Over the weekend, I bought the GTA collection from Humble, getting a couple of games for only 15 USD.
https://www.humblebundle.com/store/grand-theft-auto-collection
Needless to say, I'm enjoying the games (especially San Andreas), when a thought occurred to me.
As technology advances, more modern games are getting more and more expensive. With games costing 60 USD as well as a number of microtransactions that have sadly become the norm in the industry, what was an initially 60 dollar investment can balloon to 100 dollars or more.
But with older games, they tend not to have things such as DLC or microtransactions and have a surprisingly large amount of content within them. However, as time progresses, the value of said game can depreciate in value. (Obviously, there are a number of exceptions that should be factored in when evaluating the price of a game such as the condition of the physical copy, the game's content, bugs, etc. At the same time, I know fans who are more than willing to pay more than the market value for items because they love the franchise).
Should that be the case? Should older games like GTA San Andreas or Zelda: The Ocarina of Time, games considered wildly influential to the medium and said to still hold up today cost less than the modern AAA title? Should games like Donkey Kong Country, a game many people like, be emulated since it amounts to little more than a ROM? Should a game that still uses bits and Polygons be valued less than games that use modern graphics engines?
With things like movies or books, things like a Star Wars DVD can cost about the same as a copy of the Avengers on DVD.
Are games different from other mediums that they can't be judged by the same standard?
https://www.humblebundle.com/store/grand-theft-auto-collection
Needless to say, I'm enjoying the games (especially San Andreas), when a thought occurred to me.
As technology advances, more modern games are getting more and more expensive. With games costing 60 USD as well as a number of microtransactions that have sadly become the norm in the industry, what was an initially 60 dollar investment can balloon to 100 dollars or more.
But with older games, they tend not to have things such as DLC or microtransactions and have a surprisingly large amount of content within them. However, as time progresses, the value of said game can depreciate in value. (Obviously, there are a number of exceptions that should be factored in when evaluating the price of a game such as the condition of the physical copy, the game's content, bugs, etc. At the same time, I know fans who are more than willing to pay more than the market value for items because they love the franchise).
Should that be the case? Should older games like GTA San Andreas or Zelda: The Ocarina of Time, games considered wildly influential to the medium and said to still hold up today cost less than the modern AAA title? Should games like Donkey Kong Country, a game many people like, be emulated since it amounts to little more than a ROM? Should a game that still uses bits and Polygons be valued less than games that use modern graphics engines?
With things like movies or books, things like a Star Wars DVD can cost about the same as a copy of the Avengers on DVD.
Are games different from other mediums that they can't be judged by the same standard?