Today's games are cheap

[philosophist]

I recently acquired an original copy of Ultima VI from ebay. The game was so complete that it included the registration card and Origin catalog. Flipping through the catalog, I immediately noticed that every new Origin title listed for $79.99! Although I'm quite sure the games could be had at the local Babbages (remember that store? think it was acquired by EB) or Radio Shack or some other 1990-era software vendor, the list price still provides us with a comparison. 15 years later, the best games retail at $55. And most games $5-15 less. Today's games are cheap.

As we know, modern games are produced by dozens of developers/designers/producers/testers and cost millions of dollars (how many people worked on Ultima VI? Garriot and who else?). Of course, gaming has entered the mainstream, and consequently the demand for new games allows the publishers to sell the games for less.

It is ironic, then, that it is increasingly more difficult to find games I really enjoy. Classic games "felt" more enjoyable, more immersive. Perhaps I feel this way because those were my formative, teenage years. Or perhaps not.

Today's games are cheap...

[Jeff V]

Back in the day, there were a lot fewer releases. They were more expensive, especially in relative (not just absolute) cost. $50 in 1988 was worth a lot more than $50 in 2005.

As a result, each game purchase was more "special." We were more determined to play them through. There was less pressure to move on to the next big thing. Often, we had to work hard just to get the thing to play in the first place, tweaking config.sys and autoexec.bat files.

The games really weren't any better, in fact, they were likely far worse. But innovation was more common, and since we did spend more time with even the marginal releases, there is more experience indelibly imprinted on our memories. Today, we might look at a game for a few hours then put it aside in favor of the next big thing, which itself is one of 5 games bought this month. Naturally, such games aren't going to leave much of a lasting impression, even if they are far superior in every way to an oldie we spend months playing way back when.

[Smoove_B]

It is ironic, then, that it is increasingly more difficult to find games I really enjoy. Classic games "felt" more enjoyable, more immersive. Perhaps I feel this way because those were my formative, teenage years. Or perhaps not.

Today's games are cheap...

Back then, games were made by gamers for gamers (to sound cliche). It was a small, hardcore group of people playing and developing games.

Now games are major productions. Steady income is more important than innovation.

Don't discount the nostalgia though -- it does play a big part. I still think games like Wasteland, Autoduel, Mail order Monsters and Racing Destruction Set have left me with more memories than say...Doom 3

[Blackhawk]

It is ironic, then, that it is increasingly more difficult to find games I really enjoy. Classic games "felt" more enjoyable, more immersive. Perhaps I feel this way because those were my formative, teenage years. Or perhaps not.

It is my opinion that that sense of immersion has been wounded in great part by newer technologies. When you see a pixelated blob and are told it is an orc, you had to use your imagination. In doing so, you made that aspect of the game uniquely yours - a creation of your own mind. A new game has so much detail that there is no room left for imagination - everything is imagined for you. Instead of wandering in a world of your imagination, which feels uniquely tailored and personal, you are wandering a world of the developer's imagination.

[Ka Faraq Gatri]

I think you hit the nail on the head there Blackhawk - RPGs like the early Might & Magic and Ultima series' were a whole lot more real to me than anything I've played in the last decade. I sank more than a year of my free time into Ultima IV and Might & Magic II - I knew the worlds backwards and they lived on in my mind for years in the same way a well-developed literary character might.

[YellowKing]

Yep. Back in my "golden years" of PC gaming, $50 was a LOT of money to me. I was working for minimum wage, paying for car insurance and gas - I just didn't have all that much income to dispose of on entertainment.

So when I bought a game, it might be the only game I played for three or four months. And there really weren't a lot of big titles coming out like there are now. It wasn't like today when you might get 5-6 A-List titles a month.

I think as an adult I have become a bit spoiled. $50 just isn't a whole lot to spend anymore, and if I grow bored with one game, a new one will be coming along in a couple of weeks. It definitely robs the hobby of a lot of its magic.

That said I don't think the top-shelf games back then were really "better" than they are now - a lot of that is nostalgia talking. The next generation will look back fondly on classics like Half-Life or Baldur's Gate 2 with that same wistful tear in their eyes for the "good old days."

