When did the classic era of gaming end?

[JACK-2]

I've been nostalgic as of late. Reminscing about the long gone days of classic gaming. Ahh, the good ole days I like to call them. To me it's really the time when I was the most excited about video games. To shorten this introduction let me simply get to the point. When did the classic era of video games end in your opinion?

[Saikyo Kid]

For me? Never, didn't really get into VG's til around 98/99. Things have gotten worst but not dead for me, just yet. IMO, games have gotten better, but they have become less about gameplay and more about over all entertainment, that's kind of a bad thing to me.

[JACK-2]

I don't want people to preassume that I think video games have gotten worst. I just think the traditional way to game: Controller Interface, Offline play, and "consoles that only play Video Games and nothing else" days are over for the most part. As for me, classic gaming died when arcades finally gave up ghost and the 64 bit era came to an end.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Dec 7, 2009 21:33:41 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

I've been nostalgic as of late. Reminscing about the long gone days of classic gaming. Ahh, the good ole days I like to call them. To me it's really the time when I was the most excited about video games. To shorten this introduction let me simply get to the point. When did the classic era of video games end in your opinion?

I'll say like I said before that the answer is subjective. Just like music, our times growing up were the best and everything else just ain't the same for most people. I'm mainly a retro gamer and I enjoy my Battletoads, Baldur's Gate, and Duke Nukem. There are good games out there now, but they focus more on graphics than gameplay, but every once in a while something comes out that is good. Really good.

[JACK-2]

Hey C-master,

I don't think it's totally subjective and I don't think nostalgaia argument really cuts it. Quality production is quality production regardless of when it comes out. If you compare say Golden Age Toons [circa 1920-1960] which were produced for Theatrical distrubution. As opposed to Cartoons there after which were produced for Broadcast Television. You'll notice a significant difference. The Golden Age toons had much higher production value. Producing a cartoon for distribution in theaters mean't they had more time to work on projects. They also had much bigger budgets and this lead to some great idea's. Golden Age cartoons are unrivaled even when compared to mordern day cartoons. These are one of the area's where nostalgaia doesn't explain it away. There are alot of shady practices in mordern gaming: DLC abuse where developers purposely with hold content just to make an extra buck via Downloads. Selling an unfinished product with poor beta testing. Which leads me to my next point: rush games. Focus on graphics over Gamplay, decline of quality game design, Gimmicks: Motion control and HD, last Gen gamplay next gen graphics and price. I'm a retro gamer myself because these practices honestly discuss me. Your right, there are good games however I've lost interest in the industry.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Dec 8, 2009 13:46:58 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

Hey C-master,

I don't think it's totally subjective and I don't think nostalgaia argument really cuts it. Quality production is quality production regardless of when it comes out. If you compare say Golden Age Toons [circa 1920-1960] which were produced for Theatrical distrubution. As opposed to Cartoons there after which were produced for Broadcast Television. You'll notice a significant difference. The Golden Age toons had much higher production value. Producing a cartoon for distribution in theaters mean't they had more time to work on projects. They also had much bigger budgets and this lead to some great idea's. Golden Age cartoons are unrivaled even when compared to mordern day cartoons. These are one of the area's where nostalgaia doesn't explain it away. There are alot of shady practices in mordern gaming: DLC abuse where developers purposely with hold content just to make an extra buck via Downloads. Selling an unfinished product with poor beta testing. Which leads me to my next point: rush games. Focus on graphics over Gamplay, decline of quality game design, Gimmicks: Motion control and HD, last Gen gamplay next gen graphics and price. I'm a retro gamer myself because these practices honestly discuss me. Your right, there are good games however I've lost interest in the industry.

You are right as well. But people will always relate best to their time. I remember when people preferred true oldies to 90's rap and 80's music. I agree that I like the quality much, much better in the past, and the technology circumvents the need for skill the way it was once needed. Very true.

[JACK-2]

Oldies are great, but the zeitgeist of the 80's and 90's was unbearably good. Since it was an economic golden age. People were more happy and carefree [Because everyone was spending money]. That mood was reflected in the media as well. It's completely different from what's going on now. As for technology circumventing skill, it depends on how it's used. The problem isn't technology. It's weak ethics on the part of developers.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Dec 8, 2009 17:47:20 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

Oldies are great, but the zeitgeist of the 80's and 90's was unbearably good. Since it was an economic golden age. People were more happy and carefree [Because everyone was spending money]. That mood was reflected in the media as well. It's completely different from what's going on now. As for technology circumventing skill, it depends on how it's used. The problem isn't technology. It's weak ethics on the part of developers.

