alphacyberranger@lemmy.world to Games@lemmy.worldEnglish · 1 year agoMadden should not be 70$lemmy.worldimagemessage-square118fedilinkarrow-up1381arrow-down143
arrow-up1338arrow-down1imageMadden should not be 70$lemmy.worldalphacyberranger@lemmy.world to Games@lemmy.worldEnglish · 1 year agomessage-square118fedilink
minus-squareXIIIesq@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up8arrow-down7·1 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-up17arrow-down5·1 year agoThat $40 included plastic packaging and a disc both of which largely don’t exist anymore.
minus-squarematt1126@feddit.uklinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up24arrow-down1·1 year agoAnd a complete game!
minus-squareDandroid@dandroid.applinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up7arrow-down2·1 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-squareShittyRedditWasBetter@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up10arrow-down6·1 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-squareFlying Squid@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up9arrow-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-down14·1 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-up13arrow-down3·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!
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. 🤷
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.
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.