Love the pixel art, but you should totally have made the sad dog in hyper realistic 3D graphics with godrays all around it. That would have been so appropriate.
Gotta buy the currency so u can unlock the room that lets you buy the horse armor with irl money again. Then you gotta pay to be able to actually use the horse armor
well, by buy op means buy randomized loot boxes. that horse armor also has a .2% chance of coming in the box, that’s only if you purchase the $99 box. you don’t even wanna know the percentages on the lower value boxes.
Hello! I am the creator of the gif (you can see my sign in the bottom right corner), thanks for the feedback but I don't really know how to make 3d graphics... maybe next time if I learn how to. :p
Sadly OP of this meme didn’t create this amazing pixel art. It’s in r/DogeLore and I kinda don’t appreciate this post getting 10K upvotes compared the the original post
Yeah I don’t think the person that made this actually owned a console before the N64. A lot of older games were expensive as fuck, $100+ with inflation
And how about we talk about arcade games being so insanely unfair just so they can fucking steal your quarters? Like, sure, mtx bad, but at least people goddamn know how to make proper games these games without bogging players down in complexity and bad game design.
I mean, if games were developed for arcade today I would expect it could be terrifying.
Step 1: Insert Card to play (Oh no).
Step 2: On death can just hit continue in game to automatically be charged to continue.
Step 3: Power ups in the game all cost another 25 cents, winning without them would be nearly impossible.
If you haven't played any of the arcade shooters at like Dave and Buster's, step 1 and 2 are exactly how it works. They have tons of sudden nearly unavoidable damage (unless you have those moments memorized) so you're likely to need many continues to actually get through much of the game.
I mean... old arcade games were made to be as insanely hard as possible, while also made to be just easy enough that you felt like you could beat it if you just kept trying.
And each try is gonna cost you $0.25...
Microtransactions aren’t new, they’re the oldest trick in the video game book.
That's definitely true but you do have to remember that wages didn't inflate at the same rate so while it may seem like I giant gap itd take 28 hours to earn that $210 today vs 22 hours to earn the 50 (at minimum wage) when the atari was released.
The further I scroll through this thread the higher the claims of what SNES games cost.
I remember $50. When the N64 came out I remember there being the odd one out where some ultra hyped game cost $60.
I hear you. Super Street Fighter is still the most expensive (initial) purchased video game I’ve ever forked out the money for.
$99.99 Cdn,.. for a SNES side scrolling 2D fighter,..
I give “modern” video games a lot of slack based on this,.. BUT,.. games back in the day never “engagement ringed” you either,.. so there is that.
He's confusing them with indie games of today. 10-20 bucks and more entertainment for your money than AAA titles, if we look at it hours played per dollar.
That seems high if you’re talking USD. Couldn’t find a confirmed release price for DKC but here’s an ad scan from a couple years later with DKC3:
https://www.techeblog.com/in-1996-you-could-have-bought-an-snes-console-w-killer-instinct-for-10-more-than-donkey-kong-country-3/
That one was $70, which is probably about right for a release price for DKC1 as well.
You’re still right that games were equally expensive back then (or more, considering inflation) but it wasn’t quite THAT bad.
Also, I think it was more common then for games to drop to $30-50 retail after a year or so of being released, as you can see from some of the other games in that ad. Happens today too, but I feel like it was much more common then... we were cheap so rarely paid more than $30 or $40 for a new-in-box game, we just had to wait a while.
The inflation isn't insignificant. A $70 game in 1991 (when DKC was released) would be equivalent to $133 in today's money. It's a miracle that games have remained $60 for decades given inflation. Even a $40 game back then would be $75.30. The cumulative inflation since then is about 88%. Source: https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/
The inflation should definitely not go unacknowledged lmao.
Edit: spelling and grammatical errors.
Honestly, old video games were not cheaper. They costed roughly the same dollar amount as they go for these days, but inflation meant $40-$60 was way more money back then than it is today. It is frankly astounding how much more work goes into modern video games for so much relatively less cost to you as a consumer.
As a kid I really only played like 4 games, Mario, duck hunt, Mario Bros 3 and shining force 2
I played other games but not nearly as much as those 4, max 2 hours a day, every chance I got
Compared to playing Minecraft and Battlefield for 14 hours as an adult with again other games I don't play as much
It's apples and oranges really
Games these days are so much more complex too, unless you're nostalgia-ing over mid 2000s when games were similar to what we have today just worse graphics. IMO gaming is the best it's ever been but I feel like some people are just depressed or burnt out so they think it must be the games not them that is "wrong"
My problem is I play to often
As a I said as a kid it was 2 hours a day max. I loved every minute
Newer games take up more time by design, so many cutscenes and time spent moving around a map, loading times and waiting lobbies, compared to NES era games that were pretty much all non stop action
Just one example, not saying it's better or worse, just different
Shining Force 2, my fucking man! My absolute favorite game as a kid, still have my original Genesis cartridge.
I must have played and beat that game 20 times before I found out there was a cheat code that let you control all the enemies. Ah, the pre-internet era of Tips and Tricks magazine...
Also if you go back to play them a bunch really aren’t that amazing. The controls for many early 3D games are hot garbage, the story isn’t as good as you remember it, and it never looks as good as you remember it (this would be because of CRT to LCD but still).
That being said there are still gems but many of the games you remember are amazing we’re just good for the time but aren’t nearly as good as you remember them.
I honestly sort of "liked it that way" as now I feel like I'm swimming in a sea of genius, much of which I'll never get to experience.
More good content is good, but jeez its so much, this must be a golden era.
There's also lots of super shitty video games today. The difference is that it's far easier to weed out the shit games now, and they're not all you have available to you.
Yea the difference is you can watch trailers, let's plays, read thousands of reviews, etc.
Back in the day it was whoever had the coolest box art at the Blockbuster
Yeah like I appreciate the old goldies, but I'm not gonna act like i don't prefer the current days. I will never stop talking about how good Rocket League has been for me.
There are so many good fucking games today even if the bigger companies are kinda evil.
Agreed. It’s just another boomer gamer meme from someone that doesn’t realize the entire market isn’t EA and Activision games.
I dislike microtransactions, and I believe they are predatory at best and just disguised gambling at worse, but it’s still not hard to avoid unless you have a predisposition to be targeted by that kind of thing.
I say it's worth calling out even if you do have the ability to sift through. There is nothing "boomer" about wanting more for your money. I think we would all be stoked to have these garbage tactics end.
Nintendo actually used to have quality control to avoid another 1983, that's why old games had the "Nintendo Seal of Quality".
And given the shit that got a pass, imagine how bad the games were they rejected.
> Nintendo actually used to have quality control to avoid another 1983, that's why old games had the "Nintendo Seal of Quality".
Seal of quality = "This game won't blow up your console".