Well times are up and down, but I feel that some of the classics in the 60's and 70's are really irreplaceable. Nowadays even if the economy were good, people would still download.

Autotune is a large problem, ethics or not it's too widely used now.

[Saikyo Kid]

Dec 8, 2009 0:43:32 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

I don't want people to preassume that I think video games have gotten worst. I just think the traditional way to game: Controller Interface, Offline play, and "consoles that only play Video Games and nothing else" days are over for the most part. As for me, classic gaming died when arcades finally gave up ghost and the 64 bit era came to an end.

I see what'ya mean now. I think the Wii and OG Xbox really phucked it up to the point of no return.

The Wii made every body "Gamers" and now granny thinks she can beat me in Tekken 6 cuz she's good at Wii Sports Resort. Now catz are mad cuz games like Call of Duty MW2 can't be played wit a phuckin Wiimote and now Sony and Microsoft are becomin' bitahz and shit, tryin' to copy off of Nintendo... Sell outs.

Xbox Live had it's Ups that made it really cool but now catz don't even wanna come over and play. They rather play at home against there friend across the street. It's like, what happened to the togetherness and the trash talk. Now peeps can isolate themselves and still get the same thing outta the game. Do peeps understand what the phuck the arcades were about? Mothaphuckaz rage quit and talk nasty shit about you through messages and they know they can get away wit that wack shit cuz no one can see them. Sittin' there in the face of your rival made you play like human being, you know you can't quit mid match without lookin like a loser so you better win.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Dec 13, 2009 0:48:54 GMT -5 Saikyo Kid said:

Dec 8, 2009 0:43:32 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

I don't want people to preassume that I think video games have gotten worst. I just think the traditional way to game: Controller Interface, Offline play, and "consoles that only play Video Games and nothing else" days are over for the most part. As for me, classic gaming died when arcades finally gave up ghost and the 64 bit era came to an end.

I see what'ya mean now. I think the Wii and OG Xbox really phucked it up to the point of no return.

The Wii made every body "Gamers" and now granny thinks she can beat me in Tekken 6 cuz she's good at Wii Sports Resort. Now catz are mad cuz games like Call of Duty MW2 can't be played wit a phuckin Wiimote and now Sony and Microsoft are becomin' bitahz and shit, tryin' to copy off of Nintendo... Sell outs.

Xbox Live had it's Ups that made it really cool but now catz don't even wanna come over and play. They rather play at home against there friend across the street. It's like, what happened to the togetherness and the trash talk. Now peeps can isolate themselves and still get the same thing outta the game. Do peeps understand what the phuck the arcades were about? Mothaphuckaz rage quit and talk nasty shit about you through messages and they know they can get away wit that wack shit cuz no one can see them. Sittin' there in the face of your rival made you play like human being, you know you can't quit mid match without lookin like a loser so you better win.

There's difference between a hardcore gamer and a casual gamer. I'm a retro gamer myself predominately, but I love a challenge. I made a youtube video of me playing Battletoads as well.

Did you play your granny?

[JACK-2]

Everyone started off as a casual gamer, though. Games like the original Mario, Pac-man, Donkey Kong Arcade and so fourth are casual games. They are made for the average joe which is why they are the most popular games ever. Since more people can get on them. That's why the Wii has been so successful. When Satoru Iwata [CEO of Nintendo] decided to focus on casual gamers with the Wii. He was essentially going back to what made video games popular. Even, though as a veteran gamer things like motion control doesn't amaze me. I know it's a great way to get new gamers on board and lets face it the casual market has always dominated gaming. Hell, even hardcore games like Street fighter II had a massive casual fanbase. My beef isn't with casual games or gamers, because a casual level of gaming will always exists. My beef is the faltering quality of games on the hardcore market.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Dec 13, 2009 21:13:26 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

Everyone started off as a casual gamer, though. Games like the original Mario, Pac-man, Donkey Kong Arcade and so fourth are casual games. They are made for the average joe which is why they are the most popular games ever. Since more people can get on them. That's why the Wii has been so successful. When Satoru Iwata [CEO of Nintendo] decided to focus on casual gamers with the Wii. He was essentially going back to what made video games popular. Even, though as a veteran gamer things like motion control doesn't amaze me. I know it's a great way to get new gamers on board and lets face it the casual market has always dominated gaming. Hell, even hardcore games like Street fighter II had a massive casual fanbase. My beef isn't with casual games or gamers, because a casual level of gaming will always exists. My beef is the faltering quality of games on the hardcore market.

