap. Within days, sometimes hours, within a games a release, someone will let you know if a game is great or sucktastic. Thank god for free video game reviews on the internet! Those are really probably a CAG's best friend, and a video game developer's worst enemy. Plus dedicated CAGs post on the net all their cheapass finds, sometimes right down to the time and exact location.

[CaseyRyback]

The one point everyone is seeming to forget about modern games is the middleware. No longer do the developers have to invent ways of doing things in a game, there are plenty of libraries that are available that would take exorbanant amounts of time to create similar tools if they weren't available.

Look at the production cycle of Doom 3/Half Life 2 which used proprietary tools, to something like Unreal Tournament 04 (used a prior engine) or GTA Vice City/San Andreas (used renderware), and you'll start to notice the time cycle, and as they say in the business world, time is money ;)

EA just set the game industry back several years when it bought Criterion.

I doubt that they let other companies continue to use renderware, and the number of games that used it was extremely large

[Reality's Fringe]

EA could potentially bring upon the new Industry crash. I'm betting on that Pony to totally screw everyhting up.

[coolcps]

I remember when I got BOF2 it was like 70$, and when I got Lufia 2 it was like 65$ used. I remember my grandma use to get me games for my birthday, I got FF3 in 3rd grade, that was probably like 70$, but now she wont buy games for my birthdays anymore:(

I think that it was more fun buying games when I was little because I didnt have the internet and game magazines to tell me what was good and what was not. I would go to EB and see something that looked cool or rent stuff from blockbuster then try it out. I also had a friend who was alot older than me who told me about all the good stuff, he was the one who introduced me to like SoM. Also I remember going to the flea market and getting games, havent done that in like 6 years.

[epobirs]

The one point everyone is seeming to forget about modern games is the middleware. No longer do the developers have to invent ways of doing things in a game, there are plenty of libraries that are available that would take exorbanant amounts of time to create similar tools if they weren't available.

Look at the production cycle of Doom 3/Half Life 2 which used proprietary tools, to something like Unreal Tournament 04 (used a prior engine) or GTA Vice City/San Andreas (used renderware), and you'll start to notice the time cycle, and as they say in the business world, time is money ;)

EA just set the game industry back several years when it bought Criterion.

I doubt that they let other companies continue to use renderware, and the number of games that used it was extremely large

I strongly disagree with this belief. EA has much more reason to continue selling Renderware than turn it into an inhouse only tool. First of all, there is the money. Companies like id make a major portion of their revenue from licensing their engines and tools. EA is more likely to pursue a piece of that business than keep it to itself and lose the valuable input of the customer base in suggesting improvements to the product.

EA is just putting themselves in the coveted position enjoyed by console companies when they control manufacturing of third party software for their machines: they get a piece of the action regardless of whether the game is successful or not. If EA owns the tools licensed by a major portion of the industry it gives them an equally enviable piece of all those product's revenue.

[epobirs]

I remember paying around $65 when Starfox came out b/c the cartridge had some new "F/X chip" that could render more polygons or something, ha ha.


Don't forget Sonic's 'Blast Processing'!
And Virtua Racing for Sega Genesis had some special chip it in it too, it was like 65 bucks. Looking back, that was an amazingly lame game, but it was great fun at the time.

The difference is that Nintendo's FX Chip was real. Sega's blast processing was just marketing hype dreamed up by a PR hack. It was somehow miraculously added to a machine that had existed for four years when they decided it was retroactively part of the Genesis.

Recall the silly TV ad that used a comparison between Sonic's gameplay and Mario Kart's title screen? Sega built up saome bad karma on that stupidity and it paid off later in spades.

[epobirs]

The one point everyone is seeming to forget about modern games is the middleware. No longer do the developers have to invent ways of doing things in a game, there are plenty of libraries that are available that would take exorbanant amounts of time to create similar tools if they weren't available.

Look at the production cycle of Doom 3/Half Life 2 which used proprietary tools, to something like Unreal Tournament 04 (used a prior engine) or GTA Vice City/San Andreas (used renderware), and you'll start to notice the time cycle, and as they say in the business world, time is money ;)

But in the same process id also created the product they'll be licensing widely and drawing as much or more revenue from as Doom 3. Being in both businesses made it not just practical but imperative to produce not only great tools and engine over a prolonged period but also the initial product to make everyone choose it for their next project.

[vanlandw]

i remember paying $70 dollars for N64 games. I almost feel bad about it but that was a good era for games. Now I hardly pay $50 bucks for a game when used titles are pretty much complete and just as good as getting them new.

[rajchakrabarti]

i payed like 72 bucks for MK 2 for snes during the christmas season... i haven't spent more then 30 on the next gen systems.