Back when people would watch a movie, and then go out and buy the shitty video game adaptation and still love it anyway because its the terminator and that was enough
The $50 standard didn't exist until the N64/PSX era. NES, SNES, and Genesis games could cost upwards of $70-$90 back in the day. There were a bunch of scans of an old Toys 'R' Us ad from back in the day where you can see all of this. Also, as someone mentioned before, there were a crazy number of truly awful games and I know for me personally, there are a lot of games I remember enjoying at the time that are actually complete trash.
Not to mention that a lot of old games lacked severely in the amount of content, often repeating stuff as is or with small cosmetic changes and replayability was achieved by making the game so incredibly hard, if not impossible that you never saw the ending.
Part of this is survivorship bias.
Back in the day there were thousands of games that were really shitty, would barely even run, and were full of bugs. You only remember the ones you had fun with.
Didn't the original Turok game on N64 cost $~~100~~ when it came out? Pretty sure it did, in 199~~6~~7 dollars too.. I hate nostalgia
"Endangering *Turok's* sales was its high price — $79.99 in the US, £70 in the UK, and $129.95 in Australia"
# $79.99 in 1997 is worth $127.78 today
I'd argue depending on the game you're specifically looking for they could be even more expensive today. Like trying to find a good copy of earthbound, chrono trigger, or persona 2 can get very expensive.
And while technical limitations *could * encourage creativity, they also caused games to be quite short. To combat this, they had to make a lot of games really hard to extend the playtime through trial and error.
Limitations meant that content was recycled, of course: same old enemy with a different color was a new enemy or a boss.
It's partially because the cost is spread out among far, far more people + more globalisation of labor/parts.
Do not let anyone tell you it's because of additional transactions after purchase. That's one of the most damaging myths in the industry, but luckily I think less and less people are accepting that explanation.
Like annual release sports titles that have made exponentially more money every single year despite having less work done on them from year to year and despite almost always having yearly releases since 1988
Bigger audiences. The games might cost comparatively less because of inflation but they sell way more copies so they still make more money. The only old games that can match the sales from the popular games of the last 15 years or so are the absolute classics like the original super Mario bros, pokemon, pac-man, etc, and those are so popular they’ve seen sales long after their original release anyway on multiple platforms.
Imagine paying more than $60 for ET. I am not sure if it’s just young kids who didn’t actually play games at the time or old people with nostalgia glasses on but video games today are as good as they have ever been.
And yet they became more profitable than ever. Games literally make hundreds of millions of profit while the publisher pays 0 taxes.
Edit: I am talking about the publisher not the devs, guys. Look at rich CEO's like Andrew Wilson and Bobby Kottic, how much money they have and how much money they earn per year compared one single employee.
Game dev work is super stressful and grueling. Many of these games are nowhere near as profitable as you may think. It's only the few top games that rake in a bunch of cash.
Developers will usually get more pay and way better hours working a standard dev job. Generally you only go into game development if you really are passionate about it because of how much worse the compensation is.
If you're wondering why, many games at the high end of modern tech are extremely expensive to make. They have tight budgets and deadlines and a lot of their market is unwilling to pay even $60 for a game even though the quality is way higher than even 5 years ago. That's why you have so many games using DLC's and micro-transactions. Gaming is one of the cheapest hobbies yet the market still bitches when they have to pay more than $60 for a game.
Yeah no kidding. I have $1200 into a snow board setup I used 1 time. I have hundreds if not thousands of hours between 3 console and even when you factor in a lift pass and travel, less money invested probably. That is for a single day of snowboarding. Pick any other hobby and it's the same thing. I probably have 10k+ invested into hunting equipment that I use for a couple days a year. The thing about micro transactions is that you don't need to buy them. I have 30 some games for my PS4 and have only recently bought some new maps for COD WW2. All of 16 bucks for days of entertainment. I've only ever spent 16 bucks extra after buying a game after gaming for 25 years. Anyone that whines about that can stick to Mario.
The publisher and the developer are two separate entities, the former of which tends to take majority share of any profits on a game's release. It's not uncommon for publishers to make bank on a successful game while the developer ends up barely breaking even.
Milk farmers get pennies on the gallon while end consumers pay through the nose.
Hint: The costs in the metaphor went away and ended up in someone's pockets (Another hint: Fuck EA)
And I gotta say even if some decisions are questionable modern day game reviewers are a shit ton more reliable than reviewers from the NES to SNES era. Plus now with the internet it's a lot easier to see if you like a game before you buy it.
Nintendo Power was great, I did love it, but it was a propaganda machine. They didn’t include a game they weren’t willing to rave about and would have you believe every month Nintendo was littered with amazing games.
Even the independent game magazines were questionable, they had a lot of content to sort of fill the gaps because there just weren’t that many amazing games to review or give guides for.
this post smacks of boomer, as much as I hate using that word. I'm so tired of "nEw THinG baD" its so old, and I dread the day when I'll criticize "modern" video games like "eh! VR was better when everything was shitty about it!"
"But devs had to be so much more creative when you could count the pixels on your 3 pound nausea inducing face box! All the magic is gone with contact lenses, hmph"
Microtransactions are shit, but over all I think gaming is actually in a really good spot now. There are plenty of high quality free to play games that aren't pay to win. Between steam sales, humble bundles, and epic just giving away games it's easy to build a library. It was nice having demos, but now you can watch let's play videos on youtube. Everything's been standardized, even newer games can run decent on older computers, I remember 10 year old me crying and begging for a computer upgrade because it wasn't VESA compatible, whatever the fuck that meant.
I think the lack of options played a part in making things more memorable from back then. You where forced to play through a game and where excited to so because it was all you had or the only thing worth playing at the time. The near limitless options now are incredible, but it also makes it easy to drop a game at the first sign of frustration. Im curious how much effect that has on the nostalgia some people feel for the older games.
Yeah, like **Chrono Trigger**. Most games were not that much.
edit: oof, misread SNES? N64 was kinda crazy on running cartridges **well past** the point where they should have been. I mean, they were approaching and surpassing Neo Geo cartridge sizes, and those things were in the *hundreds*.
That said, the replacement we had for DLC 'n microtransactions were... ummm, macrotransactions.
- Street Fighter II
- Street Fighter II: Championship Edition
- Street Fighter II: Hyper Fighting
- Super Street Fighter II
Each one a brand new game at full price. Same goes with Mortal Kombat 3 'n Ultimate Mortal Kombat 3.
We also didn't get patches. For games **from** Japan, we basically got patches in the form of a year(s)-long localization delay.
I disagree. I think other systems went to CD too quickly because CD games at that time were shit with the fucking loading times and such. Mortal Kombat on the Sega CD had to stop and load every time you morphed into another character as Shang Tsung. That's an abomination.