Well anytime something is marketed towards anybody it will always be dumbed down. I mean Wow vs RPG's like Baldur's Gate, you have certain artists like Souja Boy who make money but are whack. Mario may be attainable by most but he was made for gamers to play as... Nintendo has always been a family company, while Playstation is more for tech geeks.

[Yoshi]

Well, I will always be a casual gamer because I play video games just to have fun. I don't think I could ever be a competitive gamer, and I will continue to be a Nintendo fan for the rest of my life.

[JACK-2]

Another problem with games is that many franchises are getting old. I mean many franchises I know have already reached their zenith. They've also conquered 2-D and 3-D formats. There really isn't much that can be done with them anymore. Unless they try something entirely new, they will grow stagnat . Can't be a one trick pony.

[Saikyo Kid]

I still blame the XBOx, Wii, XB360. To me, they turned everyone into greedy whores.

"All we care about is money, let's make fun games instead of good games. If we widen the audience, we can widen our pockets. We'll make game less hard and less challenging so everyone can play. In fact let's saturate the market with exersize and mind games rather than encouraging kids to go outside or read a book. Let's force people to buy half a game for full price and then charge'em up the ass for DLC"

The other companies are like.

"Hey look at that, they're making so much money! Okay everyone, drop all current projects and let's make games like them. These game will be for EVERYONE. They will be so easy and stupid that anyone can play."

"But sir, what about the hardcore fan base?"

"Last time I checked, they only make up about 35% of the gaming market...screw'em!"

The PS2, N64 and DreamCast will always be my favs. Those were real consoles for real games.

[JACK-2]

^

Word, the only original X-box title I cared for were Team Ninja games.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Dec 14, 2009 22:13:43 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

Another problem with games is that many franchises are getting old. I mean many franchises I know have already reached their zenith. They've also conquered 2-D and 3-D formats. There really isn't much that can be done with them anymore. Unless they try something entirely new, they will grow stagnat . Can't be a one trick pony.

SF was in danger of that somewhat until SF4, some might not like it as much but it is fun and different and has potential to improve. You know they're going to make an SF4: 2 remix alpha super, lol. I had a discussion with some people who had said that Smash had way more depth than SF ever had, even in Capcom games.

I disagree for obvious reasons, but I think all games have depth and tactics but some more than others. They stated SSB wasn't meant to be a competitive game at that level, hence them watering down Brawl.

[Saikyo Kid]

I got a love hate relationship, wit SFIV, although I gotta say it's prolly more love than hate.

My problems are, the costume packs, that shit was weak, I bought'em anyway, but the shit was still weak. Capcom is just lucky that I enjoy Guile dressed like Charlie and Fei Long dressed like Bruce Lee from Enter the Dragon. SFIV is kinda watered down to please the casuals too, prolly not in gameplay cuz I find that Focus cancel shit to be kinda hard and I think I'm a tad bit better than your average dude in a SF game.

It's watered down to me and still has me pissed cuz it's new characters+SFII. I'm like, damn, can we get past this whole SFII thing already. The main reason they are in there is to pleez the mainstream market who only played SFII. It's not until Super that they actually decided to add more Alpha characters and like one 3rd Strike character, hopefully Dudely or somone cool. Then again, I find myself playin' 3rd Strike and wishin' Sagat or M.Bison was there. It's wierd.

Then there are games like Blazblue that go TOO hardcore fanbase and think they are doin' peeps favors. Cuz they made this game for FG fans they think they can send out another full priced game simply cuz it has 2 new characters, some new stages and BGMs. Plus, that game is just too "animeish" a bunch of skinny supermodel characters running around wit big weapons. Just silly. If you ask me, TVC is a FG that came out this year that really reminds me of the good old days. That's not to say that the games I named previously are better or worse, just that they seem to be makin' mistakes on how to REALLY pleez peeps.

[JACK-2]

I don't really see how SF4 brought anything new to the table.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Dec 15, 2009 16:01:35 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

I don't really see how SF4 brought anything new to the table.

A little different, but not entirely new. Was refreshing for old school fans and appealing for new gen buyers. They needed something though, but if it isn't totally broken, don't fix it.

[JACK-2]

After 20 years I can't say I agree.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Dec 15, 2009 21:11:53 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

After 20 years I can't say I agree.

What part? What should be fixed?

