alphacyberranger@lemmy.world to Games@lemmy.worldEnglish · 1 year agoMadden should not be 70$lemmy.worldimagemessage-square135fedilinkarrow-up1372arrow-down142
arrow-up1330arrow-down1imageMadden should not be 70$lemmy.worldalphacyberranger@lemmy.world to Games@lemmy.worldEnglish · 1 year agomessage-square135fedilink
minus-squareXIIIesq@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up7arrow-down6·1 year agoNew releases used to be £40 when I was a kid (twenty years ago), given inflation, £70 sounds not too bad.
minus-squareMrNesser@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up15arrow-down5·1 year agoThat $40 included plastic packaging and a disc both of which largely don’t exist anymore.
minus-squarematt1126@feddit.uklinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up20arrow-down1·1 year agoAnd a complete game!
minus-squareShittyRedditWasBetter@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up10arrow-down4·1 year agoNever was a significant cost. So complaining, you are never going to get you 50c of plastic to burn down the planet to spite publishers.
minus-squareDandroid@dandroid.applinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up7arrow-down3·1 year agoThose cost pennies. They were never part of the cost.
minus-squareMrNesser@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down2·1 year agoAbsolutely agree with you. However it’s what’s been said to people for years to justify the cost
minus-squareDandroid@dandroid.applinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·1 year agoI guess I just have never heard that before. 🤷
minus-squareFlying Squid@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up8arrow-down3·1 year ago40? I remember when they were 20. Hell, I remember when you could get slightly older titles for 10. I used to go to Egghead and buy slightly older games with my allowance.
minus-squareShittyRedditWasBetter@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up4arrow-down13·1 year agoNo you don’t. You are just imagining. At no point ever was $20 typical for a new game.
minus-squareFlying Squid@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up12arrow-down2·edit-21 year agoIt absolutely was in the 1980s. Edit: Here. Even cheaper than I claimed.
minus-squarecomic_zalgo_sans@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·edit-21 year agodeleted by creator
minus-squareacosmichippo@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·1 year agomore importantly they sell way more units now. It takes virtually no more effort or cost for gaming companies to sell 20 million units vs 1 million.
minus-squareXIIIesq@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·1 year agoIf they’re selling 20 million more units than they used to, then $70 clearly is not too much and outs this post as nothing more than a moan.
New releases used to be £40 when I was a kid (twenty years ago), given inflation, £70 sounds not too bad.
That $40 included plastic packaging and a disc both of which largely don’t exist anymore.
And a complete game!
Never was a significant cost. So complaining, you are never going to get you 50c of plastic to burn down the planet to spite publishers.
Those cost pennies. They were never part of the cost.
Absolutely agree with you. However it’s what’s been said to people for years to justify the cost
I guess I just have never heard that before. 🤷
40? I remember when they were 20. Hell, I remember when you could get slightly older titles for 10. I used to go to Egghead and buy slightly older games with my allowance.
No you don’t. You are just imagining. At no point ever was $20 typical for a new game.
It absolutely was in the 1980s.
Edit: Here. Even cheaper than I claimed.
deleted by creator
more importantly they sell way more units now. It takes virtually no more effort or cost for gaming companies to sell 20 million units vs 1 million.
If they’re selling 20 million more units than they used to, then $70 clearly is not too much and outs this post as nothing more than a moan.