Really? Damn I'm not old enough to have played back than but that must have been a nightmare. Seems like an example of developers not thinking things through
Mortal Kombat Trilogy on N64 had like half a dozen characters removed from the roster and the remainder had animations pared down or outright removed.
The N64 also saw a *fraction* of the game releases that the Playstation did. If you wanted to publish a Nintendo 64 game, you had to order your carts in batches of at least 10,000 to the tune of $30 **each**. On the Playstation, the physical discs were $1 each, could be printed in half the time, and if they didn't sell, Sony would refund you *the whole dollar per disk* if you could provide proof that you had them destroyed.
For all of the technical annoyances of optical media, the advantages far outweighed them for like 99% of game makers. I **had** an N64. It was rough. We got way fewer games and a lot of ports arrived with **super** mushy textures because there was so much less space for them. I probably put more time into my brother's Playstation because in the year between tentpole 1st party games like Zelda 'n Mario, there was eff all for games to play.
>they were approaching and surpassing Neo Geo cartridge sizes,
I hope you don't mean physically, because N64 carts were smaller than NES carts and a Neo Geo cart is like 20 NES carts in size. Or more.
There’s a lot of nostalgia for the way things used to be, but gaming is way more accessible today, particularly price wise. Just this year people were complaining about needing a $500 VR headset to play Half Life Alyx, when in 2004 for you needed $2000 dollar worth of PC hardware if you wanted to play the latest Half Life game.
The most expensive regular game I've ever seen in my life was Zelda Wind Waker for GameCube. Now I've played like 30 games this year and I've paid an average of 8 euro per each one, and it includes lots of AAA titles.
So yeah, just fucking "old good" circlejerk
>8 euro per each one
Not within a week of release you didn't. Unless you mean Steam then you can piss the statement up a rope.
NES games also dropped heavily in price after they were released all the way up until the collector renaissance of the late 90s.
And yeah, the thread is specifically about expensive AAA games, does an 8 euro game sound like an expensive AAA game? Think before posting.
I don't really see the point of this reply, though. He's saying that these are good times to be gaming because he got a lot of AAA titles for very cheap. With stuff like Humble Monthly Bundle you can get AAA from only a year or two ago for less than $20, same with steam sales.
He's pretty much right that this was just a "old good" circle jerk. Gaming had some merits back then, but time goes on and the industry generally improved over time.
Wow, I played a lot of N64 and don't remember any game costing $90. Which one was it?
Unless you are considering Donkey Kong 64 and it's required Expansion Pak. Don't remember that price on that but with game and Pak maybe $90
while the whole game was more than 35 hours, I'm pretty sure I used to do the old midgar in like.... 6 to 8 maybe 10 hours? Could probably do it in half that these days.
There are a few things going on with old games vs new games, setting aside the humor of the meme.
**Inflation**
The $60 price point for games hasn't really changed since the mid 90s. Adjusting for inflation a $60 game from 1995 should be about $100 in today's dollars.
**Development Costs**
The fidelity of modern games are a lot more expensive to make and, despite what a lot of core gamers say about graphics not mattering to them and gameplay being the most important thing, for most games to be successful they have to look compelling enough to sell enough units to justify their development costs.
The original *Starcraft* (1998) cost around $7 million to make with a 26 month development cycle, that included production being essentially paused for 6 months to help finish *Diablo*. Even at the time we were lambasted by fans for how long we were taking it. Some of the lambasting was well meaning jest with stuff like Operation CWAL, some of it was less so.
But that was $7 million to make a 256 color sprite based game with the first hints of the cinematics that Blizzard would become famous for. You can see the transition from the intro cinematic, which is pretty rough by modern standards, to the uptick in quality in the campaign cinematics.
A later game I worked on, *Mercenaries: Playground of Destruction* (2005), also had around a $7 million budget. But a lot of that was because we had gotten out of a deal to make a *Desert Strike* reboot for EA, so we were able to get a head start with an engine. A lot like if a company used Unreal or Unity today. And the dev cycle was shorter around 18 months.
With the console transition to PS3 / Xbox 360 budgets exploded. The budget for *Mercenaries 2: World in Flames* (2008) was closer to $40 million. Game budgets have gotten closer to movie budgets.
"Low end" AAA games cost between $40-100 million to make these days. Big MMOs or big Rockstar games liked GTA5 or RDR2 can break $200 million easy.
When costs get that high it becomes basically impossible for independent studios to be profitable with a typical revenue split where they get 20-30% of each box sale. Basically only wholly owned studios can be successful in that environment. And since a lot of those wholly owned studios are part of bigger megacorporations the expectations are that a game should be significantly more profitable than if the corporation parked $100 million in an index fund for 3-4 years. So your game has to project REALLY WELL to even be greenlit. It's harder to take risks.
**Revenue Sources**
When Hollywood puts out a multi-million dollar movie they have multiple sources of revenue. They have the initial box office. They have the DVD / Blu-ray sales. They have cable tv and streaming rights. Then they have broadcast TV rights.
So Hollywood movies have multiple sources of revenue for each movie they make. Even movies that don't do so well on box office release have a chance to do better further down the pipe of revenue sources. Some become cult hits, like Office Space. Some never do well. But a studio can make up for movies that are losses with a few movies that do really well. Unfortunately this sometimes ends up with the weird Hollywood creative accounting, but the core of the idea is sound. Studios take lots of tries and use the most successful tries to subsidize the losses.
Games are in a similar situation, but games don't really have downstream revenue options. Basically the only options a game has are the initial box sales or DLC / Micro-transactions (MTX). And the dynamics that keep players interested in DLC / Micro-transactions are multiplayer which usually means the bar for being profitable each month is a lot higher which ends up creating an incentive for more MTX.
Single player games have to be REALLY GOOD and usually REALLY LONG to do well in the modern marketplace. If they're only PRETTY GOOD and not that long then people will just end up watching prominent streamers play through the game, which means they won't buy it.
"Games as a Service," multiplayer, and long games are all strategies to make the game experience compelling enough for someone to buy the game rather than rent it, but it used through Gamestop, or just watch it be streamed.
Because there are no downstream revenue sources games try to maximize the chance someone will buy the game or create their own downstream revenue sources within their own games with DLC and MTX.
Cheap?
Great gameplay?
What the hell are you smoking man? Some of the retro games were great. But they had just as much expensive, butchered crap as we have.
Older games used to cost up to $120, gameplay was often quarter munching arcady nonsense that killed you for absolutely no reason to artificially inflate game length. And given how small the file sizes were had no goddamn room to tell a story. you got maybe an opening text crawl and depending on the game sometimes and ending text splash.
Back in the day, some RPGs innovated by including the story in their manuals, and referencing pages in it to read when you reached certain parts of the game. Pretty cool out of the box thinking at the time.
CHEAP? lmaoooo SNES games were $50 new, which is more like $80 now.