I did mean that in a maker's perspective, they probably have great fear of changing the formula, then again Capcom is very lazy.

I liked the more advanced games, which is what drew me to Alpha 3 and Cap vs SNK2, you could use so many different systems and moves. They started watering the games down after that.

[JACK-2]

The whole game is just a cop out imo.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Dec 16, 2009 2:39:53 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

The whole game is just a cop out imo.

Explain to me, also did you see my new thread in the ink wars about MA vs overall skill?

[JACK-2]

I honestly hate talking about SFIV, because the game disgust me so much. So, I'll just copy & past what I've stated in the past:

I don't wanna go that far and say it's not a real sequel because of that. My problem is that Capcom isn't thinking in terms of what's best for the franchise in the long run, rather they are thinking of what's best for their pocket. Let's face it SF4 is mostly targeted at SF2 fans. The fact that the hack producer ONO aka ohnoes [directed Fighting Jam] pretty much has an anti-SF3 policy based on his casting and keeps harping about his goal to revive the SF2 glory days shows this. This may look fine on paper because let's face it, SF3 was a flop in the mainstream audience vs SF2 which is what pioneered the Golden age of fighters. This make look like a valid argument especially with fanboys who keep pushing the "SF has to go back to it's roots argument" or "SF3 sucks!!" bias arguments. What they forget to tell you is that when SF2 was being developed. The target audience was completely different than that of SF4 which is ironic since SF4 is trying to tap into SF2 popularity. The target audience for SF2 back then was everyone. The game was made with everyone in mind, not just a select few like SF4 [ targeting SF2 fans specifically]. Furthermore the game was built from scratch, pretty much everything from SF1 was scrapped. They remade everything a new and you can guess what happened next. . .The game was a hit. Infact, it was more than a hit, it was a revolution which forever changed the face of gaming. Now ask yourself, if Capcom didn't take a risk and tried something new. . .had they stuck to the same old formula which enjoyed moderate success. . .Would SF2 be as big as opposed to trying something new? Fanboys constantly cite SF3 as an example of why Capcom should keep to the same old tired formula. Without ever knowing what made SF successful. This whole thing about the casting is B.S., SF3 flopped because of timing. The game came out in the late 90's, a time where the fighting game market was filled with competition from rival companies that have gained popularity such as 3D fighter which were gaining immense popularity: Tekken and Virtua Fighter. Not too mention games from Capcom SF3 own camp I.E. Versus series and Alpha. . .compare that to when SF2 came out? The difference is obvious to everyone but fanboys who keep bringing up the cast, nevermind all the other games that were full of SF2 OG's and could not rival SF2 success. Alpha 3 had everyone from SF2 with brand new moves and gameplay. . .Yet, it still couldn't rival SF2 success. Nevermind that SF3 did better than most of those Capcom games in the competitive scene and was neck n neck with MVC 2 which was the biggest competitive 2-D fighter. Hell, SF 3 was more popular than SF2 in the competitive scene. My point is that for better or for worst, progress is made with risk. Staying with the familiar may keep you from a completely flop, but it also keeps you from a complete hit. What we need is a new SF for a new era. Not SF2 reborn dream match 08.

I 've had falling out with Capcom as recently, because of their recent crop of lazy LAZY games.

[Dja Majista]

Dec 15, 2009 14:55:24 GMT -5 Saikyo Kid said:

I got a love hate relationship, wit SFIV, although I gotta say it's prolly more love than hate.

My problems are, the costume packs, that shit was weak, I bought'em anyway, but the shit was still weak. Capcom is just lucky that I enjoy Guile dressed like Charlie and Fei Long dressed like Bruce Lee from Enter the Dragon. SFIV is kinda watered down to please the casuals too, prolly not in gameplay cuz I find that Focus cancel shit to be kinda hard and I think I'm a tad bit better than your average dude in a SF game.

It's watered down to me and still has me pissed cuz it's new characters+SFII. I'm like, damn, can we get past this whole SFII thing already. The main reason they are in there is to pleez the mainstream market who only played SFII. It's not until Super that they actually decided to add more Alpha characters and like one 3rd Strike character, hopefully Dudely or somone cool. Then again, I find myself playin' 3rd Strike and wishin' Sagat or M.Bison was there. It's wierd.

