Borderlands 2 is free to claim and keep on Steam

Randy Pitchford might be not nice here... but he's so right. Games usually costed 100 Deutsche Mark in the Nineties. 100 DM in say 1995 would be - inflation included - 88€ nowadays. That's 100$. How come people know that stuff get's more expensive over the decades, but do not accept when computer games do... just the same?


Last edited by Eike on 6 Jun 2025 at 9:44 am UTC

While i understand Randys statement (those amiga games here in germany were expensive as hell, games like Pirates! and Monkey Island were around 90-100DM, which today would be around 200Eurodollarpounds, and i spent all my money on those games), but - these days are over. Luckily. We now have choices, and its not wild west anymore. So Gearbox, you really should consider avoiding piles like this one. :)

Old timer here, used to purchase Atari VCS cartridges at (the equivalent of) ~60 EUR in 1980. Considering inflation, that value would be ~350 EUR today.

But.

At the time, the size of the market and the physical item production were completely different from today's "download a file that can be replicated an infinite amount of times basically for free".

So, yes, he may have been right, but with huge caveats.

At the time, the size of the market and the physical item production were completely different from today's "download a file that can be replicated an infinite amount of times basically for free".

Well... it's not that easy, while at the time the cost was mostly upfront, i.e. you developed, marketed, published and distributed X copies of a game, everything was smaller. The dev teams were smaller, the market was smaller, etc, that meant that you couldn't, probably, get discounts on cartridges by quantity and so on. And you had to talk to a lot of distributors for different markets, handle a lot of currencies and so on. The upshot for us was that games didn't need 0-day patches and so on, what you got was what you got and that was it (even if it was bad and you would play it because it was expensive as hell).

Skip forward to today, you have (excluding small indie titles) large teams of everyone and a pair of boots because there's a focus on making that new fancy hardware push pretty pictures to your large 4k screens in HDR and what not. Games ship whenever it fits corporate schedules and not when they are ready (god forbid they have actually passed through QA). As for the download file part, the infrastructure to hold the files (and patches) and specially the bandwidth and CDNs for you to get said files at a pace faster than a snail is not cheap and you will have to maintain it for as long as you want to support the game (or, to put it plain terms, for as long as you require it to recoup the investment). For games that keep on getting updates, you will have to keep on paying those people (devs, support people, qa, marketing, managers, etc). On the past once a game was released that was it, you moved the team to next game.

We have been spoiled with large quantities of games at cheap prices. I have now more games than what is practical for me to actually play them, and I guess most people will be like that.

Anyway just my 2 cents.

Games in the 90s were that expensive because it was a niche market. As the market grew so did revenue with economies of scale. Today we are probably nearing saturation and the only way to make line go up is to increase prices.

The video card market I think paved the way for these price increases. First it was bitcoin, then covid, and now AI forces on the video card market that showed manufacturers that people were willing to pay nose-bleed prices. Sadly now that the lamp has been rubbed I don't see video card prices ever coming down. An article yesterday about the 9060xt called it "a budget beast" at $350 fake MSRP. $350, even today is not really budget. $250, maaaaybe $300 if you squint, but not $350.

As long as enough people pay these prices - and they obviously are - there is no going back. I'm always suggesting boycotts on this kind of stuff. If people won't pay then prices will come down. I personally am a patient gamer (excluding a few new indies) and will gladly wait years to get games for $5 or less.

The market for video games is the largest it's ever been, there are permissively licensed libraries available for everything under the sun, and with modern tech you have basically 0 distribution costs; yet game developers remain underpaid. Clearly there is a huge inefficiency somewhere, and as the saying goes: a fish rots from the head down. Instead of making games more expensive maybe game devs should fire the C suite and get some actually competent people in place.

EDIT: as an addendum, on the topic of so-called 'review bombing': people have the right to leave negative reviews when they are not satisfied with something about a game. If that something is 'the developer said something stupid on xitter', then you can shout 'death of the author' until your face turns blue, it remains proper use of the review system.


Last edited by tmtvl on 6 Jun 2025 at 10:59 am UTC

Games usually costed 100 Deutsche Mark in the Nineties. 100 DM in say 1995 would be - inflation included - 88€ nowadays. That's 100$. How come people know that stuff get's more expensive over the decades, but do not accept when computer games do... just the same?

Well, yes, but actually no. Computers in general were expensive as hell in 90s. It had some "exclusivity vibe" and since computers were basically just for rich, those could also spend that amount for a game (or pirate it like everyone did in those times). Also less computers equals narrow market, hence the price of the games also being ridiculous.

Compare it to now, when everyone and their cat has PC and/or console. The market opportunities are insanely better for publishers. But there's also much, much, MUCH more games on the market, new and old (equals cheap), than it is physically possible to play in multiple lifetimes. So, would I pay $80€ for another generic recycled gearbox schlock? Lol, no.

with modern tech you have basically 0 distribution costs;

Well... As far as I have heard, the distribution cost is about 30% of the game's price nowadays.

Compare it to now, when everyone and their cat has PC and/or console. The market opportunities are insanely better for publishers.

Yes.

But there's also much, much, MUCH more games on the market, new and old (equals cheap), than it is physically possible to play in multiple lifetimes.

... which makes the market opportunities insanely worse for publishers.