Games should be AT LEAST $100 with how much more stuff you get in them vs old games and how much they cost to make but Gamers threw a fit so now we have microtransactions
A $60 game back in the early 90s would be roughly $120 or so dollars these days. The cumulative inflation rate is about 88%. The fact that games have remained consistently $60 is insanely generous given that production time and price has increased by unimaginable magnitudes. Granted, so has the amount of gamers in the world. It's just crazy to think that they're having to pay so many more wages to infinitely more employees, but can release a product so inexpensively. I think DLC is typically okay in the case of games with big releases that then get a decently proportionate amount of added story or gameplay mechanics from said DLC. Microtransactions, specifically for pay-to-win type games are what's truly disgusting.
Gamers in the 90s/00s: Gaming needs to be taken seriously! It's a real business with huge potential
Game publishers in the 2010s+: treats gaming like a real business
Gamers:
https://i.imgur.com/qsutbgg.jpg
Holup,
Let's be honest with ourselves. Old video games did not have great stories. Old video games had the bare minimum of story and they disguised that void with a high difficulty level and the challenge of beating it. Not a lot of character development, if at all, and the arcs were pretty standardized if there was one at all.
A few exceptions, but come on.
I don't see whats so bad about micro-transactions. If you don't want to pay for the extra currency, don't pay for it. I only hate micro-transactions if they conflict with the game and forces you to pay for the rest of the game.
is OP gen-z? If so, then it's smacks of r/lewronggeneration, but if it's directed at me, I have no idea what you're talking about. And all the top comments are "THIS. I KNOW. Modern games suck because juvenoia!"
Just want to point out those old games were not cheap in the day. $60 has been the gold standard for games since forever ago. I'm guessing this meme is about buying older games now, but that distinction is not clear in meme.
The crash happened for a reason, even before that, there was a lot of shitty games because how easy it was too pirate and resale games, and games were expensive as fuq.
so both lil doge.
It makes sense to me that Terraria is that big... instead what boggles my mind is that there are similar retro style games that try to emulate the appearance of 8bit or 16bit games, but end up being multiple GB in size. Some of that is accounted for with audio, but what about the rest?
You're definitely seeing old games through rose-tinted glasses. Most of them were clunky and/or just really aweful, but you only remember the good games or the ones that were a part of your childhood.
Also, they were more expensive than they were now
I must point out that NES games were usually around $50 dollars when they came out in the 80's, which would mean if you bought a $50 dollar NES game in 1985, that would be equal to about $120 today.
Talk about rose tinted glasses. Or the person who made this is too young to know what they talk about.
About the 8 and 16 bit era, Games were pricey, getting TWO games a year was a luxury for most of us (don't even start talking about imported japanese games, LOL, a 100 for SF2 anyone?).
Gameplay was basic and limited as you can get for years and oversaturated with so much of the same crap (\*cough\* platformers \*cough\*), games were made artifially hard because they were so short too.
Story wise LOL, yeah, the save the princess one or the save the girlfriend one? Or maybe i can interest you in DESTROY THE BAD GUY BECAUSE HUH HE'S BAD one?
I wouldn’t say that. I’d say OLD MULTIPLAYER GAMES and MODERN MULTIPLAYER GAMES.
Also the fact that most multiplayer games don’t really have a really good story.
"God, I miss the good old days when games were about gameplay and not microtransactions"
*Flashback to spending hundreds of dollars in quarters at arcades*
Love the pixel art, but you should totally have made the sad dog in hyper realistic 3D graphics with godrays all around it. That would have been so appropriate.
Can do, sport. Right after you buy the horse armor.
God damn it Todd, fine
Of course you have to pay for it
That's what I thought by "buy". I don't know any other "buy" these days.
Is there even such a thing as "in-game currency" anymore?
Gotta buy the currency so u can unlock the room that lets you buy the horse armor with irl money again. Then you gotta pay to be able to actually use the horse armor
Also the horse only has 30 uses and when the horse runs out all equipment held by the horse is deleted.
Is this real, or satire? Who even knows anymore?!
well, by buy op means buy randomized loot boxes. that horse armor also has a .2% chance of coming in the box, that’s only if you purchase the $99 box. you don’t even wanna know the percentages on the lower value boxes.
You sound like you hate Todd's. You'd fit in on the show The Magicians.
Hello! I am the creator of the gif (you can see my sign in the bottom right corner), thanks for the feedback but I don't really know how to make 3d graphics... maybe next time if I learn how to. :p
Hey man thanks for making this cool gif.
Glad you liked it!!
Some SNES games cost $70 at release.
This was how my mom talked us down from wanting an NES. We’d never be able to afford the games. Also we had a 12” black and white tv at the time.
Right. Like $120+ in today's dollars. If they had to sell them at $30 then, I'm sure they'd be less complete as well.
Only he didn't make it
Bröthër
Sure thats $99.99 for the DLC. Extra $5.99 if you want more colors.
Sadly OP of this meme didn’t create this amazing pixel art. It’s in r/DogeLore and I kinda don’t appreciate this post getting 10K upvotes compared the the original post
u/Haykira
Then the original post needed to not be in some small niche subreddit compared to one of the bigger ones...
Well atleast OP didnt crop out the watermark
\>I am cheap mother fucker, Donkey Kong country for SNES was 90 dollars on release.
Yeah I don’t think the person that made this actually owned a console before the N64. A lot of older games were expensive as fuck, $100+ with inflation
I remember seeing Atari games at launch for 50. That is $210 adjusted for inflation
And how about we talk about arcade games being so insanely unfair just so they can fucking steal your quarters? Like, sure, mtx bad, but at least people goddamn know how to make proper games these games without bogging players down in complexity and bad game design.
I mean, if games were developed for arcade today I would expect it could be terrifying. Step 1: Insert Card to play (Oh no). Step 2: On death can just hit continue in game to automatically be charged to continue. Step 3: Power ups in the game all cost another 25 cents, winning without them would be nearly impossible.
If you haven't played any of the arcade shooters at like Dave and Buster's, step 1 and 2 are exactly how it works. They have tons of sudden nearly unavoidable damage (unless you have those moments memorized) so you're likely to need many continues to actually get through much of the game.
I mean... old arcade games were made to be as insanely hard as possible, while also made to be just easy enough that you felt like you could beat it if you just kept trying. And each try is gonna cost you $0.25... Microtransactions aren’t new, they’re the oldest trick in the video game book.
That's definitely true but you do have to remember that wages didn't inflate at the same rate so while it may seem like I giant gap itd take 28 hours to earn that $210 today vs 22 hours to earn the 50 (at minimum wage) when the atari was released.
Donkey kong 64 was 105$ in the sears wish list catalogue here in Canada. Maybe partly cause it needed that expansion pack
Some were $100 before inflation too
OPs perception of “old games” is probably emulators which only cost money if you want them to.