Then there are games like Blazblue that go TOO hardcore fanbase and think they are doin' peeps favors. Cuz they made this game for FG fans they think they can send out another full priced game simply cuz it has 2 new characters, some new stages and BGMs. Plus, that game is just too "animeish" a bunch of skinny supermodel characters running around wit big weapons. Just silly. If you ask me, TVC is a FG that came out this year that really reminds me of the good old days. That's not to say that the games I named previously are better or worse, just that they seem to be makin' mistakes on how to REALLY pleez peeps.

Yeah, this is what kills me about the new gen games. Everything you buy (console-wise) nowadays costs just as much as it did before (oh wait, games actually cost 60 now), except now it's half a game, that you can't get the rest of without spending money on DLC. It's really a disgusting practice, but hey they're making money. I think I've nearly had my fill of the new consoles. When I get on XBL I only feel like I own my system half as much. The last thing I want my console doing to me is advertising itself and trying to get MORE MONEY out of me. It's great though because the wii and the ps3 are no different, so at least I know it wasn't a failed choice of purchase.

But yeah, the casual/hardcore dichotomy plays in a little for me as well. Not as much as what I said above though. SFIV and Blazblue are two of my favorite games on that console right now. Only reason I don't have SFIV is because I want to buy it new, and I don't have money to spend on that kind of thing right now. SFIV would definitely appeal to a broader audience, but I like that fact. Personally, I like that non-gamers are starting to come into the gaming community. People who play for fun happen to be a lot of fun to play with, unless you have a massive skill gap. It depends on the game obviously. For a fighting game I would really just want to fight someone close to my level or a little above. But that's besides the point. Both games piss me off a little because of the DLC, but I didn't even know about Blazblue DLC until recently so they piss me off slightly less for not being obnoxious pricks about it. However, SFIV and Blazblue are BOTH releasing as new versions, which ticks me off because I'd really love to play both (Continuum Shift in particular), but Continuum Shift is going to be a brand new independent game retailing at... ALSO $60. This doesn't change the fact that I think Daisuke Ishiwatari is the most kickass VG producer ever to grace Japan. But still, come on, all that's changing is the balance, a couple characters, and minor graphics differences, aside from obvious things such as plot etc.

When you say TVC, you mean Tatsunoko vs. Capcom? If that reminded me of the old days, I'm not sure it would be in a good way. It's just another old recycled crossover. Those games sell so easily just for fan-service.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Dec 20, 2009 23:32:31 GMT -5 Dja Majista said:

Dec 15, 2009 14:55:24 GMT -5 Saikyo Kid said:

I got a love hate relationship, wit SFIV, although I gotta say it's prolly more love than hate.

My problems are, the costume packs, that shit was weak, I bought'em anyway, but the shit was still weak. Capcom is just lucky that I enjoy Guile dressed like Charlie and Fei Long dressed like Bruce Lee from Enter the Dragon. SFIV is kinda watered down to please the casuals too, prolly not in gameplay cuz I find that Focus cancel shit to be kinda hard and I think I'm a tad bit better than your average dude in a SF game.

It's watered down to me and still has me pissed cuz it's new characters+SFII. I'm like, damn, can we get past this whole SFII thing already. The main reason they are in there is to pleez the mainstream market who only played SFII. It's not until Super that they actually decided to add more Alpha characters and like one 3rd Strike character, hopefully Dudely or somone cool. Then again, I find myself playin' 3rd Strike and wishin' Sagat or M.Bison was there. It's wierd.

Then there are games like Blazblue that go TOO hardcore fanbase and think they are doin' peeps favors. Cuz they made this game for FG fans they think they can send out another full priced game simply cuz it has 2 new characters, some new stages and BGMs. Plus, that game is just too "animeish" a bunch of skinny supermodel characters running around wit big weapons. Just silly. If you ask me, TVC is a FG that came out this year that really reminds me of the good old days. That's not to say that the games I named previously are better or worse, just that they seem to be makin' mistakes on how to REALLY pleez peeps.

Yeah, this is what kills me about the new gen games. Everything you buy (console-wise) nowadays costs just as much as it did before (oh wait, games actually cost 60 now), except now it's half a game, that you can't get the rest of without spending money on DLC. It's really a disgusting practice, but hey they're making money. I think I've nearly had my fill of the new consoles. When I get on XBL I only feel like I own my system half as much. The last thing I want my console doing to me is advertising itself and trying to get MORE MONEY out of me. It's great though because the wii and the ps3 are no different, so at least I know it wasn't a failed choice of purchase.

