Is the Video Game Industry Dying?

[bretthorror]

For what my thoughts are worth, I've found it interesting how I interpret the price of games; when I was a kid at least here in Canada, new games were commonly $60-$80... Mortal Kombat II was $99.99 in the Sears catalogue when I got it for Christmas. Then I got into gaming again when I was about 20 and the games were $60 - cheaper than what I remember paying, especially if you considered inflation. Yet, I'm still not comfortable paying $60 for a game when it comes out, likely because I'm so far behind on everything, unless it's a game I absolutely need to play, I'd rather get it in a couple years for $10. I hadn't really bought games besides the essentials in a few years and I just got back into it and I've bought Epic Mickey, Duke Nukem Forever and Splatterhouse for $30 total, shipped. Obviously, these games got iffy reviews, but I really am interested in them, and $10 apiece is my weak spot for used titles. But why bother getting them for $60 when I can get them for next to nothing? The lunatics out there act like I'd buy these all for $60 if they didn't allow used game sales, but it couldn't be further from the truth. Without used game sales, I wouldn't bother at all.

 

I think the internet and evolution has changed people's gaming habits and when you can do stuff online for free, of course that $60 is too much to just go out and buy games like gangbusters in comparison to what you can get for loose change elsewhere. So what seemed like a good deal for $60 before doesn't when you can play Fruit Ninja for a buck for the same amount of time it takes to finish a campaign. I'm cheap to begin with (realistically, 95% of the games I buy will sit on my shelf and never be played, so why wouldn't I be?), but it just seems like the gaming industry must expect a higher attach rate than what has been in the past. I'd like to see the amount of Atari 2600 or NES games sold per console compared to today, because it seems like when I was a kid, I'd be lucky to get maybe 10-15 games in a console's lifespan, but kids nowadays get that in a year. Or maybe people are just playing the crap out of the huge games like MW3 and don't care to buy an average shooter game (at least at new price) to compliment it. I don't really blame them because why try a COD knock-off when they basically need to buy one game, the real thing, anyways to play with their buddies for a whole year?

 

EDIT: And another thing; The VC titles are not priced accordingly to what people should be paying for those games. I remember thinking for sure NES games would be $1, SNES $2 and N64 games would be $5 and I basically was ready to buy every 8 or 16 bit game to come out, then the prices came out and baffled me, making me and a lot of people I know lose interest. $8 for Sonic 2 when you can get the Sega Genesis collection for PS2 for $15 new? Even the Atari games on the 360, I realize they made a little cool arcade room, but $3 each? I got 86 on the Atari Anthology and 40 on the Activision Anthology for again, $15. So how are these games suddenly worth 20-100 times more as a digital download, no less?

Edited June 13, 2012 by bretthorror

[akator]

I'm not sure how valid the "games have always been $60 argument" is. The US console crash in 1983 and the simultaneous adoption of home computers massively lowered the price of gaming. By the late 80s and the NES becoming massively popular, video rental stores with rental games were common. People back then didn't have to buy new $60 games any more than they do now. Most people I knew (myself included) didn't own but a handful of games, the rest they rented and played the hell out of before having to return them to the rental store. Just as now with the used game market, back then the video game industry threw tantrums over how much they lost because of rentals.