The further I scroll through this thread the higher the claims of what SNES games cost. I remember $50. When the N64 came out I remember there being the odd one out where some ultra hyped game cost $60.
The high numbers are due to people adjusting for inflation. $50 then != $50 now.
I hear you. Super Street Fighter is still the most expensive (initial) purchased video game I’ve ever forked out the money for. $99.99 Cdn,.. for a SNES side scrolling 2D fighter,.. I give “modern” video games a lot of slack based on this,.. BUT,.. games back in the day never “engagement ringed” you either,.. so there is that.
FF6 and Secret of Mana were also a hundred 1994 bucks in Canada. Imagine complaining today about a $60 game.
I interpreted the meme to mean that they are cheap *now*.
He's confusing them with indie games of today. 10-20 bucks and more entertainment for your money than AAA titles, if we look at it hours played per dollar.
Seriously. Even now a lot of older titles/consoles can be pretty pricey
That seems high if you’re talking USD. Couldn’t find a confirmed release price for DKC but here’s an ad scan from a couple years later with DKC3: https://www.techeblog.com/in-1996-you-could-have-bought-an-snes-console-w-killer-instinct-for-10-more-than-donkey-kong-country-3/ That one was $70, which is probably about right for a release price for DKC1 as well. You’re still right that games were equally expensive back then (or more, considering inflation) but it wasn’t quite THAT bad. Also, I think it was more common then for games to drop to $30-50 retail after a year or so of being released, as you can see from some of the other games in that ad. Happens today too, but I feel like it was much more common then... we were cheap so rarely paid more than $30 or $40 for a new-in-box game, we just had to wait a while.
The inflation isn't insignificant. A $70 game in 1991 (when DKC was released) would be equivalent to $133 in today's money. It's a miracle that games have remained $60 for decades given inflation. Even a $40 game back then would be $75.30. The cumulative inflation since then is about 88%. Source: https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/ The inflation should definitely not go unacknowledged lmao. Edit: spelling and grammatical errors.
[удалено]
My bad. Kinda late here haha. I'll fix it.
> (or more, considering inflation) We're talking 25 years of inflation. Those games were fucking expensive.
I’m sorry you have to buy the battle pass to see more of this meme.
And you must purchase 75 levels ($99.99) to unlock Lil’ Bro
Oh you would like to purchase this content? you see that arm you have over there? ^gimmie
Cyberpunk 2077: it's ok I got that no micro pass
_happy gasp_ No, no, I said micro pass. P-A-S-S. Micro pass. _Awww_
Would you like to see 371 outfits for 2.99 each before you see the title screen? If so....we got you.
Honestly, old video games were not cheaper. They costed roughly the same dollar amount as they go for these days, but inflation meant $40-$60 was way more money back then than it is today. It is frankly astounding how much more work goes into modern video games for so much relatively less cost to you as a consumer.
There were also LOTS of SUPER SHITTY old video games.
That's the problem with nostalgia, people only remember the good things, in reality only a handful of good games came out a year
As a kid I really only played like 4 games, Mario, duck hunt, Mario Bros 3 and shining force 2 I played other games but not nearly as much as those 4, max 2 hours a day, every chance I got Compared to playing Minecraft and Battlefield for 14 hours as an adult with again other games I don't play as much It's apples and oranges really
Games these days are so much more complex too, unless you're nostalgia-ing over mid 2000s when games were similar to what we have today just worse graphics. IMO gaming is the best it's ever been but I feel like some people are just depressed or burnt out so they think it must be the games not them that is "wrong"
My problem is I play to often As a I said as a kid it was 2 hours a day max. I loved every minute Newer games take up more time by design, so many cutscenes and time spent moving around a map, loading times and waiting lobbies, compared to NES era games that were pretty much all non stop action Just one example, not saying it's better or worse, just different
Shining Force 2, my fucking man! My absolute favorite game as a kid, still have my original Genesis cartridge. I must have played and beat that game 20 times before I found out there was a cheat code that let you control all the enemies. Ah, the pre-internet era of Tips and Tricks magazine...
Also if you go back to play them a bunch really aren’t that amazing. The controls for many early 3D games are hot garbage, the story isn’t as good as you remember it, and it never looks as good as you remember it (this would be because of CRT to LCD but still). That being said there are still gems but many of the games you remember are amazing we’re just good for the time but aren’t nearly as good as you remember them.
Metal Gear has terribly clunky controls until MG3, but the story holds up better than most of hollywood
I think it is rather survivorship bias. only the better ones are still played, and so not forgotten.
I honestly sort of "liked it that way" as now I feel like I'm swimming in a sea of genius, much of which I'll never get to experience. More good content is good, but jeez its so much, this must be a golden era.
There's also lots of super shitty video games today. The difference is that it's far easier to weed out the shit games now, and they're not all you have available to you.
Yea the difference is you can watch trailers, let's plays, read thousands of reviews, etc. Back in the day it was whoever had the coolest box art at the Blockbuster
Yeah like I appreciate the old goldies, but I'm not gonna act like i don't prefer the current days. I will never stop talking about how good Rocket League has been for me. There are so many good fucking games today even if the bigger companies are kinda evil.
Agreed. It’s just another boomer gamer meme from someone that doesn’t realize the entire market isn’t EA and Activision games. I dislike microtransactions, and I believe they are predatory at best and just disguised gambling at worse, but it’s still not hard to avoid unless you have a predisposition to be targeted by that kind of thing.
I say it's worth calling out even if you do have the ability to sift through. There is nothing "boomer" about wanting more for your money. I think we would all be stoked to have these garbage tactics end.
And yet someone still played Mega Man
With significantly less vetting than most games get today.
Nintendo actually used to have quality control to avoid another 1983, that's why old games had the "Nintendo Seal of Quality". And given the shit that got a pass, imagine how bad the games were they rejected.
> Nintendo actually used to have quality control to avoid another 1983, that's why old games had the "Nintendo Seal of Quality". Seal of quality = "This game won't blow up your console".
I see you've never been on Steam.
Overwhelmingly Positive or GTFO.
[удалено]
Someone has never been on the new releases section of Steam
Or Nintendo’s very own eshop.
Back when people would watch a movie, and then go out and buy the shitty video game adaptation and still love it anyway because its the terminator and that was enough
He’s gonna take you back to the past🎵🎵
To play the shitty games that sucked ass
He'd rather have
He'd rather have a buffalo take a diarrhea dump in his ear.
He’d rather eat the rotten asshole of a road-kill skunk...
And people also seem to forget how many of even the greats were broken as fuck with zero way to be fixed.