In this discussion we've seen that the situation is different from the Nineties in many aspects, sometimes allowing for lower prices, sometimes the contrary.

But I still fail to see the SCANDAL in asking for a price that in the end is less breakfast eggs than it was in the Nineties.

So, would I pay $80€ for another generic recycled gearbox schlock? Lol, no.

...but maybe for a great game?

I think the gaming market is kind of broken in two ways. We get broken beta games on release, which can be prepurchased and early-accessed by paying more and more. The games often go on sale already six months later where they are in playable state.

I'm also one of the kids that bought the pc version of NHL '96 for 100DM (somewhere around 80€ nowadays; also funny to see you can play it on a GBA later.). It took me months to save money for the game and it was probably the only big title I bought for the whole year. Other games I had to play at friends or lend, because money...

Nowadays everyone seems to be intitled to buy whatever whenever without waivering. That is the fear of missing out kicking in, I guess.


Last edited by weipah on 6 Jun 2025 at 11:26 am UTC

... which makes the market opportunities insanely worse for publishers

Well yes, but... How exactly does price increase help in this context? Will this help "supply x demand" equation? When market is saturated you have to compete with competitive price, unless you're dealing with luxury items. Which brings me to this:

...but maybe for a great game?

Maybe? Just maybe. Once, when the game is objectively THE bomb, the hot stuff, the perfect match. In that case I might make an exception. But every C-suite thinks their game is exactly that and it justifies the higher price tag. And I don't feel like supporting this general price increase to put more money into managers' pockets is my jam. If those money were transparently going to actual developers, that opinion might change a lot. But not with this pyramid scheme. I'm saying this coming from a poor background, not being rich in any way nowadays.

But I still fail to see the SCANDAL in asking for a price that in the end is less breakfast eggs than it was in the Nineties.

Let me ask you a question: Would you buy sort of mid range PC for the price of a couple years old car nowadays?

Well... As far as I have heard, the distribution cost is about 30% of the game's price nowadays.

And it was much more in the 90s. Like 50% minimum, with some sources saying in extreme cases up to 90%, if my quick web search was not lying.


Last edited by kurcatovium on 6 Jun 2025 at 11:46 am UTC

About the screenshot: The real reason why we're so deep into this bad state for the industry, is because you have people excusing that shit. Unreal.


Last edited by Pyrate on 6 Jun 2025 at 11:59 am UTC

Let me ask you a question: Would you buy sort of mid range PC for the price of a couple years old car nowadays?

Sorry, this has got nothing to do with the question at hand. We weren't rich in the Eighties, and I could afford a game from time to time, if you were on this path.

About the screenshot: The real reason why we're so deep into this bad state for the industry, is because you have people excusing that shit. Unreal.

I think a big problem is that some people aren't willing to pay more for a computer game than for their takeaway coffee - and some even prefer to get stuff for free without consent of the makers instead of paying for what they want to play. (Because that's one easy solution: If you do not like the quality of a game or do not like the price, feel free not to play it.)

Sorry, this has got nothing to do with the question at hand. We weren't rich in the Eighties, and I could afford a game from time to time, if you were on this path.

Well, since PC as a platform was expensive like cr*p. Regular mid range PC was price of couple years old small car (at least in my country) in 90s. And since we're dealing with PC related stuff (games), I believe it has pretty much something in common.

General price of computers went down like crazy. Common PC back in the day was like 80k CZK (my country currency) and it wasn't even the top of the line, it was mid range at best. My parents bought ~3 years old car for 100k at the time and it was very expensive, they saved years and years to be able to buy it. Nowadays I can go shopping and get decent PC for 30k, and those 80k will get me basically the best I can get - nvidia 5080 with top cpu. Not counting inflation.


Last edited by kurcatovium on 6 Jun 2025 at 1:41 pm UTC

A lot of good observations here. I agree with a lot of them. I remember when Ultima IV for PC released back in the day. The sticker shock was incredible - they wanted $100 Cdn at launch. Higher prices were really not unusual for triple-A games with long development cycles. Back in the early nineties, low-end IBM PCs were typically $2,500 Cdn or more. Clones were often half that price for a basic PC.

I think it is a matter of perception, really. When we paid $100 for that game back in the day, we got a physical box & media. We got a nice printed manual and other support materials (medallions, coins, other booklets, etc.). RPGs such as Ultima often included a cloth map.

Compare that to a digital release. Nothing physical to hold in our hands. Nothing to give a sense of value to the purchase. From that perception of value, the consumer doesn't see that they are getting as much for the $80 US price tag on a purely digital purchase.

So, yes, there are still distribution costs behind the scenes, but it is not as obvious to the average consumer as a physical product in their hands.

@Pyrate

About the screenshot: The real reason why we're so deep into this bad state for the industry, is because you have people excusing that shit. Unreal.

I really didn't find his response all that objectionable. I've seen far more arrogant stuff coming from the likes of Todd Howard or Tim Sweeney. And then there's good old Bill and his successors ...

In 1991 there was not such a large selection of games
today you can wait for a big sale an play other games instead


btw CLAIR OBSCUR costs 50€. this is the standard you should aim for.

I think the context everybody is missing is profit. Are publishers and developers necessarily making more profit today than they were a few decades ago?


Last edited by Mountain Man on 6 Jun 2025 at 9:59 pm UTC