Why did this gen of console go on for so long?

[zerocool84]

Ummmm, current graphics are just fine. I don't see a mass revolt with people refusing to buy new games. For the averager consumer we're reaching a point of diminishing returns.

I just played through Arkham City on the Xbox and never once did I think to myself how awful the game was, and how much better it would be if only there were a million more polygons and higher resolution textures. I was too busy having fun beating up thugs instead of being a pathetic hardware spec measuring nerd.

But continue to complain on the internet about the abysmal state of video gaming. This guy approves:

We've said it before, it's more than just better graphics, it's better AI, more realistic physics, larger more detailed environments, more enemies on screen, further viewing distance, etc the list goes on and on of how newer more powerful systems can make your overall gaming experience better. Do you think a game like Arkham City would have been possible on a PS2 without giving up so much because of how it wasn't powerful enough to handle it? I don't think so.

 

[ElFenix]

part due to the economy, but MS and Sony were planning on this gen being drawn out. they both took huge losses up front, bigger than had been customary. and don't forget that games are cheaper than they were 20 years ago, when SNES new releases were regularly $70.

 

[diesbudt]

part due to the economy, but MS and Sony were planning on this gen being drawn out. they both took huge losses up front, bigger than had been customary. and don't forget that games are cheaper than they were 20 years ago, when SNES new releases were regularly $70.

No, never once did I ever pay more than $49.99 for a SNES game. Even for 64, I never paid more than $50 for a game unless it was a "special" game that came with the rumble pack, or w/e controller additions they wanted to add with speciifc games.

NES games never costed more than $40.

Games are getting more expensive, which is to be expected as more time/coding/effort is required to make it, and with the general curve as living costs slowly increase.

 

[purbeast0]

No, never once did I ever pay more than $49.99 for a SNES game. Even for 64, I never paid more than $50 for a game unless it was a "special" game that came with the rumble pack, or w/e controller additions they wanted to add with speciifc games.

NES games never costed more than $40.

Games are getting more expensive, which is to be expected as more time/coding/effort is required to make it, and with the general curve as living costs slowly increase.

no what?

he is right, regardless of what you paid. street fighter 2 turbo and super street fighter 2 were both $70 brand new when they came out.

N64 games were also up to the $70 level for certain ones that used more memory than standard games. i'm pretty sure at least one even hit $80.

 

[Yongsta]

no what?

he is right, regardless of what you paid. street fighter 2 turbo and super street fighter 2 were both $70 brand new when they came out.

N64 games were also up to the $70 level for certain ones that used more memory than standard games. i'm pretty sure at least one even hit $80.

Factor in inflation, the $70 from 1992 is around $115 now.

 

[ncstateguy87]

Game dev costs continue to rise hence the price change. As everything continues to go digital, maybe that would help lower costs?

 

[Brazuka]

Game dev costs continue to rise hence the price change. As everything continues to go digital, maybe that would help lower costs?

Going digitial not only lower cost it also makes it easier to combat piracy

 

[zerocool84]

no what?

he is right, regardless of what you paid. street fighter 2 turbo and super street fighter 2 were both $70 brand new when they came out.

N64 games were also up to the $70 level for certain ones that used more memory than standard games. i'm pretty sure at least one even hit $80.

If I remember correctly, I think my older brother paid $100 for Phantasy Star IV on Genesis when it came out. High capacity cartridges were not cheap back then.

 

[Rezist]

Factor in inflation, the $70 from 1992 is around $115 now.

i bet the user base has expanded faster than the rate of inflation. game companies still make tons of money.

 

[Sulaco]

No, never once did I ever pay more than $49.99 for a SNES game. Even for 64, I never paid more than $50 for a game unless it was a "special" game that came with the rumble pack, or w/e controller additions they wanted to add with speciifc games.

NES games never costed more than $40.

Games are getting more expensive, which is to be expected as more time/coding/effort is required to make it, and with the general curve as living costs slowly increase.

As has already been pointed out, that might be the case for you, in that you personally didn't pay for a game until the price dropped, but that's not the point of the thread. And suggesting that prices weren't higher is just flat out wrong.

I've posted this before in the past, but it's worth posting again for the all the "rosy-hued glasses" posters who don't remember what it was REALLY like. All images I scanned out of a Next Generation Magazine, Fall 1996 to Spring 1997. All are from Electronics Boutique (now Gamestop), the largest (and standard for pricing) game retailer:

SNES Games (at the END of the SNES's life!):

N64. Yes, that's $80 for Shadows of the Empire.

I LOVE the fact that the SNES costs $79.99 BRAND NEW and new games cost within $10 of the cost of the system itself!

I think most of us don't remember because we honestly WEREN'T OLD enough to really buy them ourselves, except maybe with allowance once or twice a year. They were purchased as gifts from parents, etc.

 

[wiki123]

There is still "juice" left from these ones why move on?