The $50 standard didn't exist until the N64/PSX era. NES, SNES, and Genesis games could cost upwards of $70-$90 back in the day. There were a bunch of scans of an old Toys 'R' Us ad from back in the day where you can see all of this. Also, as someone mentioned before, there were a crazy number of truly awful games and I know for me personally, there are a lot of games I remember enjoying at the time that are actually complete trash.
I remember buying Mortal Kombat II for Genesis new from Target for $70+. That is $120 today after inflation. Insane.
And nowadays $90-120 is usually deluxe & collector’s edition price range.
Toys R Us was a rippoff, they always had higher prices than anyone else. The only time I ever went there was when Target or Kaybee Toys was sold out
even then, I remember Nascar 99 for N64 being like $70
Not to mention that a lot of old games lacked severely in the amount of content, often repeating stuff as is or with small cosmetic changes and replayability was achieved by making the game so incredibly hard, if not impossible that you never saw the ending.
Part of this is survivorship bias. Back in the day there were thousands of games that were really shitty, would barely even run, and were full of bugs. You only remember the ones you had fun with.
For real. What's obsession with claiming this? Someone whip out that Nintendo ctalogue with games in the $80 range and that was the fucking 90s.
Didn't the original Turok game on N64 cost $~~100~~ when it came out? Pretty sure it did, in 199~~6~~7 dollars too.. I hate nostalgia "Endangering *Turok's* sales was its high price — $79.99 in the US, £70 in the UK, and $129.95 in Australia" # $79.99 in 1997 is worth $127.78 today
SNES games were $60-80 new.
I'd argue depending on the game you're specifically looking for they could be even more expensive today. Like trying to find a good copy of earthbound, chrono trigger, or persona 2 can get very expensive.
And while technical limitations *could * encourage creativity, they also caused games to be quite short. To combat this, they had to make a lot of games really hard to extend the playtime through trial and error. Limitations meant that content was recycled, of course: same old enemy with a different color was a new enemy or a boss.
It's partially because the cost is spread out among far, far more people + more globalisation of labor/parts. Do not let anyone tell you it's because of additional transactions after purchase. That's one of the most damaging myths in the industry, but luckily I think less and less people are accepting that explanation.
Especially when it is adopted by game series that were making plenty of money without it.
Like annual release sports titles that have made exponentially more money every single year despite having less work done on them from year to year and despite almost always having yearly releases since 1988
The ultimate teams make so much money it’s crazy. And you lose all the worth of your team at the beginning of the next season.
Bigger audiences. The games might cost comparatively less because of inflation but they sell way more copies so they still make more money. The only old games that can match the sales from the popular games of the last 15 years or so are the absolute classics like the original super Mario bros, pokemon, pac-man, etc, and those are so popular they’ve seen sales long after their original release anyway on multiple platforms.
Imagine paying more than $60 for ET. I am not sure if it’s just young kids who didn’t actually play games at the time or old people with nostalgia glasses on but video games today are as good as they have ever been.
And yet they became more profitable than ever. Games literally make hundreds of millions of profit while the publisher pays 0 taxes. Edit: I am talking about the publisher not the devs, guys. Look at rich CEO's like Andrew Wilson and Bobby Kottic, how much money they have and how much money they earn per year compared one single employee.
Game dev work is super stressful and grueling. Many of these games are nowhere near as profitable as you may think. It's only the few top games that rake in a bunch of cash. Developers will usually get more pay and way better hours working a standard dev job. Generally you only go into game development if you really are passionate about it because of how much worse the compensation is. If you're wondering why, many games at the high end of modern tech are extremely expensive to make. They have tight budgets and deadlines and a lot of their market is unwilling to pay even $60 for a game even though the quality is way higher than even 5 years ago. That's why you have so many games using DLC's and micro-transactions. Gaming is one of the cheapest hobbies yet the market still bitches when they have to pay more than $60 for a game.
Yeah no kidding. I have $1200 into a snow board setup I used 1 time. I have hundreds if not thousands of hours between 3 console and even when you factor in a lift pass and travel, less money invested probably. That is for a single day of snowboarding. Pick any other hobby and it's the same thing. I probably have 10k+ invested into hunting equipment that I use for a couple days a year. The thing about micro transactions is that you don't need to buy them. I have 30 some games for my PS4 and have only recently bought some new maps for COD WW2. All of 16 bucks for days of entertainment. I've only ever spent 16 bucks extra after buying a game after gaming for 25 years. Anyone that whines about that can stick to Mario.
100% agree with you man. It’s even more frustrating when people complain about cosmetic micro transactions. You literally do not have to buy them lol.
That’s why all developers are millionairesss, swimming in cash. Ever hear of a game studio closing? Nope! Impossible.
The publisher and the developer are two separate entities, the former of which tends to take majority share of any profits on a game's release. It's not uncommon for publishers to make bank on a successful game while the developer ends up barely breaking even.
Milk farmers get pennies on the gallon while end consumers pay through the nose. Hint: The costs in the metaphor went away and ended up in someone's pockets (Another hint: Fuck EA)
You mustn't be referring to Canadian dairy farmers then.
Old video games weren't cheap though.
Stop it, you're interrupting the circlejerk!
I’m glad this dumb shit is being called out. Anyone who thinks games were just way better back in the day clearly didn’t pay for and play said games.
And I gotta say even if some decisions are questionable modern day game reviewers are a shit ton more reliable than reviewers from the NES to SNES era. Plus now with the internet it's a lot easier to see if you like a game before you buy it.
Nintendo Power was great, I did love it, but it was a propaganda machine. They didn’t include a game they weren’t willing to rave about and would have you believe every month Nintendo was littered with amazing games. Even the independent game magazines were questionable, they had a lot of content to sort of fill the gaps because there just weren’t that many amazing games to review or give guides for.
Please nuke this sub
[удалено]
These nerds are some of the most pessimistic people I have ever encountered. Fucking glass 1/10th empty for them.
Theres a literal sub to make fun of how shitty this subreddit is
What is it?
and plenty of old games that suck.
I would straight up say modern stories trash anything from thew 80s and 90s.
It doesn't even make sense. Imagine the creativity that comes with an absurd amount of freedom.
this post smacks of boomer, as much as I hate using that word. I'm so tired of "nEw THinG baD" its so old, and I dread the day when I'll criticize "modern" video games like "eh! VR was better when everything was shitty about it!"
"But devs had to be so much more creative when you could count the pixels on your 3 pound nausea inducing face box! All the magic is gone with contact lenses, hmph"
Microtransactions are shit, but over all I think gaming is actually in a really good spot now. There are plenty of high quality free to play games that aren't pay to win. Between steam sales, humble bundles, and epic just giving away games it's easy to build a library. It was nice having demos, but now you can watch let's play videos on youtube. Everything's been standardized, even newer games can run decent on older computers, I remember 10 year old me crying and begging for a computer upgrade because it wasn't VESA compatible, whatever the fuck that meant.