But yeah, the casual/hardcore dichotomy plays in a little for me as well. Not as much as what I said above though. SFIV and Blazblue are two of my favorite games on that console right now. Only reason I don't have SFIV is because I want to buy it new, and I don't have money to spend on that kind of thing right now. SFIV would definitely appeal to a broader audience, but I like that fact. Personally, I like that non-gamers are starting to come into the gaming community. People who play for fun happen to be a lot of fun to play with, unless you have a massive skill gap. It depends on the game obviously. For a fighting game I would really just want to fight someone close to my level or a little above. But that's besides the point. Both games piss me off a little because of the DLC, but I didn't even know about Blazblue DLC until recently so they piss me off slightly less for not being obnoxious pricks about it. However, SFIV and Blazblue are BOTH releasing as new versions, which ticks me off because I'd really love to play both (Continuum Shift in particular), but Continuum Shift is going to be a brand new independent game retailing at... ALSO $60. This doesn't change the fact that I think Daisuke Ishiwatari is the most kickass VG producer ever to grace Japan. But still, come on, all that's changing is the balance, a couple characters, and minor graphics differences, aside from obvious things such as plot etc.

When you say TVC, you mean Tatsunoko vs. Capcom? If that reminded me of the old days, I'm not sure it would be in a good way. It's just another old recycled crossover. Those games sell so easily just for fan-service.

Actually I think games then cost more in most cases, and now they are dropping prices.

That's the eternal battle between art and business though, you need good business to sell the product, but the product should be good, not just based on the fact that you have hardcore fans that would say SF: Big Rigs is awesome, lol. Man these images need updating.

Now I like games that are harder and take a steeper learning curve because I find them more rewarding and less based on luck, but a great game is good for beginners and experts, so I'm in the middle. The other SF games were fun and popular but they were also really deep and had learning curves, all of us obviously like different sf and capcomvs games so I won't go into which one was "the best". Twisted Metal Black was really fun but had a good learning curve, Timesplitters was fun but had things only expert gamers could do. Make it appeal to both instead of watering it down works best IMO, because a lot of the people who see what the system really is will move on elsewhere.

[Dja Majista]

What makes you think prices are lower now? New and desired releases have very often opted to take the previously forbidden $60 price tag. Before, only the most desired games were $50 (and most of those were PC titles), and the older consoles almost always charged $40 and below for their games, rarely breaking out with a $50 one. Before the DS and PSP, handheld games almost NEVER went over $30, now we have to wait until they've been out a while to get them at that price, especially with the psp titles.

Not to mention, if we throw DLC into the equation, suddenly the full game costs $10-$20 more than the one you actually bought. This is bad news for completion gamers nowadays, because it's not uncommon now that you will have to get DLC just to unlock the last achievements.

But if you mean games back then now cost less, then of course I agree.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Dec 21, 2009 11:29:04 GMT -5 Dja Majista said:

What makes you think prices are lower now? New and desired releases have very often opted to take the previously forbidden $60 price tag. Before, only the most desired games were $50 (and most of those were PC titles), and the older consoles almost always charged $40 and below for their games, rarely breaking out with a $50 one. Before the DS and PSP, handheld games almost NEVER went over $30, now we have to wait until they've been out a while to get them at that price, especially with the psp titles.

Not to mention, if we throw DLC into the equation, suddenly the full game costs $10-$20 more than the one you actually bought. This is bad news for completion gamers nowadays, because it's not uncommon now that you will have to get DLC just to unlock the last achievements.

But if you mean games back then now cost less, then of course I agree.

A lot of times they were, really old NES games were quite expensive then, the 40-60 dollar range was generally the magic number and the 300 dollar range was the magic number on consoles, they were doing a price drop on current games. I remember when TMNT for my Game Boy way back when was around 30-40 bucks, they haven't changed too much. Then there are much much older systems in which they cost even more as games were newer technology then.

Games will use marketing ploys to make more money though, but they can't be entirely blamed. When selfish and lazy people steal the games and download them for free, doing this over time does take money from the makers of the content whether it's movies, games, or music. So they are going to be less likely to drop prices and more likely to raise them to recover money lost from stealing. Sucks, but one person's action does affect everyone else.

[Dja Majista]

Well, sure, we could just say it's the invisible hand of capitalism causing all this. We don't have to blame people per se. The age of information enables thievery, and companies are compensating. The tragedy is that people who aren't stealing are suffering just as much, and ironically are becoming inclined to steal (me for instance).

Some non-mainstream systems back then costed a buttload, sure. I guess it would be accurate to say video games used to cost more way back when, then went down from the SNES era to the GC/PS2/XB era and now they've shot up big time.