 

[BD2003]

If I remember correctly, I think my older brother paid $100 for Phantasy Star IV on Genesis when it came out. High capacity cartridges were not cheap back then.

I know I paid around $90 for street fighter 2 when it first came out. A WHOLE 2MB! OMG SO BIG!

Nowadays, I shrug at paying more than $30 for a game that doesn't at least offer 100 hours of fun.

 

[Genx87]

I am going with the economic climate being crap. The point of bringing out a new product is to sell it. It will be a tough sell to consumers to buy a new console when they dont have a reliable job. Easier to keep selling them what they know and rake in royalties for the near future. I suspect the next gen will come out within 24ish months. Maybe Christmas time 2013?

 

[Sonikku]

Wow Starfox 64 with a rumble pack for $60 was quite the bargain for back then. What I find most interesting is that they were practically GIVING away the system back in those days. The SNES for $79.99 with a pack in game cost as much as some of the titles for the thing! Can you just imagine if games for Xbox cost nearly as much as a brand new 360?

 

[ioni]

As has already been pointed out, that might be the case for you, in that you personally didn't pay for a game until the price dropped, but that's not the point of the thread. And suggesting that prices weren't higher is just flat out wrong.

I've posted this before in the past, but it's worth posting again for the all the "rosy-hued glasses" posters who don't remember what it was REALLY like. All images I scanned out of a Next Generation Magazine, Fall 1996 to Spring 1997. All are from Electronics Boutique (now Gamestop), the largest (and standard for pricing) game retailer:

SNES Games (at the END of the SNES's life!):

N64. Yes, that's $80 for Shadows of the Empire.

I LOVE the fact that the SNES costs $79.99 BRAND NEW and new games cost within $10 of the cost of the system itself!

I think most of us don't remember because we honestly WEREN'T OLD enough to really buy them ourselves, except maybe with allowance once or twice a year. They were purchased as gifts from parents, etc.

Are these magazines from the US? I bought plenty of new, AAA N64 games for $50 in PA.

 

[Sulaco]

Are these magazines from the US? I bought plenty of new, AAA N64 games for $50 in PA.

Yes.

And IIRC, Nintendo began marketing their "Million Seller" or "Player's Choice" for their best selling games, pricing them between $40 and $50. Maybe thats what you remember buying, or you just waited for better deals.

But no, almost none were close to that price upon release. Nowhere near the console's early years.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Are these magazines from the US? I bought plenty of new, AAA N64 games for $50 in PA.

Mortal Kombat when it released on Sega Genesis was $80. I know because I got it 3 days before it was supposed to release. By mistake Kay Bee Toys (now out of business) put it in the display case and I spotted it. They had to sell it since it was in the case.

On the whole resolution thing, people assume that since a game is at 1080p it's the same as another game also at 1080p. How many people have said "oh but the Xbox runs that game at 1080p. Doesn't matter because there's a lot more than resolution to graphics. Particle effects, lighting...all stuff that helps make a game world that happens regardless of resolution. Higher resolution helps, but you can run Pac Man at 1080p and it doesn't look like a new game.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Nope, I said it like I meant it. You forget that there are WAYYY more casual gamers than hardcore gamers, cmon just think about it, there's likely more casual X than hardcore x for ANY situation.

Try finding casual listeners at an Iced Earth or Accept concert.

Oh I know...9 out of 10 people won't even know those bands at all lol. You gotta be hardcore to be there.

 

[Redinit]

I am going with the economic climate being crap. The point of bringing out a new product is to sell it. It will be a tough sell to consumers to buy a new console when they dont have a reliable job. Easier to keep selling them what they know and rake in royalties for the near future. I suspect the next gen will come out within 24ish months. Maybe Christmas time 2013?

I agree with this to a point, but why try to fix something that isn't broke. The current consoles have enough power to keep people happy. The big three only make profits off the consoles after years of them being on the market, why take another big loss to put out new consoles?

 

[crisium]

HW tech really hasnt change that drastically in the last few years that any developer can say "we didnt make that game 4 years ago because the tech wasnt there". The tech has been here for a while now, the games just got stupid.

Ummmm, current graphics are just fine. I don't see a mass revolt with people refusing to buy new games. For the averager consumer we're reaching a point of diminishing returns.

I just played through Arkham City on the Xbox and never once did I think to myself how awful the game was, and how much better it would be if only there were a million more polygons and higher resolution textures. I was too busy having fun beating up thugs instead of being a pathetic hardware spec measuring nerd.

But continue to complain on the internet about the abysmal state of video gaming. This guy approves:

But we are at the point where developers are held back by inferior console hardware. Battlefield 3 - 64 players PC, 24 players console. That's all you need to know. No matter how toned down the graphics are (and boy, are they) they can't run 64 players BF3 on a 128-bit GeForce 7900 with 512mb total system memory.

Now if they came out with a Kepler (even 128-bit) with 4GB or more of total memory console, then we could do it. So there is a need for new consoles, even if that need is just for online games at the moment.