[Kraken]

I'll go along with everything that's been said so far. Game design might have been a little stronger when they had to stand more on substance than on style, but mainly we weren't as jaded as we are now. The experience has changed at least as much as the products did. Buying a new game used to be an act of commitment -- you were spending a lot of money, you expected to learn a new game system, you were probably going to have to fiddle with some system files to make it run. And there was no Web for players to casually compare notes -- the experience was pretty individual, and installing a new game delivered a feeling of discovery that you seldom get anymore. Now we go into new games knowing the general buzz. We expect to jump right in and play without learning a new system. We form a fast impression based on appearance. We have almost invariably been there, done that.

[Daehawk]

Origin games were always more expensive in general but yes games were more expensive on average back then compared to today. Then again games were better and more original back then and much more diverse.

[YellowKing]

One caveat to the "games weren't actually better back then" statement I made. I forgot what an impact (both positive and negative) the internet had. There once was a time when you couldn't patch a game (at least, not in any relatively easy manner.) What you got in the box was it, bucko. Heck, if you were like me you couldn't even look up answers on a forum because you didn't have internet access period. About your only recourse was to take the game back to the store (they used to be a LOT more lenient on returns back then.)

I don't think there's any question that the wide availability of the internet has shifted the burden of producing bug-free code off of game developers. The "ship now, patch later" mentality is par for the course.

In that respect, I think older games did hold an advantage. That's not to say that all those games were bug-free, but quality assurance meant a lot more then than it does today.

[Jaymann]

I dunno, I think there was good stuff and crap then just as there is now. I think it's the difference between discovering a new genre and perfecting it. Does anyone here prefer Diablo 1 to Diablo 2?

[philosophist]

I dunno, I think there was good stuff and crap then just as there is now. I think it's the difference between discovering a new genre and perfecting it. Does anyone here prefer Diablo 1 to Diablo 2?

That's one example. However, I think you can find many counter-examples. For instance, many would argue that Ultima VII is still unparalled in the RPG genre. Or X-Com in the tactical strategy genre.

Genres don't necessarily evolve/devolve. Hell, chess is still pretty damn fun.

[bluefugue]

I can't fully comment on U7, alas, not having played it when it was new and only having played it a little later on. But IMO, looking at the CRPG genre, there's been great stuff in recent years. BG2, KoTOR, Gothic 1 and 2, the Avernums -- fantastic games all. To say nothing of Fallout 1/2, Torment, etc. In some areas the genre hasn't progressed as far as I would like (NPC scheduling, item manipulation), but in others (story, interface, combat system) I think it has improved. And, yes, graphics -- though I know it makes me uncool to say that I like better graphics. I liked better graphics when they were on Pitfall and Ultima IV, and I still like better graphics.

I have been playing videogames for a quarter of a century, and I love a bit of gaming nostalgia as much as anyone, but IMO they have never been better, pound for pound. That's not to say there haven't been some blind avenues and missed opportunities along the way, but I wouldn't trade the games of 2005 for the games of 1992, not for a million bucks.

edit: Note that genre wise I focus mainly on RPGs and action games, and to a lesser extent RTS. For TBS, and adventure games, perhaps a stronger case could be made that there has been a real decline. I dunno, not knowing those genres too well. And there are always "ivory tower" games like an X-Com or for that matter a Tetris, which will never become dated because they are so good. But again, on the whole, I'm pretty happy with the current state of gaming. Within the last 6 months two new games (Rome Total War and World of Warcraft) have made it onto my personal top-ten alltime.

[Reed]

Yeah... I remember paying $70 for Phantasmagoria, which took all of ~6hrs to finish. Good times.

But thankfully I was able to return it. It was just before Target starting taking a hard stance on not accepting returns on open computer games.

[disarm]

Yeah... I remember paying $70 for Phantasmagoria, which took all of ~6hrs to finish. Good times

i paid $70 for my copy as well...but i think it took me more than 6 hours to finish. the only other game i can remember paying that much for back in the day was Rebel Assault II...hardly seems like a game that would be worth $70 to me now...