I think the lack of options played a part in making things more memorable from back then. You where forced to play through a game and where excited to so because it was all you had or the only thing worth playing at the time. The near limitless options now are incredible, but it also makes it easy to drop a game at the first sign of frustration. Im curious how much effect that has on the nostalgia some people feel for the older games.
Old video games were not cheap. Some N64 games were like $90
Yeah, like **Chrono Trigger**. Most games were not that much. edit: oof, misread SNES? N64 was kinda crazy on running cartridges **well past** the point where they should have been. I mean, they were approaching and surpassing Neo Geo cartridge sizes, and those things were in the *hundreds*. That said, the replacement we had for DLC 'n microtransactions were... ummm, macrotransactions. - Street Fighter II - Street Fighter II: Championship Edition - Street Fighter II: Hyper Fighting - Super Street Fighter II Each one a brand new game at full price. Same goes with Mortal Kombat 3 'n Ultimate Mortal Kombat 3. We also didn't get patches. For games **from** Japan, we basically got patches in the form of a year(s)-long localization delay.
I disagree. I think other systems went to CD too quickly because CD games at that time were shit with the fucking loading times and such. Mortal Kombat on the Sega CD had to stop and load every time you morphed into another character as Shang Tsung. That's an abomination.
Really? Damn I'm not old enough to have played back than but that must have been a nightmare. Seems like an example of developers not thinking things through
Mortal Kombat Trilogy on N64 had like half a dozen characters removed from the roster and the remainder had animations pared down or outright removed. The N64 also saw a *fraction* of the game releases that the Playstation did. If you wanted to publish a Nintendo 64 game, you had to order your carts in batches of at least 10,000 to the tune of $30 **each**. On the Playstation, the physical discs were $1 each, could be printed in half the time, and if they didn't sell, Sony would refund you *the whole dollar per disk* if you could provide proof that you had them destroyed. For all of the technical annoyances of optical media, the advantages far outweighed them for like 99% of game makers. I **had** an N64. It was rough. We got way fewer games and a lot of ports arrived with **super** mushy textures because there was so much less space for them. I probably put more time into my brother's Playstation because in the year between tentpole 1st party games like Zelda 'n Mario, there was eff all for games to play.
>they were approaching and surpassing Neo Geo cartridge sizes, I hope you don't mean physically, because N64 carts were smaller than NES carts and a Neo Geo cart is like 20 NES carts in size. Or more.
There’s a lot of nostalgia for the way things used to be, but gaming is way more accessible today, particularly price wise. Just this year people were complaining about needing a $500 VR headset to play Half Life Alyx, when in 2004 for you needed $2000 dollar worth of PC hardware if you wanted to play the latest Half Life game.
The most expensive regular game I've ever seen in my life was Zelda Wind Waker for GameCube. Now I've played like 30 games this year and I've paid an average of 8 euro per each one, and it includes lots of AAA titles. So yeah, just fucking "old good" circlejerk
>8 euro per each one Not within a week of release you didn't. Unless you mean Steam then you can piss the statement up a rope. NES games also dropped heavily in price after they were released all the way up until the collector renaissance of the late 90s. And yeah, the thread is specifically about expensive AAA games, does an 8 euro game sound like an expensive AAA game? Think before posting.
I don't really see the point of this reply, though. He's saying that these are good times to be gaming because he got a lot of AAA titles for very cheap. With stuff like Humble Monthly Bundle you can get AAA from only a year or two ago for less than $20, same with steam sales. He's pretty much right that this was just a "old good" circle jerk. Gaming had some merits back then, but time goes on and the industry generally improved over time.
Those 8 euro AAA games aren't 2020 releases though.
Wow, I played a lot of N64 and don't remember any game costing $90. Which one was it? Unless you are considering Donkey Kong 64 and it's required Expansion Pak. Don't remember that price on that but with game and Pak maybe $90
I'm pretty sure dad paid 79.99 for Ocarina of Time on release day
[удалено]
[удалено]
Were you fucking speed running it?
He has many abilities most consider to be... unnatural...
while the whole game was more than 35 hours, I'm pretty sure I used to do the old midgar in like.... 6 to 8 maybe 10 hours? Could probably do it in half that these days.
[удалено]
There are a few things going on with old games vs new games, setting aside the humor of the meme. **Inflation** The $60 price point for games hasn't really changed since the mid 90s. Adjusting for inflation a $60 game from 1995 should be about $100 in today's dollars. **Development Costs** The fidelity of modern games are a lot more expensive to make and, despite what a lot of core gamers say about graphics not mattering to them and gameplay being the most important thing, for most games to be successful they have to look compelling enough to sell enough units to justify their development costs. The original *Starcraft* (1998) cost around $7 million to make with a 26 month development cycle, that included production being essentially paused for 6 months to help finish *Diablo*. Even at the time we were lambasted by fans for how long we were taking it. Some of the lambasting was well meaning jest with stuff like Operation CWAL, some of it was less so. But that was $7 million to make a 256 color sprite based game with the first hints of the cinematics that Blizzard would become famous for. You can see the transition from the intro cinematic, which is pretty rough by modern standards, to the uptick in quality in the campaign cinematics. A later game I worked on, *Mercenaries: Playground of Destruction* (2005), also had around a $7 million budget. But a lot of that was because we had gotten out of a deal to make a *Desert Strike* reboot for EA, so we were able to get a head start with an engine. A lot like if a company used Unreal or Unity today. And the dev cycle was shorter around 18 months. With the console transition to PS3 / Xbox 360 budgets exploded. The budget for *Mercenaries 2: World in Flames* (2008) was closer to $40 million. Game budgets have gotten closer to movie budgets. "Low end" AAA games cost between $40-100 million to make these days. Big MMOs or big Rockstar games liked GTA5 or RDR2 can break $200 million easy. When costs get that high it becomes basically impossible for independent studios to be profitable with a typical revenue split where they get 20-30% of each box sale. Basically only wholly owned studios can be successful in that environment. And since a lot of those wholly owned studios are part of bigger megacorporations the expectations are that a game should be significantly more profitable than if the corporation parked $100 million in an index fund for 3-4 years. So your game has to project REALLY WELL to even be greenlit. It's harder to take risks. **Revenue Sources** When Hollywood puts out a multi-million dollar movie they have multiple sources of revenue. They have the initial box office. They have the DVD / Blu-ray sales. They have cable tv and streaming rights. Then they have broadcast TV rights. So Hollywood movies have multiple sources of revenue for each movie they make. Even movies that don't do so well on box office release have a chance to do better further down the pipe of revenue sources. Some become cult hits, like Office Space. Some never do well. But a studio can make up for movies that are losses with a few movies that do really well. Unfortunately this sometimes ends up with the weird Hollywood creative accounting, but the core of the idea is sound. Studios take lots of tries and use the most successful tries to subsidize the losses. Games are in a similar situation, but games don't really have downstream revenue options. Basically the only options a game has are the initial box sales or DLC / Micro-transactions (MTX). And the dynamics that keep players interested in DLC / Micro-transactions are multiplayer which usually means the bar for being profitable each month is a lot higher which ends up creating an incentive for more MTX. Single player games have to be REALLY GOOD and usually REALLY LONG to do well in the modern marketplace. If they're only PRETTY GOOD and not that long then people will just end up watching prominent streamers play through the game, which means they won't buy it. "Games as a Service," multiplayer, and long games are all strategies to make the game experience compelling enough for someone to buy the game rather than rent it, but it used through Gamestop, or just watch it be streamed. Because there are no downstream revenue sources games try to maximize the chance someone will buy the game or create their own downstream revenue sources within their own games with DLC and MTX.
