JoshuaFalken

@JoshuaFalken@lemmy.world

Profil ze zdalnego serwera może być niekompletny. Zobacz więcej na oryginalnej instancji.

JoshuaFalken,

The Atari 2600 released for $190 in 1977. Or about $1000 today.

The best selling title, Pac-Man released for $28 in 1982. Or about $95 today.

Compared to so much else that has risen dramatically over time, vastly outpacing video games comparatively, I think it’s a bit hard to argue with the value proposition of modern titles.

JoshuaFalken,

You make a good point, and I agree. I wasn’t thinking that it was the only thing on the market and therefore the price is whatever a new technology costs.

I tend to think of video games - being a form of entertainment - as a great way to be entertained while also being an incredibly low cost option for the amount of time I spend enjoying them.

Buying a $600 console just to enjoy a single $60 title is an extreme example but to me, if that game provides 100 hours of playtime, that seems well worth it. Cheaper than going to a theatre or most other forms of entertainment.

To be sure, I don’t do this, but I’ve always viewed gaming through a $/h lens, and could never understand why so many people saw it as a waste of time. That’s what I was thinking when I wrote that comment earlier - it seems to me that you get more playtime with some RPG from this decade than you would playing Pac-Man. Though perhaps I feel that way because games like Pac-Man don’t appeal to me.

Thinking about it, your point might be valid again, with the Atari being a new technology, people were likely to sink far more hours into a title than they might do with modern games since we have so many to choose from now. I’ve never thought about it that way. Thanks for pointing this out.

JoshuaFalken,

I agree about everything in your first point. I hadn’t previously considered that the novelty of a new technology would necessarily increase have disproportionately high initial cost.

That said, I feel like any calculation of cost against how many hours played is entirely subjective. Your suggestion of $0.75 / entertainment hour is quite different than what I consider ideal. Games will vary genre to genre, person to person, platform to platform.

A person with limited time might exclusively play shorter titles, or maybe just multiplayer titles. A person with significant free time might spent hundreds of hours replaying an RPG.

To be incredibly broad, I would say that games shouldn’t cost more per entertainment hour than half of what any given person earns at their job - but even that is quite subjective and should be taken with salt.

JoshuaFalken,

Too bad burgers outpaced inflation then. It’d be nice to have a $1.50 option commonly available.

JoshuaFalken,

Not sure why people are beating up on @nxn for saying his opinion. Different people value different things.

I think I can answer your question though. Buying a console is a plug and play experience. Building a PC is not. Not everyone has the time, the patience, or the technical experience required to purchase compatible components, assemble the machine, and install the various software.

Anyone that’s ever bought a prepared meal has overpaid in comparison to acquiring the ingredients, prepping them, and cooking the dish. It’s worth the price to do so because I sure as hell don’t want to spend time making a bowl of French onion soup.

  • Wszystkie
  • Subskrybowane
  • Moderowane
  • Ulubione
  • Technologia
  • FromSilesiaToPolesia
  • rowery
  • esport
  • fediversum
  • test1
  • ERP
  • krakow
  • muzyka
  • shophiajons
  • NomadOffgrid
  • informasi
  • retro
  • Travel
  • Spoleczenstwo
  • gurgaonproperty
  • Psychologia
  • Gaming
  • slask
  • nauka
  • sport
  • niusy
  • antywykop
  • Blogi
  • lieratura
  • motoryzacja
  • giereczkowo
  • warnersteve
  • Wszystkie magazyny