90s was crazy for console gaming. Playstation at 32 bit ate up Nintendo 64 and Sega's many attempts at releasing something after Mega Drive II.SNES games were up to £60 back in the early 90’s. With inflation they would be £130 odd now.
PS1 games were £40/50 odd.
While I agree that £75 seems pricey it’s really not when compared to what we used to pay.
90s was crazy for console gaming. Playstation at 32 bit ate up Nintendo 64 and Sega's many attempts at releasing something after Mega Drive II.
I forgot about the GameCube altogether!!!!All stemming from Nintendo shitting on Sony and Sony seeing its arse over it.
Sega Saturn was actually a bit of a beast power wise but was a nightmare to develop for so took a long time to get up to speed for developers. Dreamcast was excellent at texturing but not a patch on PS2 for sheer poly counts etc.
Just checked and some GameCube games were £80 back then too, had forgotten about that.
90s was crazy for console gaming. Playstation at 32 bit ate up Nintendo 64 and Sega's many attempts at releasing something after Mega Drive II.
Talk about a flaw in system. Create a 64 bit console but still working off cartridges :D
Cartridges had faster loading times and many of the disk games didn't have enough information stored on them to warrant the disk format.
You are spot on about the cost of games, Sega Mega-drive games were £40-£50 when they came out in the early 90's.
Adjusted for inflation that's £130-£140 per cartridge.
I think Nintendo died out from consoles because they simply did not have that many good games. Off the top of my head I can think of:
Golden Eye (N64 Hero)
Perfect Dark
Mario 64
Turok: Rage Wars
Mario Tennis
Pokemon Stadium (if you want to count it, but it required an extra thing you had to buy to put in the back to put your cartridge from the gameboy into)
And that's it. Nintendo's biggest flaw was losing Final Fantasy.
Anyone playing blue prince? New release straight on to gamepass and ps+ extra it's a rogue-luke puzzle game, reviews for it are absolutely off the the charts, everybody seems to be raving about it, had a few runs of it yesterday and just not getting it so far.
I'm anticipating there's a lot more depth that I'm simply not seeing yet being so early into it but so far every run except one has ended fairly quickly for me because I either had no more open ended doors to construct a new room or ive no keys to open a locked door.
The one run where I made it right up towards the top I managed to solve a few puzzles, got a few upgrades and that felt good but thats been 1 run and the other half a dozen or so have been me just building to a dead end 2/3 stages in, not really doing anything and then having to start again.
Crash use to be a monthly highlight of my life back in the day. Great magazine.Loved Booty as a kid is out there anywhere!?
*Booty* is a pirate-themed platformer from 1984, developed by Firebird for the Amstrad CPC, Commodore 64, Commodore 16, and ZX Spectrum. You play as a cabin boy named Jim, sneaking around a galleon to steal 125 pieces of treasure from your pirate masters. The game spans 20 screens filled with collectable loot, locked doors, and hazards like pirates, parrots, and booby-trapped chests. You’ve got three lives, and if you nab all the treasure, you get 45 seconds to find a final key to restart the adventure.
It was a budget title, often praised for its bold graphics and problem-solving depth despite simple mechanics. Reviews were mixed—*Crash* gave it a 93% "smash" rating for its novel setting, while *Your Spectrum* found it decent but not stellar, scoring it 2-3 stars. Some players loved the challenge; others found the gameplay fiddly and the music grating, especially on the C64. Still, it sold over 100,000 copies, earning a Gold Cassette Award in 1985.
A 2023 remake for the Amstrad CPC by PlayOnRetro tweaked it to be faster and easier, keeping the retro vibe. If you’re chasing nostalgia, you can find the original on emulators or check out the remake for a fresher take. What do you remember most about it—trying to dodge those parrots or something else?
Wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if Rockstar charge £90-£100 for the base game of GTA VIShiver me timbers I'll not be paying 80 quid for a game. See you on the Severn seas me harties
Tbf I've sunk enough hours in GTA to justify the price. Can't say the same for Nintendo games although I do enjoy themWouldn't surprise me in the slightest if Rockstar charge £90-£100 for the base game of GTA VI
Nintendo have opened the floodgates
Problem is there's no real precident for charging based on game length, so where do the lines get drawn? if it's £75 for a 100 hour game, fair enough but is a 50 hour game the same price despite offer half the content?Some games are still very much inexpensive in a cost to enjoyment ratio. They've stayed the same price for years in relation to everything else.
I've currently put 40 hours into Shadows at a cost of 14.99 a month. I love it that much that'll I'll cancel the subscription and buy the game for around £45.
By the end of the playthrough I'll have clocked nearly 100 hours. £60 for 100 hours entertainment is ridiculous, and if we want publishers to keep making more ground breaking, bigger games, they need the cash to do it.
Mario Kart World at £75 on the face of it is expensive. Now factor in how long it's going to get played for and how much your kids are going to love it it doesn't seem that steep.
The problem comes if that is the new baseline of pricing and your average, 8 hour long game is 75 quid.
I fully imagine GTA6 is going to be around £80-100 and I'll happily pay it because I'm going to get my monies worth out of it.