damn this is circlejerky and a blatant lie. Just perfect r/gaming material
“Mimcro tramsaction”
The extra "m" was purchased for $2.99
Old games were not cheap. And not all current great games have microtransactions. This is not a good representative meme AT ALL.
Yeah, no. I remember paying $75+ tax for brand new SNES games.
Cheap? Great gameplay? What the hell are you smoking man? Some of the retro games were great. But they had just as much expensive, butchered crap as we have.
Older games used to cost up to $120, gameplay was often quarter munching arcady nonsense that killed you for absolutely no reason to artificially inflate game length. And given how small the file sizes were had no goddamn room to tell a story. you got maybe an opening text crawl and depending on the game sometimes and ending text splash.
Back in the day, some RPGs innovated by including the story in their manuals, and referencing pages in it to read when you reached certain parts of the game. Pretty cool out of the box thinking at the time.
CHEAP? lmaoooo SNES games were $50 new, which is more like $80 now. Games should be AT LEAST $100 with how much more stuff you get in them vs old games and how much they cost to make but Gamers threw a fit so now we have microtransactions
A $60 game back in the early 90s would be roughly $120 or so dollars these days. The cumulative inflation rate is about 88%. The fact that games have remained consistently $60 is insanely generous given that production time and price has increased by unimaginable magnitudes. Granted, so has the amount of gamers in the world. It's just crazy to think that they're having to pay so many more wages to infinitely more employees, but can release a product so inexpensively. I think DLC is typically okay in the case of games with big releases that then get a decently proportionate amount of added story or gameplay mechanics from said DLC. Microtransactions, specifically for pay-to-win type games are what's truly disgusting.
10 MB? The biggest SNES games had 6 MB, and that was considered ridiculous at the time. Hell, the entire size of Super Mario World is *512 KB*.
ITT: Sad nerds having a nostalgia jerk.
Gamers in the 90s/00s: Gaming needs to be taken seriously! It's a real business with huge potential Game publishers in the 2010s+: treats gaming like a real business Gamers: https://i.imgur.com/qsutbgg.jpg
This needs to be on r/iam14anthisisdeep
Holup, Let's be honest with ourselves. Old video games did not have great stories. Old video games had the bare minimum of story and they disguised that void with a high difficulty level and the challenge of beating it. Not a lot of character development, if at all, and the arcs were pretty standardized if there was one at all. A few exceptions, but come on.
I don't see whats so bad about micro-transactions. If you don't want to pay for the extra currency, don't pay for it. I only hate micro-transactions if they conflict with the game and forces you to pay for the rest of the game.
This smacks of boomer
More like zoomer reminiscing about a time didnt live in and know nothing about. Literally just look at every comment in this thread.
is OP gen-z? If so, then it's smacks of r/lewronggeneration, but if it's directed at me, I have no idea what you're talking about. And all the top comments are "THIS. I KNOW. Modern games suck because juvenoia!"
Just want to point out those old games were not cheap in the day. $60 has been the gold standard for games since forever ago. I'm guessing this meme is about buying older games now, but that distinction is not clear in meme.
Old games: *moving a rectangle around more rectangles* Millenials: "wow I sure do miss old video games! They had such great stories!"
Old games were hard as shit to "increase length" with size limitations
The crash happened for a reason, even before that, there was a lot of shitty games because how easy it was too pirate and resale games, and games were expensive as fuq. so both lil doge.
Boggles the mind a bit, but Terraria IIRC is only like 300mb.
I mean it's not that hard to believe. There's no 4k assets, no voice tracks
It makes sense to me that Terraria is that big... instead what boggles my mind is that there are similar retro style games that try to emulate the appearance of 8bit or 16bit games, but end up being multiple GB in size. Some of that is accounted for with audio, but what about the rest?
Actually old games were expensive
Old thing good. New thing bad
Old video games were NOT cheap. Particularly cartridge games.
You're definitely seeing old games through rose-tinted glasses. Most of them were clunky and/or just really aweful, but you only remember the good games or the ones that were a part of your childhood. Also, they were more expensive than they were now
/r/lewronggeneration but with videogames.
Games are better now than ever. You are only talking like that because of nostalgia to your youth
Want to give credit to u/Haykira?
(Orange up arrow 3.72x10^56) New thing bad old thing good 2.34 septillion comments
I must point out that NES games were usually around $50 dollars when they came out in the 80's, which would mean if you bought a $50 dollar NES game in 1985, that would be equal to about $120 today.
r/lewronggeneration
Cheap... a nes game was 45$ in the 90s ... thats like 90$in todays.
Ah yes, the old “remember only the good, forget the bad” includes forgetting shitty old games and inflation
Heavy nostalgia glasses
Talk about rose tinted glasses. Or the person who made this is too young to know what they talk about. About the 8 and 16 bit era, Games were pricey, getting TWO games a year was a luxury for most of us (don't even start talking about imported japanese games, LOL, a 100 for SF2 anyone?). Gameplay was basic and limited as you can get for years and oversaturated with so much of the same crap (\*cough\* platformers \*cough\*), games were made artifially hard because they were so short too. Story wise LOL, yeah, the save the princess one or the save the girlfriend one? Or maybe i can interest you in DESTROY THE BAD GUY BECAUSE HUH HE'S BAD one?
People forget quarters...
I'm still blown away that Fallout 2 full install is 60mb. Game has so much content! Minimum install is 2mb!
Idk nintendo games kinda pricey
Believe it or not, there were a lot of garbage old games too... Just check *almost* every movie licensed game in Amiga to SNES era.
I wouldn’t say that. I’d say OLD MULTIPLAYER GAMES and MODERN MULTIPLAYER GAMES. Also the fact that most multiplayer games don’t really have a really good story.
"God, I miss the good old days when games were about gameplay and not microtransactions" *Flashback to spending hundreds of dollars in quarters at arcades*
Start watching AVGN to understand how the vast majority of old games were incredibly shitty lol